Back
Madras High Court
RAMAPRASADA RAO,RATNAVEL PANDIAN
P.Ram Mohan - Appellant
Versus
Lalitha Raghuraman - Respondent
Decided On : 05/02/1975
PARTITION - SETTLEMENT DEED - VESTED INTEREST - REMAINDER - LIFE ESTATE - MESNE PROFITS - TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT, SECTION 19.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant (first defendant) challenged the trial court's decision that the plaintiffs were entitled to a half share in the suit properties as heirs of Raghuraman, who was the husband of the first plaintiff and father of the second plaintiff. The plaintiffs claimed that Raghuraman had a vested interest in the properties under a settlement deed executed by their foster father, Akilandam Naidu, and that they were entitled to inherit his share upon his death. The appellant argued that Raghuraman did not have a vested interest and that he was the sole owner of the properties after the death of his father, Parthasarathi Naidu.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that Raghuraman had acquired a vested interest in the properties on the date of the settlement deed and that his legal heirs were entitled to inherit his share upon his death. The court found that the settlement deed created a life estate in favor of four persons, including Akilandam Naidu and Parthasarathi Naidu, and that the remainder was vested in Raghuraman and the appellant. The court also held that the appellant could only settle the portion of the properties that had vested in him, which was a common half share, and that the plaintiffs were entitled to the other half share.
Issues: 1. Whether Raghuraman had a vested interest in the properties under the settlement deed executed by Akilandam Naidu? 2. Whether the plaintiffs were entitled to inherit Raghuraman's share in the properties upon his death? 3. Whether the appellant could settle the entire properties under the settlement deed executed by him and Parthasarathi Naidu? 4. Whether the plaintiffs were entitled to mesne profits from the properties?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court applied the principle of vested interests to determine that Raghuraman had acquired a vested interest in the properties on the date of the settlement deed. The court held that the settlement deed created a life estate in favor of four persons, including Akilandam Naidu and Parthasarathi Naidu, and that the remainder was vested in Raghuraman and the appellant. The court relied on several case laws to support its decision, including Bhagabati Barmani v. Kalicharan Singh, Bilaso v. Munnilal, Phillip Graham Greenwood v. Phillip Graham Greenwood, Hazara Singh v. Bantasing, Sreechand Sowcar v. Kasi Chetti, and Somasundaram v. Rajammal. 2. The court held that the plaintiffs were entitled to inherit Raghuraman's share in the properties upon his death. The court found that Raghuraman had a vested interest in the properties and that his legal heirs were entitled to inherit his share upon his death. 3. The court held that the appellant could only settle the portion of the properties that had vested in him, which was a common half share. The court found that Raghuraman was no more on the date of the settlement deed executed by the appellant and Parthasarathi Naidu, and that the plaintiffs were not parties to the settlement deed. Therefore, the court held that the appellant could only settle his own half share in the properties. 4. The court held that the plaintiffs were entitled to mesne profits from the properties, except for the portions in occupation of the plaintiffs and the appellant. The court found that the appellant was accountable to the plaintiffs for half of the income from the entire rest of the suit properties.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and modified the judgment and decree of the lower court. The court directed that the plaint A Schedule properties be partitioned into two equal shares and that one half share be allotted to the plaintiffs. The court also directed that premises No. 48-A, Gengu Reddi Street, be allotted to the share of the appellant, and that defendants 2 and 3 be entitled to the said premises in view of the settlement deed executed by the appellant and Parthasarathi Naidu. The court also directed that the quantum of mesne profits be relegated to be decided in separate proceedings under Order XX, Rule 12, Civil Procedure Code.
RATNAVEL PANDIAN, J.:- The first defendant in O. S. No. 5718 of 1968 on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras is the appellant herein. Respondents 1 and 2 herein filed the said suit for partition of the plaint schedule properties by metes and bounds and for allotment of a half share after allotting premises No. 48-A Gengu Reddi Street, to the defendants, for recovery of a half share in the plaint B Schedule moveable properties or their value of Rs. 250/-, for recovery of rental collections till date of suit after taking of accounts, for directing the defendants to pay half the rental collections at Rs. 350/- per mensem till delivery of possession of the plaintiffs' share and for costs.
2. Briefly the plaint allegations were as follows: Late Rao Bahadur P. Akilandam Naidu was the absolute owner of four house properties viz., Nos. 47, 48, 48-A and 48-B Gengu Reddi Street with garages, outhouses etc. By a settlement deed Ex. A-1 dated 17-2-1929, he gave the properties to himself and his wife Ranganayaki Ammal for life, to his foster son P. Parthasarathi Naidu and his wife Narayaniammal for life, and the remainder to Ram Mohan, the appellant herein (first defendant), and Raghuraman, the husband of the first plaintiff (first respondent herein) and other sons to be born to the said Parthasarathi Naidu and Narayani Ammal. Parthasarathi Naidu died on 4-8-1967 at Madras. Narayaniammal had predeceased him. Raghuraman also predeceased him. Parthasarathi Naidu had only two sons, the appellant and the said Raghuraman, husband of the first respondent and father of the second respondent. Parthasarathi Naidu died leaving him surviving the appellant and respondents 1 and 2. The plaintiffs (respondents 1 and 2) are residing in a portion of No. 48 Gengu Reddi Street, Egmore, Madras. They are entitled to a half share in the plaint schedule properties and also in all the moveables left by Parthasarathi Naidu worth about Rs. 20,000/-. The plaintiffs are not able to lay hands on the said moveables excepting the items set out in the plaint B Schedule valued at Rs. 500/- and their share therein is about Rs. 250/-. The defendants are collecting the rentals of Rs. 700/- a month from the properties and the plaintiffs are entitled to a moiety of the same after meeting the expenses such as taxes, repairs etc., and an account of the same has to be taken from the date of death of Parthasarathi Naidu and the amount ascertained has to be paid over to the plaintiffs. While so, the plaintiffs understood that the first defendant (appellant) and his father had settled 48-A, Gengu Reddy Street in favour of one Vasanthammal and Anusuya (defendants 2 and 3-respondents 3 and 4 herein), who are sisters of the first defendant. According to the plaintiffs, this is not binding on them and in the partition the said property should be allotted to the share of the defendants so that the plaintiffs may get a half share in the estate of Akilandam Naidu. The plaintiffs sent a lawyer's notice dated 16-9-1967, calling upon the defendants to effect a peaceful partition in respect of the plaint schedule properties; but the defendants did not comply with the requests and hence the suit.
3. The appellant (first defendant) filled a written statement contending as follows-by the settlement deed Ex. A-1, dated 17-2-1929, it was provided that after the lifetime of Akilandam Naidu and his wife Ranganayaki Ammal, their foster son Parthasarathi Naidu and his wife Narayaniammal, were to take the properties and enjoy the same during their lifetime without power of alienation and after the death of the four members of the house, viz., Akilandam Naidu, Ranganayaki Ammal, the foster-son Parthasarathi Naidu and his wife Narayaniammal, the said properties should go to his sons Ram Mohan (first defendant-appellant) and Raghuraman (both of them being living then) and also to the other sons to be born thereafter. The said Raghuraman died on 2-4-1954. On his death, the only person who became
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
