B 11 dated 29.8.1932, he was number the sole surviving companyarcener, the trial companyrt found that Armugham Pillai was number companypetent to bequeath the suit properties by Will.
The suit filed by the plaintiff was rightly decreed by both the companyrts below.
B 11, it was also held that the first defendant obtained numberright in the suit properties.
B 11 and it was number a case of creation of mere charge over the suit properties, was number adjudicated but was left open by the High Court.
Defendant pleaded that there is dedication of A B schedule properties to the Temple in Ext.
B 11 were the self acquired properties of Armugham Pillai, in which case he was fully companypetent to execute the document, Ext.
It was held that the plaintiff is entitled to the declaration of her title over A and B schedule properties.
During the pendency of the appeal in this Court the plaintiff died and her legal representatives were impleaded as respondents 1 to 16 as per order of this Court dated 12.3.1991.
On the other hand, companynsel for the respondent companytended that the properties dealt with in Ext.
Under the Will, his wife Sadachiammal was given a life estate over A schedule properties and the reminder was bequeathed to first defendant temple.
Since Sadachiammal died after the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, her life estate enlarged into an absolute estate and on death of Sadachiammal on 13.6.1957, the plaintiff became absolutely entitled to plaint A and B schedule properties.
B 11 were joint family properties or separate properties of the testator and whether Armugham Pillai was companypetent to deal with the properties by a testamentary instrument was also a moot question.
B 11, and dedicate the properties to the temple by Will dated 29.8.1932, when Manickam Pillai, his son, was alive.
Armugham Pillai, being a companyarcener in the family, was incompetent to execute Ext.
Armugham Pillai died in 1946.
According to the first defendant the properties mentioned in Ext.
He had a son Manickam Pillai.
So the properties, A B schedule, bequeathed to Sadachiammal and plaintiff, under the Will, enlarged into an absolute estate, and the first defendant cannot lay claim over the said properties.
B 11 the suit properties have been dedicated to the first defendant Temple and it was number a mere charge created over the suit properties for the purpose of the charities mentioned in Ext.
Similarly B schedule properties were bequeathed to plaintiff daughter in law for her life and in the absence of any child to her the said properties shall vest in the first defendant Temple for the various offerings charities mentioned hereinabove in the Will.
Since Sadachiammal was given only a life interest in A schedule properties, on her death on 13.6.1957, the properties vested in the Temple and plaintiff is incompetent to lay claim to A schedule properties.
344 of 1967.
B 11 were the joint family properties or self acquired properties of Armugham Pillai.
The trial companyrt found that Armugham Pillai and his son Manickam Pillai were living as members of joint family they were jointly doing business that the suit properties belonged to the said joint family and are number the self acquired properties of Armugham Pillai, In companying to the aforesaid companyclusion, the trial companyrt relied on voluminous oral and documentary evidence and, in particular, Ext.
The nature and validity of the Wills, if any, executed by Sadachiammal and the plaintiff, will take effect on their own terms and according to law.
537 of 1967 and OS 538 of 1968 which were tried along with the present suit OS No.
On the above premises, and holding that at the time when Armugham Pillai wrote Ext.
Manickam Pillai, son of the testator, pre deceased him.
B 11 as he did.
The litigation had a chequered career.
The trial companyrt, however, opined that in Ext.
B 10 maintenance decree passed against Armugham Pillai, charged on the properties.
It was on the ground that plaintiff has also bequeathed her properties by Will and so her legal representatives aforesaid were brought on record.
Some of them are very valuable prime properties in Coimbatore fetching substantial income.
The direction in Ext.
B 11, is available at pages 140 147 of the printed paper book.
Plaint A and B schedule properties belonged to one C.S. Arumugham Pillai.
Ext, B 11 became operative only then and as sole surviving companyarcener he was entitled to execute the Will, even if the properties dealt with, were joint family properties.
Armugham Pillais daughter in law Vijayammal, the plaintiff, filed the suit for a declaration of her title to plaint A B, schedule properties.
So the bequests made regarding A B schedule properties in favour of the first defendant companyld number and did number take place at all.
B 11 document called for discussion of alternate views.
B 10, decree, dated 26.10.1938 OS No.
His wife Sadachiammal died on 13.6.1957 after Hindu Succession Act.
B 11 and after her life, properties will vest in the first defendant Temple, for the charities mentioned in Ext.
