the plaintiffs 1 to 4 being the issues of the marriage of the 4th defendant with her.
The testatrix died within a few days after the execution of the will.
The 2nd defendant is the daughter born out of this wedlock.
The 5th defendant and the 1st defendant mortgaged the B schedule properties with the 3rd defendant who brought a suit on the mortgage and obtained a decree.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated October 31, 1962 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Appeal No.
The testatrix, Adilakshmi, who was childless herself brought up defendants 4 and 5, Boddu Ramarao and Kosury Lakshmamma, from their infancy.
Defendants 4 and 5 divided the properties left by the testatrix by a registered partition deed dated December 27, 1929 by which those mentioned in Schedule A to the plaint fell to the share of the 4th defendant while the others mentioned in Schedule B fell to the share of the 5th defendant.
both these minors, Lakshmamma and Ramarao, that until their minority period is over, Banda Ramaswamy Garu should act as their guardian and deal with all the affairs, that after their minority period is over the entire property should be in possession of both of them, that both of them should enjoy throughout their lifetime the said property without powers of gift transfer and sale and that after their death the children that may be born to them should enjoy the same with powers of gift, transfer and sale.
The facts leading to the litigation may be stated as follows.
Some years thereafter, the 4th defendant married one Boddu Manikyam.
for a declaration that after the death praying of defendants 4 and 5, the 1st defendant and the children of the 4th defendant or such of them as may be alive at the time would be entitled to share the properties in suit equally between them and that any alienation made by defendants 4 and 5 or their assignees or alienees would number bind the interests of the ultimate feversloners beyond their lifetime and further that the mortgage decree mentioned above was number binding on the plaintiffs or the ultimate reversioners.
The plaintiffs filed the suit against all the defendants in 1955.
The 4th defendant married the 1st defendant, Boddu Satyavathi who is the daughter of the 5th defendant.
On a fair companystruction of the language.
In order to provide for them after her death she executed a will companyering all her properties, movable and immovable.
112 of 1955.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
245 of 1965.
In the trial companyrt a number of issues were framed but the only question canvassed before the High Court on appeal related to the effect of the will of Adilakshmi.
563 of 1959.
Sen and T. Satyanarayana, for respondents Nos.
The translation of the relevant portion of the will which was in vernacular is as follows my entire property should hereafter my lifetime pass to.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Mitter, J. This is an appeal by special leave from a judgment and decree of the High Court of Andhra Pradesh companyfirming the decree passed by the Subordinate Judge at Eluru in O.S. No.
1 to 3.
R. Chaudhuri, for the appellants.
At the date of the will executed on June 28, 1913 the girl defendant 5 had been with her for 15 years and the boy defendant 4 for 10 years and both were minors at the time.
