1974 Supreme(Mad) 511

Madras High Court
RAMPRASADA RAO,RATNAVEL PANDIAN
P.Somasundaram - Appellant
Versus
K.Rajammal - Respondent
Decided On : 11/29/1974

Under Section 119 of the Indian Succession Act, a legatee acquires a vested interest in the bequeathed property on the death of the testator, even if the possession of the property is postponed until the happening of a future event.

Headnote:

WILL - CONSTRUCTION - VESTED INTEREST - WILL EXECUTED BY TESTATOR GIVING LIFE INTERESTS TO HIS WIFE AND DAUGHTER-IN-LAW WITH A SPECIFIC TERM THAT HIS DAUGHTER-IN-LAW AND HIS GRAND-DAUGHTER, VELAMMAL WERE ALSO TO RESIDE WITH HIS WIFE AND MAINTAIN THEMSELVES OUT OF THE INCOME FROM THE PROPERTIES IN COMMON, WITH NO POWERS OF ALIENATION. VELAMMAL WAS TO ENJOY THE PROPERTIES IN COMMON WITH PERAMU AMMAL AND CHELLAMMAL TILL THEIR LIFETIME AND THEREAFTER VELAMMAL AND HER HEIRS WERE TO GET THE PROPERTIES ABSOLUTELY. - HELD, VELAMMAL HAD ACQUIRED VESTED INTEREST IN THE SUIT PROPERTIES ON THE DEATH OF THE TESTATOR UNDER EX. A-1, SEENI CHETTIAR, AND THERE IS NO EVIDENCE, EITHER DOCUMENTARY OR ORAL, ON THE SIDE OF THE PLAINTIFF CREATING ANY SUSPICIOUS CIRCUMSTANCES SO AS TO INVALIDATE THE EXECUTION OF THE WILL EX. B-34 BY VELAMMAL IN FAVOUR OF THE DEFENDANT; BUT CONTRARY TO THAT, THERE IS OVERWHELMING, UNASSAILABLE AND ACCEPTABLE EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT VELAMMAL HAS EXECUTED THE WILL IN A SOUND AND DISPOSING STATE OF MIND.

Fact of the Case:

The suit properties originally belonged to one Seeni Chettiar, son of Diraviyam Chettiar. The said Seeni Chettiar had two brothers, viz., Arunachalam Chettiar (the eldest) and Annamalai Chettiar (the youngest). Annamalai Chettiar died issueless. Arunachalam Chettiar died leaving his two sons Palvannan Chettiar Subramaniam Chettiar. Subramaniam Chettiar also died issueless. The plaintiff in this suit is the son of the said Palvannana Chettiar. The said Seeni Chettir, the paternal grandfather of the plaintiff, executed a will Ex. A-1 dated 27-4-1913, bequeathing life interests in favour of his wife, Peramu Ammal and daughter-in-law Chellammal with a specific term that his daughter-in-law Chellammal and his grand-daughter, Velammal were also to reside with his wife Peramu Ammal and maintain themselves out of the income from the properties in common, with no powers of alienation. Velammal was to enjoy the properties in common with Peramu Ammal and Chellammal till their lifetime and thereafter Velammal and her heirs were to get the properties absolutely. There is no dispute on the above said facts. It is the case of the plaintiff that under the will Ex A-1, Velammal got only a right of maintenance during the lifetime of Peramu Ammal and Chellammal and not any vested interest or remainder in the properties. After the death of the testator of Ex. A-1, Peramu Ammal was in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties as per the terms of the will and Chellammal and Velammal also were maintained by Peramu Ammal out of the income of the bequeathed properties. Velammal the testatrix of Ex. A-34, died issueless on 22-2-1951, after the death of her husband. Subsequently, Peramu Ammal died on 11-2-1951 (sic) and Chellammal died on 20-7-1955. So, the plaintiff's case is that Velammal, the testatrix of Ex. B-34, had absolutely no vested interest, right or title to the property especially during the lifetime of Peramu Ammal and Chellammal, and so the alleged will is void ab initio. The plaintiff's further case is that Ex. B-34 has not been executed while in a sound and disposing state of mind and that the defendant, the legatee under the will, with the able assistance and help of her husband, partisans and friends, had exerted undue influence and coercion on the testatrix, to execute the will and so it is vitiated by fraud, undue influence and coercion. Thus the plaintiff claims that as per Ex A-1, he has become entitled to succeed to the suit properties and to be in possession and enjoyment of the same. He challenges the occupation and possession of the suit properties, by the defendants as illegal. He sent a notice under Ex. A-5 dated 4-7-1964, to which the defendants sent a reply under Ex. B-32, dated 11-7-1964. So, the plaintiff filed the suit for a declaration that he is entitled to the suit properties and consequently to recover possession thereafter from the defendant and for past mesne profits of Rs. 3,600 and future mesne profits and costs of suit.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that Velammal had acquired a vested interest in the suit properties on the death of the testator under Ex. A-1, Seeni Chettiar, and there is no evidence, either documentary or oral, on the side of the plaintiff creating any suspicious circumstances so as to invalidate the execution of the will Ex. B-34 by Velammal in favour of the defendant; but contrary to that, there is overwhelming, unassailable and acceptable evidence to show that Velammal has executed the will in a sound and disposing state of mind.

Issues: 1. What is the nature of interest obtained by Velammal under the will of her grandfather Seeni Chettiar dated 27-4-1913. 2. Whether Velammal got only a right to maintenance under the will. 3. Whether the will dated 23-2-1949 executed by Velammal is true, genuine, valid and binding on the plaintiff. 4. Whether the plaintiff is estopped from impugning the will of Velammal by his own laches, negligence and acquiescence. 5. Whether any and what improvements have been made by the defendant to the suit building. 6. Whether the suit as framed without a declaration regarding Velammal's will is not maintainable. 7. Whether the defendant has in any event acquired prescriptive title to the suit properties. 8. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to any and what mesne profits. 9. Whether the suit is barred by limitation. 10. Whether the suit has been properly valued and proper court-fee paid. 11. To what relief if any is the plaintiff entitled? Additional issues framed on 28-10-1967:-1. Whether the plaintiff is the only nearest reversioner to the deceased Seeni Chettiar and if not, whether the suit is maintainable. 2. Whether the suit is bad for non-joindar of Gomathi Ammal and minor Palani alias Ramasubramanian.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that under Section 119 of the Indian Succession Act, Velammal had acquired a vested interest in the suit properties on the death of the testator, subject to the charge of maintenance in favour of herself, Peramu Ammal and Chellammal, which charge of maintenance created under the will would not suspend the vesting of the properties in the legatee Velammal. The court further held that the will Ex. B-34 executed by Velammal in favour of the defendant was valid and binding on the plaintiff as there was no evidence to create any suspicious circumstances so as to invalidate the execution of the will and that there was overwhelming, unassailable and acceptable evidence to show that Velammal had executed the will in a sound and disposing state of mind.

Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed.