Ramaprasada Rao, OCJ. — The first defendant in O. S. No. 61 of 1966 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Chidambaram is the appellant. In order to appreciate the relevant facts in this Letters Patent Appeal, a summary of events that took place long long ago is necessary.

2. One Sarangapani Pillai married Arumbu Ammal and had a daughter Valliammai by name through her. Sarangapani bad a brother Balakrishna by name. Under Exhibit A-1 dated 10th February, 1921, Sarangapani executed an unregistered Will conferring a life estate over the suit properties in favour of his wife Arumbu Ammal and after her death, his properties were to be divided equally between his daughter and his brother Balakrishna. The will also provided for a contingency that if Valliammai died without leaving any issue, then Balakrishna would be entitled to the entire properties. After the death of Sarangapani Pillai, one of his creditors filed a money suit against Arumbu Ammal, Valliammai and Balakrishna. Balakrishna having been impleaded as a party to that action, he propounded the will Exhibit A-l. Ultimately, the money suit was dismissed. During the pendency or at or about that time, Arumbu Ammal and her daughter Valliammai filed a suit O. S. No. 255 of 1923 in the Court of the District Munsif, Kattumannarkudi for a declaration that Exhibit A-l was a forgery and the instrument would not alter the normal rights of succession to the estate of Sarangapani. In that suit, a compromise was entered into on (the 24th of July, 1924 (Exhibit A-4). Inter alia, the compromise provided that Arumbu Ammal should enjoy the properties for her life as a widow’s estate without any powers of alienation and after her, Valliammai should enjoy the properties for her life equally without any powers of alienation, and if there are any male heirs to Valliammai, they will take the properties absolutely; in case, however, Valliammai does not leave any male heir, Balakrishna should take the properties absolutely. Valliammai died issueless in the year, 1940 and Arumbu Ammal took the first defendant in adoption on 3rd November, 1947. Balakrishna died on January, 1963. Thereafter, under Exhibits B-2 and B-3, Arumbu Ammal settled some of the properties and willed away some of the remaining properties in favour of the first defendant and died on 16th May, 1966. On the death of Arumbu Ammal, the plaintiffs who are the heirs of Balakrishna filed the present action claiming their entitlement to the properties as under the compromise deed Exhibit A-4 read with Exhibit A-l and questioned the legality and propriety of Arumbu Animal’s acts in having settled or test amentarily disposed of the properties under Exhibits B-2 and B-3. Their specific contention was that the estate which was in the possession of Arumbu Ammal as a widow’s estate without any contemporaneous powers of alienation did not enlarge itself into an estate absolute by reason of section 14 (1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

2. This was resisted by the first defendant on various grounds amongst which the surviving contention which claims our attention is that under the compromise Exhibit A.4, Arumbu Ammal secured rights pursuant to her preexisting right as a widow for being maintained for life from and out of the estate of her husband and in consequence, such an estate vested in her and it was admittedly in her possession on the date when Central Act XXX of 1956 was passed and it automatically enlarged itself into an absolute estate and, therefore, Exhibits B-2 and B-3 are valid instruments which Arumbu Ammal could execute during her lifetime.

3. Defendants 2 to 6 in the action are only tenants and we are not concerned with their rights which they claimed under the Tamil Nadu Cultivating Tenants’ Protection Act.

4. On the above admitted facts, both the learned trial Judge as well as the first appellate Court, namely the District Judge of South Arcot at Cuddalore affirmed that the widow’s estate secured by Arumbu Ammal under Exhibit A-

Click Here to Read the rest of this document