The suit was actually for enforcement of a legacy, not partition, and the plaintiff was entitled to a property worth Rs.70 lakh, not a share in the company.

These appeals are heard and disposed of by this common judgment. The appeal in RFA.169/2009 is filed by defendants 1 and 2. The appeal in RFA.342/2009 is filed by the plaintiff.

2. The plaintiff was the eldest daughter of S.V. Subramaniam. Defendants 1 and 2 are the sons and defendants 3 and 4 were the other daughters. Defendant no.5 was the widow of Subramaniam.

Subramaniam was said to be an industrialist of repute. He was the Chairman and Managing Director of M/s Metal Lamp Caps (India) Ltd., a well known entity. Subramaniam owned vast movable and immovable assets. He is said to have died on 29.1.1975. He had left behind a will dated 11.12.1972. In terms of the will the properties described in Schedule ‘A’ to the plaint was bequeathed in favour of Defendants 1 and 2, jointly. They were also named as the executors under the will. The testator had cast an obligation on defendants 1 and 2 to purchase an immovable property in favour of the plaintiff worth not less than Rs.1 lakh, in Bangalore, provided the plaintiff relinquished her interest in favour of her sisters, in respect of properties at nos.12 and 13, Brunton Road, Bangalore.

It was the plaintiff’s case that the intention of the testator was that the property to be purchased was to be as valuable as the property which she was relinquishing at Brunton Road. The plaintiff is said to have released and relinquished her interest in the said properties at nos.12 and 13, Brunton Road, as per a deed dated 1.9.1982. But, it was alleged, that the defendants 1 and 2 did not purchase any immovable property at Bangalore, as was required of them, in terms of the will. It was claimed that the properties at 12 and 13, Brunton Road, were worth about Rs.2 crore as on the date of suit. In the year 1973 when the father of the plaintiff had indicated the value of the property to be purchased in favour of the plaintiff as at Rs.1 lakh, when the Brunton Road properties were worth about Rs.5 lakh, each.

It was the plaintiff’s case that in spite of repeated demands, defendants 1 and 2 had failed to comply with the condition of purchasing a property at Bangalore for her, though she had dutifully relinquished her right in the Brunton Road properties in the expectation that the said defendants would abide by their obligation. Hence there was a total failure on their part to fulfill the condition precedent for them to inherit Schedule ‘A’ properties. The bequests under the will were no longer valid. It was contended that as the plaintiff and the defendants were the only Class I heirs of late Subramaniam, they were all entitled to equal shares in Schedule ‘A’ properties, of 1/6th, each. Hence the suit for partition.

3. Defendants 1 and 2 had entered appearance and filed their written statement to contend that the subject matter of the suit was not properly valued and that the same ought to be decided at the outset before proceeding with the adjudication on merits.

It was stated that the suit properties were the self acquired properties of late Subramaniam, their father. During the life time of Subramaniam, the plaintiff was married to one A.S. Lakshmanan and had moved to her matrimonial home since the year 1957, whereas the house at no.23, MG Road, Bangalore was said to have been constructed in the year 1964. Hence the question of joint possession of the plaintiff with defendants 1 and 2 was not true.

Under the will of Subramaniam, dated 11.12.1972, the entire properties shown in Schedule ‘A’ to the plaint were bequeathed to defendants 1 and 2. Even defendant no.5, the widow of Subramaniam was only given a right of residence during her life time. None of the daughters, including the plaintiff were given any right in the properties. The only direction to the defendants nos.1 and 2, under the will was that they should purchase a house property worth not less than Rs.1 lakh, in Bangalore, provided she relinquished her right to property bearing nos. 12 and 13, Brunton Road, Bangalore, which stood in t