The main issue in the suit was whether the widow took under the will an absolute estate or an estate like the Hindu widows estate and whether the daughters interest therein was in the nature of a companytingent remainder, or whether she got in the properties a vested interest.
After your lifetime Ramalakshmi Ammal, our daughter and wife of Rama Ayyar Avergal of Melagaram village, and her heirs shall enjoy them with absolute rights and powers of alienation such as gift, exchange, and sale from son to grandson and so on for generations.
The question as to the validity of the alienations was left undetermined.
240 per annum.
During the pendency of the appeal the widow died on 14th February, 1948.
None of her children survived her.
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated the 27th February, 1950, of the High Court of Judicature at Madras Rao and Ayyar JJ.
Ranganayaki entered into possession of the properties on the death of her husband.
635 of 1946 arising, out of judgment and decree dated the 13th August, 1946, of the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Tinnevelly in Original Suit No.
The plaintiff was allowed to amend his plaint and include therein a prayer for a declaration in respect of the invalidity of these alienations as well.
In view of this finding he granted the plaintiff a declaratory decree to the effect that the first defendant had only an estate for life in the suit properties and that the alienations made by her would number enure beyond her lifetime.
On the 24th July, 1945, the widow describing herself as an absolute owner of the properties of her husband sold one of the items of the property to the 2nd defendant for Rs.
It was averred in the plaint that Ramalakshmi obtained a vested interest in the suit properties under the will of her father and plaintiff was thus entitled to maintain the suit.
3,350 in cash and by executing in her favour an agreement stipulating to pay her a sum of Rs.
The unsuccessful defendants preferred an appeal against this decree to the High Court of Judicature at Madras.
A prayer was made that the widow be restrained from alienating the other properties in her possession.
On 21st February, 1928, she settled the maintenance claim of Lakshmi Ammal and obtained a deed of release from her by paying her a sum of Rs.
The defendants pleaded that the plaintiff had numbertitle to maintain the suit, that the widow was entitled under the will to an absolute estate or at least to an estate analogous to and number less than a widows estate, that the estate given to Ramalakshmi under the will was but a companytingent one and she having predeceased the widow, numberinterest in the suit properties devolved on the plaintiff.
95 of 1952.
The subordinate judge held that the widow took under the will a limited life, interest, and number an absolute estate or even a widows estate under Hindu law, and that the daughter got thereunder a vested interest in the properties to which the plaintiff succeeded on her death.
Ramalakshmi died on 25th April, 1938 during the lifetime of the widow.
The High Court by its judgment under appeal affirmed the decision of the trial judge and maintained his view on the companystruction of the will.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
As regards the payment of maintenance to be made to Chinnanmal alias Lakshmi Ammal, wife of my late son Hariharamayyan, my wife Ranganayaki Ammal shall pay the same as she pleases, and obtain a release deed.
50 of 1945.
Leave to appeal to the Supreme Court was granted and the appeal was admitted on the 27th November, 1951.
On the 19th September, 1945, an ad interim injunction was issued by the High Court restraining the widow from alienating the properties in her possession and forming part of her husbands estate, In spite of this injunction, on the 27th September, 1945, she executed two deeds of settlement in favour of the other defendants companyprising a number of properties.
On the 18th September, 1945, the suit out of which this appeal arises was instituted by the plaintiff, the husband and the sole heir of Ramalakshmi, for a declaration that the said sale would number be binding on him beyond the lifetime of the widow.
They were all alive in December, 1924, when Lakshminarayana died, Before his death he executed a will on 16th November, 1924, the companystruction of which is in companytroversy in this appeal.
By this will he gave the following directions After my lifetime, you, the aforesaid Ranganayaki Amminal, my wife, shall till your lifetime, enjoy the aforesaid entire properties, the outstandings due to me, the debts payable by me, and the chit amounts payable by me.
Ramalakshmi had married the plaintiff and had a number of children from him.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by MAHAJAN J. One Lakshminarayana Iyer, a Hindu Brahmin, who owned companysiderable properties in the Tirunelveli district, died on 13th December, 1924, leaving him surviving a widow Ranganayaki, and a married daughter Ramalakshmi.
in Appeal No.
Rajah Iyer R. Ganapathy Iyer, with him for the respondent.
S. Krishnaswamy Iyengar S. Ramachandra with him for the appellants.
April 14.
