SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1939 Supreme(Mad) 138

VENKATARAMANA RAO
Budhiraju Seethayamma deaceased – Appellant
Versus
Vullipalam alias Putrevu Jagannadha Rao – Respondent


JUDGMENT

Venkataramana Rao, J.

1. The question for determination in this appeal is whether a vested remainder which was vested in one Lakshminarayana Rao was conveyed by his wife Bhramaramba (seventh defendant) under a sale-deed Ex. C in favour of the first defendant. The learned Subordinate Judge answered it in the negative and against this decision of the Subordinate Judge the plaintiff has preferred this appeal.

2. The relevant facts are not in dispute. One Kanchamma was the last owner of the suit property. She made a will in 1899 in and by which she bequeathed all the properties she was possessed of, including the suit property, to the said Lakshminarayana Rao who was her brothers son and to one Lakshmi Narasamma, her widowed daughter. By her will she directed Lakshminarayana Rao to divide the movable and immovable property which she was possessed of into two shares and to enjoy one half share, the other half share to be enjoyed during her lifetime by Lakshmi Narasamma. The said Kanchamma further directed that after the death of Lakshmi Narasamma, Lakshminarayana Rao should take possession of the property in which Lakshmi Narasamma had a life interest. As we construe this will, th


Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top