Back
HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH
CHANDRA REDDY,QAMAR HASAN, JJ.
Sangavarapu Venkatasubba Rao
Versus
Mylavarapu Krishnamurthy
Letters Patent Appeal No. 38 of 1949 against judgment of Rajagopalan, J., in S. A. No. 419 of 1946
Decided On : 07-01-1958
CONSTRUCTION OF SETTLEMENT DEED - ABSOLUTE GRANT - DEFEASANCE CLAUSE - ADOPTED SON - MEANING OF "SANTHATI" - HINDU LAW.
Fact of the Case:
In 1888, Konappa executed a settlement deed, Ex. P-1, granting certain inam lands to his eldest daughter-in-law, Gopalamma, for her lifetime, with the remainder to her step-daughter, Singavarapu Chinna Seshamma. If Seshamma had no issue, the lands were to pass to Konappa's maternal grandsons and their issue. Seshamma died in 1915, having adopted a boy, Venkata Subba Rao. The dispute arose over the ownership of the lands after Gopalamma's death in 1937.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the grant to Seshamma was an absolute one and not a life-estate, as the settlor used clear and unambiguous dispositive words and there was no provision for a gift over except by way of defeasance. The defeasance clause, which provided that if Seshamma died without issue, the lands would pass to Konappa's maternal grandsons, was held to be repugnant to the absolute grant and hence void.
Issues: 1. Whether the grant to Seshamma was an absolute one or a life-estate? 2. Whether the defeasance clause was valid and enforceable? 3. Whether the word "Santhathi" in the defeasance clause included an adopted son?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court applied the principle that clear and unambiguous dispositive words in a settlement deed should be given their full effect and should not be controlled or qualified by general expressions of intention. The court found that the language used in the grant to Seshamma was clear and unambiguous and created an absolute estate, as there were no words circumscribing the estate given to her. 2. The court held that the defeasance clause was repugnant to the absolute grant and hence void, as it was an attempt to restrict the absolute estate granted earlier and was not expressly or impliedly made subject to a defeasance on the happening of a contingency. 3. The court held that the word "Santhathi" in the defeasance clause included an adopted son, as it is a word of wide connotation and comprehends within its compass an adopted boy. The court relied on several decided cases which interpreted "santhanam" or "santhathi" as embracing an adopted son.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal and restored the judgment of the trial court, which had held that the grant to Seshamma was an absolute one and that the defeasance clause was void. The appellant was awarded costs throughout except in the second appeal, having regard to his attitude on the issue of the character of the grant to the donee.
CHANDRA REDDY, J. : -
The decision in this appeal depends entirely on the construction of some clauses in a settlement deed executed by one Konappa in 1888, Ex. P-1. The situation at the time of making this settlement was that the two sons of Konappa. Subbarayudu and Krishnamurthy predeceased him leaving behind them their widows Gopalamma and Venkatesamma respectively. Subbarayudu had a daughter China Seshamma while Narasamma was the daughter of Krishnamurthy. Konappa had two daughters Pullamma and Seshamma. Pullamma had two sons Ventakatakrishnayya and Venkata Chalapathi. The relevant terms of the document which fall to be interpreted in this appeal are as follows :
As they (Gopalamma and Venkateshamma) are my daughters-in-law, and as I am bound to give maintenance to them, I have settled the inam lands marked B, C, D, E and H mentioned in the schedule and situated in Pavara, Chamalakota and Pithapuram villages, in favour of my eldest daughter-in-law, Gopalamma. Those lands should be enjoyed by her for her entire life-time and after her life-time, the inam lands marked B and E situate in the villages of Pavara and Bhimavaram, shall pass to her step-daughter, Singavarapu Chinna Seshamma. If the Singavarapu Chinna Seshamma has no issues (Santhanam) the same shall after her life-time, pass to dowhitras and their issues (Santhathivaru).
I am now itself filing Odambadika (Memoranda) to get the names of my dowhitras, M. Venkatachalapathi and Venkata Krishnayya entered in the accounts relating to all the inams mentioned in the schedule filed herewith. It is settled that a share should also be allotted to the sons that may be born in future to my eldest daughter, Pullamma. My dowhitras should file memoranda as soon as my grand-daughter Sangavarapu Chinna Seshamma begets male issue for entering her name in the accounts in respect of the schedule mentioned lands marked B and E situated in Pavara and Bhimavaram." Konappa died in 1892 survived by all the donees. His first daughter-in-law died in 1937 and her step-daughter Seshamma passed away long before i.e., 1915, having adopted a boy Venkata Subba Rao. It is the gift in favour of Seshamma that is the subject-matter of the present litigation.
2. Some time after the death of Gopalamma the two sons of Venkata Krishnayya laid an action for the recovery of five items of property of which items, 1, 3 to 5 of A Schedule covering an extent of Ac. 1-50 cents are now in dispute. To this suit are impleaded the three sons of Venkatachalapathi as defendants 1 to 3 and his grandsons as defendants 4 to 6, while the adopted son was added as the 7th defendant, defendants 8 to 11 being the lessees from the 7th defendant. The claim was made only in regard to half the share on the ground that the other half belonged to defendants 1 to 6 the descendants of Venkata Chalapathi. The chief basis of the claim as against the 7th defendant was that Seshamma died before the termination of the life-estate created in favour of Gopalamma and consequently the items in question reverted to the heirs of the donor.
3. The answer of the 7th defendant was that, as the adopted son of Seshamma, he became entitled to the property given to Seshamma. In the trial Court, the adoption of the 7th defendant was not put in issue as the factum or the validity thereof was not controverted. The trial Court negatived the claim of the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 6 to these properties in the view that it was the issue of the donee Seshamma. On appeal, the Subordinate Judge differed from the District Munsif and upheld the right put forward by the plaintiff and defendants 1 to 6 holding that an adopted son was excluded from the expression "Santhathi". The matter was taken in second appeal to the High Court of Madras.
Justice Rajagopalan heard it, went into the question as to the nature of interest that was created in Seshamma. The conclusion reached by him was that the donor conferred only a life-estate on the adoptive mother of the
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
