Back
2009 Supreme(Mad) 4879
High Court of Judicature at Madras
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. JAICHANDREN
Dhanammal & Another
Versus Kesava Reddiar & Others
Second Appeal No.940 of 1993
Decided On : 16-11-2009
For the Appellants:K. Ravichandrababu, Advocate.
For the Respondents:R6, R. Muthaian, Government Advocate, R2, A.G. Rajan, R8 to R10, R. Sunil Kumar, Advocates, Hema Sampath, Senior Advocate, R11, R. Meenal, R12, Chitra Sampath & T.S. Baskaran, Advocates.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, regarding the revocation of a Will, the lapse of legacy, and the rights of legal heirs.
Headnote:
Will - Property Dispute - Indian Succession Act, 1925 - Section 105, Section 62, Section 63, Section 70 - The court discussed the validity of a Will, the revocation of the Will, and the rights of the legal heirs under the Indian Succession Act, 1925.
Fact of the Case:
The suit involved a dispute over the properties of a deceased individual, Venkata Subba Reddiar, and the validity of his Will. The plaintiffs sought declaration of their title and recovery of possession of the properties.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiffs, except for certain properties. The first appellate court reversed the judgment, holding that the Will had not been revoked and was valid. The second appeal was filed against the first appellate court's decision.
Issues: The main issues included the revocation of the Will, entitlement to the suit properties, and the legal heirs' rights.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the settlement deed executed by Venkata Subba Reddiar did not revoke the Will, and the Will remained valid. It also discussed the lapse of legacy under Section 105 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, and the intention of the testator.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the second appeal, confirming the judgment and decree of the first appellate court.
This second appeal has been filed against the judgment and decree, dated 24. 1993, made in A.S.No.309 of 1990, on the file of the Additional District Court, South Arcot District, Cuddalore, reversing the judgment and decree, dated 210. 1990, made in O.S.No.64 of 1987, on the file of the Subordinate Court, Virudachalam.
2. The plaintiffs in the suit, in O.S.No.64 of 1987, are the appellants in the present second appeal. The defendants in the said suit are the respondents herein. The suit had been filed by the plaintiffs, praying for the relief of declaration of their title, recovery of possession of the suit properties and for mesne profits.
3. The plaintiffs in the suit, who are the appellants in the present second appeal, had stated that the suit schedule properties belonged to one Venkata Subba Reddiar, who is the brother of the grand father of the first appellants husband. During his life time he had executed several Wills, dated 29. 1940, 24. 1942, 21. 1943 and 20.9.1968. The last of his Wills was, on 20.9.1968, marked as Ex.B-3, bequeathing all his properties in favour of his wife Rajammal, for her life time and after her death to the defendants 1 to 3 and 9. His wife Rajammal had pre-deceased him, on 11. 1974. Thereafter, on 22. 1974, the said Venkata Subba Reddiar had settled a few of his schedule mentioned properties, which are Items 64 and 66 to 70, in favour of the first respondents sons Sankaranarayanan and Baskar, by way of a settlement deed, marked as Exs.A-1 and B-1. Thereafter, the said Venkata Subba Reddiar had died intestate, on 2. 1978, in respect of all other properties. As the second class legal heirs of the deceased Venkata Subba Reddiar, the first appellants husband is entitled to the suit properties. Hence, the suit, in O.S.No.64 of 1987, had been filed by the first appellants husband, Dhandapani Reddiar, who had died, on 7. 1987, during the pendency of the suit. Thereafter, the appellants had been impleaded, as the plaintiffs.
4. According to the defendants 1, 2, 3 and 9 in the suit, who are the respondents in the present second appeal, they are second-class legal heirs of the deceased Rajammal, wife of the Venkata Subba Reddiar. They had contended that the Will, dated 20.9.1968, had not been revoked by Venkata Subba Reddiar and that the settlement deed, dated 22. 1974, marked as Exs.A-1 and B-1, was in consonance with the Will, dated 20.9.1968, marked as Ex.B-3. Therefore, by claiming right over the suit properties, based on Ex.B-3, Ex.B-1 and Ex.A-1, they had prayed for the dismissal of the suit. The fifth respondent is the purchaser of items 45 and 56 of the suit properties and therefore, he had adopted the averments made on behalf of the other respondents.
5. The plaintiffs had examined two witnesses on their side. The first appellant had been examined as P.W.1 and the second appellant had been examined as P.W.2. Three documents had been marked in favour of the plaintiffs, as exhibits. On the side of the defendants, five documents had been marked, as exhibits. Exs.A-1 and B-1 are one and the same document, namely, the settlement deed, dated 22. 1974, executed by Venkata Subba Reddiar. Ex.B-3 is the Will executed by the said Venkata Subba Reddiar.
6. The trial Court had framed the following issues for consideration:
i) Whether any right has been vested in the 5th defendant, in respect of Items 45 and 56 of the suit schedule properties based on the sale deed, dated 15. 1978?
ii) Whether the first defendant is entitled to claim any right in the suit schedule properties?
iii) Whether any right has accrued to defendants 1 to 3 based on the Wills, dated 29. 1940, 24. 1942 and 20.9.1968.
iv) Whether the Will, dated 20.9.1968, has been confirmed by the settlement deed, dated 22. 1974?
v) Whether Venkata Subba Reddiar had nominated the first defendant as the legal heir for his properties, except those, which had been bequeathed by way a Will, during his lifetime?
vi) Whether Item 65 of the s