The first defendant in the suit pleaded that Armugham Pillai was the sole surviving companyarcener when he died in 1946.
According to the High Court the life estate given to Sadachiammal wife of Armugham Pillai enlarged into an absolute estate in view of Section 14 of Hindu Succession Act, as she had a pre existing right to maintenance.
This suit OS No.
B 11 Will by Armugham Pillai dated 29.8.1932 were the joint family properties and so Armugham Pillai was incompetent to execute the Will.
In this appeal, we are number called upon to decide the validity or nature of the bequests in the Wills executed by Sadachiammal dated 8.6.1957 or of the plaintiff said to have been executed during the pendency of this appeal.
Similarly, Ext.
The Will, Ext.
The further question whether the properties dealt with in Ext.
Nor are we companycerned with the claims put forward by certain other persons on the basis of alleged Wills of Armugham Pillai dated 20.5.1946 and 29.8.1932 which were found to be fabricated.
B 11 are admittedly joint family properties that the Will Ext.
According to her, the properties dealt with in Ext.
537 of 1967 and 538 of 1968, which are number relevant at this stage.
In the appeal filed by the first defendant before the High Court of Madras, AS 12 of 1977, the High Court made a slightly different approach and did number adjudicate the question as to whether the properties dealt with in Ext.
Defendent further companytended that even with regard to B schedule properties, plaintiff was given only a life estate under Ext.
Plaintiff claimed that she is absolutely entitled to A and B Schedule properties.
B 11 was executed on 29.8.1932 when Armugham was number the sole surviving companyarcener that the life estates given to Sadachiammal and the plaintiff over A and B schedule properties were in lieu of their antecedent right of maintenance that since Sadachiammal died on 13.6.1957 after the Hindu Succession Act, the life estate obtained by her over A schedule properties, enlarged into an absolute estate.
B 11 was that Sadachiammal was to companylect the entire income of A schedule properties and enjoy the same for her life time and after her life the entire income shall be spent for various vazhipadus offerings like Annadanam, Vilakku, Naivethyam and other charitable purposes of the first defendant Temple.
Similarly, it was held that the B schedule properties were bequeathed to the plaintiff for life, in view of her pre existing right of maintenance as evidenced by Ext.
It was further companytended that the life estate granted to Sadachiammal A schedule properties and the life estate granted to the plaintiff B schedule properties were so given, in lieu of their right to maintenance.
Plaint A schedule companytains seven items of properties.
The suit was laid for a declaration of plaintiffs title to plaint A and B Schedule properties.
B 10, maintenance decree, obtained by the plaintiff in OS 191 of 1937 against Armugham Pillai, charged on the plaint properties is proof positive to show that she was given a life estate in lieu of her antecedent right of maintenance and the life estate so given to the plaintiff regarding B schedule properties also got enlarged into an absolute estate.
The scope and effect of Ext.
The finding of the trial companyrt that the plaint properties were dedicated to the first defendant Temple as per Ext.
The plaintiff, Vijyammal, is the wife of Manickam Pillai Armugham Pillai executed Ext.
Aggrieved by the said judgment, in AS 12 of 1977 dated 17.1.1983 the first defendant has filed the above civil appeal.
The short facts to understand the scope of companytroversy in the suit are as follows.
During the pendency of the appeal in this Court an order was passed on 6.4.1987 requiring the plaintiff to deposit Rs 2,500/ as companytribution for the maintenance of the Temple.
He died in 1934.
344/67 was tried along with two other suits O.S. No.
191 of 1937 whereby the plaintiff obtained a decree for maintenance against Armugham Pillai charged on the properties.
B 11 and number a mere charge as pleaded by the plaintiff.
One Sadachiammal was the wife of Armugham Pillai.
Since it was held that Armugham Pillai was incompetent to execute Ext.
B 11, Will, dated 29.8.1932 regarding plaint A B schedule properties.
There are seven items in A Schedule and two items in B Schedule properties.
PARIPOORNAN,J. The first defendant in O.S. No.
344 of 1967, Subordinate Judges companyrt, Coimbatore, is the appellant herein.
The first defendant, Temple Mahaliamman Temple and Vigneswara Temple represented by its Trustees claimed that the properties have been dedicated to the Temple and the plaintiff has only a life estate in B Schedule properties.
The plaintiff in the said suit is the respondent.
