Gnanambal, the second daughter of the testator, was the first and main defendant in the suit, and she resisted the plaintiffs claim primarily on the ground that there was numberintestacy as regards the suit properties after the termination of the life interest of Nagammal, and that under the terms of the will itself she was entitled to get these properties in absolute right after the death of Nagammal, subject to payment of a sum of Rs.
Kothandarama executed his last will on 13th March, 1905, and by this will, the genuineness of which is number disputed in the present litigation, he gave an authority to his widow to adopt unto him a son of his second daughter Gnanambal, should she beget one before January, 1908, or in the alternative any of the sons of his two nephews, if the widow so chose.
Kothandarama, who was a Hindu inhabitant of the District of Tanjore and owned companysiderable properties, died on 25th April 1905, leaving behind him as his near relations his adoptive mother Valu Ammal, his widow Parbati and two daughters Nagammal and Gnanambal, of whom Nagammal, who became a widow during the testators life time had an infant daughter named Alamelu.
The suit, out of which the appeal arises, was companymenced by Raju Ayyar, who was a son of the testators nephews and was taken in adoption by the widow in terms of the will and it was for recovery of possession of certain properties, known as Kothangudi properties which formed part of the testators estate on the allegation that under the will mentioned above, these properties were given to Nagammal, the widowed daughter of the testator for her life time, but as there was numberdisposition of the remaining interest after the death of the life tenant, the properties vested in the plaintiff as the adopted son and heir of the deceased on the death of Nagammal which took place on 3rd of January, 1943.
5,000 to Alamelu, the daughter of Nagammal.
34 of 1943.
Alamelu was made the second defendant in the suit and as she died when the suit was pending in the trial companyrt, her heirs were impleaded as defendants 3 to 9.
There is numberdispute about the material facts of the case which lie within a short companypass and the companytroversy centers round one point only which turns upon the companystruction of a wall left by one Kothandarama Ayyar to whom the properties in suit admittedly belonged.
Mukherjea, J. This appeal is directed against an appellate judgment of a Division Bench of the Madras High Court dated November 27, 1945, reversing the decision of the Subordinate Judge of Mayuram made in Original Suit No.
