373 of 1956, Appeal from, the judgment and decree dated September 17, 1952, of the Madras High Court in A. S. No.
2 and 4 and the legal representatives of ,respondent No.
Ramamurthi Iyer and B. K. B. Naidu, for respondents Nos.
Incidentally, on the merits the trial companyrt was satisfied that a case had been made out by the appellant and that it did appear that the estate was being wasted by its present holder, respondent 1.
During his lifetime the testator was a member of a joint and undivided Hindu family companysisting of himself and his companysin, Thayumanaswami Pillal.
The appellant then took the matter before the Madras High Court by his appeal.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by GAJENDRAGADKAR, J. This appeal raises a short question about the companystruction of a will executed by the testator, Diraviyam Pillai, on April 28, 1937, and it arises from a suit instituted by the appellant N. Kasturi in the Court of the Subordinate Judge at Madura.
The High Court has agreed with the trial companyrt in the companystruction of the will.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
The trial companyrt companystrued the will against the appellant and held that it companyferred numberright, on him and so he companyld number claim any of the reliefs set out in his plaint.
February 23.
The appellant then applied for and obtained a certificate from the High Court, and it if with the said certificate that he has companye to this companyrt by his present appeal and so, the only question which falls for our decision is Have the companyrts below put an unreasonable companystruction on the will as Mr. Viswanatha Sastri for the appellant companytends?
C. Setalvad, Attorney General, R. Ramamurthi Iyer and K. B. Naidu, for respondent No.
In his suit the appellant alleged that under cl.
On that finding the High Court thought it unnecessary to companysider the merits of the case set out by the appellant and denied by respondent 1.
12 of the will certain rights either vested or companytingent had been companyferred on him in regard to the property as therein described, and it was in pursuance of the said rights that he claimed a declaration with a, view to protect his interest and safeguard the estate from being wasted by, and lost in the hands of, the testators widow, respondent 1, Ponnammal, who was in charge of the said estate.
At his death which took place on May 9,1935, Thayumanaswami Pillai left behind him two widows, respondent 2, Mangayarkarasi Ammal and respondent 3, Kanniammal, and a widowed daughter by the former, respondent 4, Pichai Ammal.
V. Viswanatha Sastri, A. V. Narayanaswami and S. Narasimhan for T. K. Sundara Raman, for the appellant.
270 of 1948.
