Sir Lionel Leach.-The appellant is the idol of a Hindu temple at Kasba Tiruchendur in the Province of Madras. The appeal arises out of a suit brought in the name of the idol by the trustee of the temple in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Tuticorin for a decree for possession of properties which had formed the estate of one Minakshisundaram Pillai, who died on the 21st May, 1919. The appellant claimed to be entitled to the estate under a will executed by the deceased. The Subordinate Judge construed the will against the appellant and his decision was upheld by the High Court of Madras. The appeal is from the decree of the High Court.

The will of the testaor is dated 20th May, 1919, and reads as follows:

“I am now an in-patient in the hospital at Madura, having undergone an operation for carbuncle. As I have suspicions about my surviving, I have bequeathed to my son, Picha Pillai the right to all my properties and moneys, etc., and he shall solely enjoy them. If he or his son has no child, the said properties shall pass to Subramaniaswami at Tiruchendur.”

On the next day the testator added this codicil:

“This is written in continuation of the will executed yesterday, the 20th instant. With the money got from my moneys and pro-notes, etc., my elder brothers shall purchase immoveable properties such as lands, etc., in the name of my son.”

The will and codicil were registered.

The testator was a member of a joint Hindu family which became divided in 1880. He entered Government service and rose to the rank of Deputy Collector. He died on the 21st May, 1919, the day on which he executed the codicil. His son Picha Pillai then entered into possession of the estate and enjoyed it until his death. He died on the 1oth December, 1927, without issue. Thereupon his reversioners took possession of the properties.

On the 10th November, 1932, the appellant instituted the suit out of which the appeal arises. There were 23 defendants. Defendants Nos. 1 to 22 were sued as being in possession of different parts of the estate. The 23rd defendant was alleged to be an alienee of one of the other defendants in respect of a part of the estate. The appellant claimed that on the death of Picha Pillai he became entitled to the entire estate. During the pendency of the suit the appellant entered into written agreements of compromise with defendants Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10 and 11. He settled with the 13th defendant out of Court and abandoned his claim for relief against defendants Nos. 17 to 22, on liberty being given to him to file fresh suits against them.

The remaining defendants contested the suit and on the issues framed by him the Subordinate Judge held that the will and codicil were "true and valid"; that Picha Pillai took an absolute estate, notwithstanding the direction that if" he or his son had no child the properties should pass to the temple, and the bequest to the temple was bad as contravening the rule against perpetuities to be found in section 5 of Madras Act No. I of 1914 (re-enacted as section 114 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925). In accordance with these findings he dismissed the suit against the contesting defendants and also against the 13th defendant and defendants Nos. 17 to 22. As against defendants Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10 and 11 he passed a decree in the terms of the compromise agreements which had been filed in Court; but he did not include therein a direction for partition. The agreements of compromise represented 20/27 shares in the estate.

In their appeal to the High Court the appellants joined as respondents only defendants Nos. 2, 9, 12, 14, 15 and 23.

The learned Judges who heard the appeal (Pandrang Row and Abdur Rahman, JJ.) agreed with the trial Court that the bequest to the son was unconditional and therefore conferred upon him an absolute estate. In the circumstances it was not necessary for them to decide whether the direction that the properties should pass to the temple in the event of Picha Pillai dying chil

Click Here to Read the rest of this document