SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1976 Supreme(Mad) 351

V.RAMASWAMI
Hamsaveni Ammal and others – Appellant
Versus
S. Rajagopal Chettiar – Respondent


Advocates:
B. Padmanabhan, for Appellants.
T.R. Ramachandran and T.R. Rajagopalan, for Respondent.

Judgment:- The plaintiffs are the appellants. The suit was filed for partition and separate possession. They claimed the right on the basis of a will dated 22nd June, 1924 executed by one Padmanabha Chettiar. The testator’s wife was one Dhanalakshmi Ammal and they had a daughter by name Rajalakshmi Ammal. There was a bequest in favour of Rajalaksmi Ammal and after her in favour of her male children. It is the const ruction of the will that is in question in this second appeal. If Rajalakshmi Ammal had a life estate under the will then there is no dispute that the plaintiffs would be entitled as the children of one of the sons of Rajalakshmi Ammal to one half of the suit properties. If Rajalaksmi Ammal had absolute estate under the will, then since she purported to execute a bequeathing those properties in favour of the defendant, the plaintiffs will not be entitled to any share. The relevant clause in the will reads as follows:

It was the case of the plaintiffs that Rajalakshmi Ammal had only a life estate and after her, her male children had to inherit the properties absolutely. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the defendant contends that there is an absolute grant in fav












Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top