1971 Supreme(Mad) 293
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
K. S. Venkataraman and N. Krishnaswamy Reddy, JJ.
Ramaswami Goundar
Versus
Ramaswami Goundar
Appeal Nos. 624 of 1966 and 736 of 1967.
Decided On : 16 April 1971
R. Gopalaswamy Ayyangar, for Appellant.
V. Vedantachari, S. Jayakumar and K. Venkateswara Rao, for Respondents.
Bequest after the life time of the testator and his widow.
Headnote:Bequests-No power of alienation given to widow-Widow only a bare life estate holder-Applicability of the notion of Hindu widow’s estate.
2. Muthuthandava Goundar, one of the legatees is dead and his heir is Adikesava Goundar, the second defendant in the suit. He will be entitled to the 1 /6 share of his father.
3. The first defendant would be entitled to 1/6 share as a direct legatee and 1/12 share as one of the heirs of Natesa Goundar. Thus, according to the plaintiff he is entitled to 7/12, the first defendant is entitled to 3/12 and the second defendant to 1/6.
4. The properties in which the plaintiff claims a share are shown in the ‘B’ and ‘C’ Schedules to the plaint, the ‘B’ Schedule being immovable properties and the ‘C Schedule moveables.
5. Sowbagyammal sold some of the properties in the ‘B’ Schedule under four sale-deeds: (i) Exhibit B-43 dated 21st October, 1946 to Muthaiya Goundar (third defendant) for Rs. 1,100 ; (ii) Exhibit B-44 dated 21st October, 1940 (Registration Copy) to Chinnathu Goundar, represented in the suit by his daughter-in-law, the fifth defendant, and his grandsons, defendants 6 to 12, tor Rs. 735; (iii) Exhibit B-27 dated 16th November, 1940 for Rs. 400 in favour of Ranganatha Goundar (fourth defendant); and (iv) Exhibit B-23 dated 2nd February, 1953 for Rs. 1,750 in favour of one Manicka Goundar represented by his son Damodara Goundar, the 13th defendant in the suit. The plaintiff contends that under the Will, Sowbagyammal had no powers of alienation and that consequently these sales would only hold good for her lifetime and would not be binding on the remainder-men, that is, the plaintiff and the other three legatees or their heirs.
6. The first defendant denies the truth and validity of the Will Exhibit A-4 dated 5th July, 1936. On the other hand, according to the first defendant, the last Will of Koneri Goundar was one dated 28th June, 1926 (Exhibit B-11) in which, after bequeathing the two small items to his cousin (P.W. 2) and the Mariamman Temple, he gave the remaining properties entirely to the first defendant. The Will was to take effect after the life-time of Sowbagyammal. It may be mentioned that Exhibit A-4 itself refers to this earlier Will and says that the testator had revoked it by executing the Will Exhibit A-4 dated 5th July, 1926.
7. The first defendant goes on to contend that, even assuming that the Will of 5th July, 1926, is true and valid the plaintiff is not entitled to the bequest under the Will, because he did not fulfil one of the