Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
14th January, 1960.
S.K. DAS, A.K. SARKAR AND M. HIDAYATULLAH, JJ.
R. Muthammal (Died) and another, Appellants
Versus
Sri Subramaniaswami Devasthanam, Tiruchendur and others, Respondents.
Civil Appeal No. 200 of 1955. 602
Advocates appeared
M/s. S. V. Venugopalachariar and M. S. K. Aiyangar, Advocates, for Appellant No. 2; Mr. A. V. Viswanatha Sastri, Senior Advocate (Mr. R. Ganapathy Iyer, Advocate and Mr. G. Gopalakrishnan, Advocate of M/s. Gagrat and Co., with him), for Respondent No. I.
A. S. No. 392 of 1943, D/- 20-1-1947 (Mad).
HINDU LAW - INHERITANCE - LUNACY - EXCLUSION FROM INHERITANCE - INSANITY NEED NOT BE CONGENITAL - FAMILY ARRANGEMENT - PROOF - DECREE - EXECUTION - POSSESSION TAKEN OTHERWISE THAN BY EXECUTION - SUIT FOR POSSESSION - LIMITATION - S. 48, CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, Ramasami Pillai, claimed a share in the properties of his deceased brother, M. Picha Pillai, on the grounds that he was not a lunatic and that he was entitled to a share under a family arrangement. The Devasthanam, the respondent, claimed the properties under a gift over from Meenakshisundaram Pillai, the father of M. Picha Pillai.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that Ramasami Pillai was a lunatic and was therefore excluded from inheritance. The Court also held that the family arrangement was not proved and that the Devasthanam was entitled to possession of the properties.
Issues: 1. Whether Ramasami Pillai was a lunatic and was therefore excluded from inheritance. 2. Whether the family arrangement was proved. 3. Whether the Devasthanam was entitled to possession of the properties.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that insanity need not be congenital to exclude a person from inheritance. The Court relied on the rulings of the Madras High Court and other courts which had held that madness, unlike other disabilities such as blindness, muteness, idiocy and lameness, need not be congenital to create the disability. 2. The Court held that the family arrangement was not proved. The Court noted that the affidavit which was relied upon to prove the arrangement did not show the compromise as a completed fact and that the claimants who were stated to have given a share to Ramasami Pillai had not been examined. 3. The Court held that the Devasthanam was entitled to possession of the properties. The Court found that M. Picha Pillai must have got possession otherwise than by execution of the decree, because even a witness who was not very friendly to the Devasthanam admitted that M. Picha Pillai was at the time of his death in possession of all the suit properties.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed with costs.
Judgment
HIDAYATULLAH , J. : This appeal has been filed on leave granted by the High Court of Madras against its judgment and decree dated 20-1-1947, by which the decree of the Subordinate Judge, Tuticorin dated 30-3-1943, was substantially modified.
2. Before the application for leave to appeal to the Judicial Committee could be filed, the first defendant (Ramasami Pillai) died, & the application for leave was filed by his widow, R. Muthammal, who was the fourth defendant in the suit. R. Muthammal also died soon afterwards, and her place was taken by Parameswari Thayammal (her daughter born on Ramasami Pillai), who was the fifth defendant in this case. Along with these three defendants, the other members of Ramasami Pillai s family were also joined defendants. The suit was filed by Sri Subramaniaswami Devasthanam, Tiruchendur (hereinafter called for brevity, the Devasthanam), and the Devasthanam is the only contesting respondent in this Court.
3. One Poosa Pichai Pillai had five sons and three daughters, of whom Meenkashisundaram Pillai died on 21-5-1919. Before his death, Meenakshisundaram Pillai executed a registered will on 20-5-1919, and a registered codicil on 21-5-1919. By these documents, he left his entire property to his only son, M. Picha Pillai, with the condition that should he die without issue, the property was to go to the Devasthanam.
3a. M. Picha Pillai died a bacheles on 10-12-1927. Three claimants claimed the property after his death. The first naturally was the Devasthanam claiming under the gift over to it. The other two were the heirs of M. Picha Pillai, who asserted that the gift over was void, and Meenakshisundaram s wife s brother and sister. Arunachala Irungol Pillai and N. S. Muthammal (third defendant), respectively, who clamed under an alleged will of M. Picha Pillai. The heirs of M. Picha Pillai were defendants 7, 8, 10, 13 and 14, the father of defendant 9, and the first defendant. These claimants denied the claim of the Devasthanam, and contended that the will and the codicil above mentioned gave an absolute estate to M. Picha Pillai, and that the gift over to the Devasthanam was, therefore, void. The Devasthanam filed O. S. No. 57 of 1932 for declaration and possession of the properties covered by the will, together with other reliefs. During the pendency of the suit, the heirs of M. Picha Pillai and the present defendants 15 and 16 (two of the three sons of Arunachala Irungol Pillai) assigned their interest in favour of the Devasthanam. The result of the suit, therefore, was that a decree in favour of the Devasthanam was passed in regard to the interest of the assignors, but it was dismissed as regards the interest of N. S. Muthammal (third defendant) and Pothiadia Trungol Pillai (second defendant) who had not entered into the compromise. It may be mentioned here that by Ex. D-22, a registered agreement dated 20-5-1928, the heirs had already agreed to give to Arunachala Irungol Pillai and N. S. Muthammal 1/8th share each respectively in the properties of M. Picha Pillai. Thus, by this compromise the Devasthanam received 5/6th share of the properties of M. Picha Pillai, the remaining 1/6th, going to Pothiadia Irungol Pillai (1/24th) and N. S. Muthammal. (1/8th ). The Devasthanam filed an appeal in the High Court against the dismissal of the suit in respect of this 1/6th share and failed. An appeal was then taken to the Judicial Committee, which also failed. The judgment of the Privy Council is reported in Sri Subaramaniaswami Temple v. Ramaswamia Pillai, 1950-1 Mad LJ 300.
4. Without waiting, however, for the result of the appeal in so far as the 1/6th share was concerned, the Devasthanam filed the present suit joining the two sets of claimants for declaration, ejectment and possession by partition of the properties to which it claimed title and for mesne profits. The properties were shown in various schedules annexed to the plaint; but it is unnecessary to refer to those schedules except where the
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
