Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MARAS
K Sastri
Ammakannammal
Versus
V.K. Damodara Mudaliar
Decided On : 30 November, 1925
Trust Deed - Property Rights - Will of Venkatarama Mudali - Deed of Trust dated 11th March 1920 - The court discussed the legal provisions of the will of Venkatarama Mudali and the power of Ammakannammal to create a trust. The court interpreted the will and concluded that Ammakannammal did not have the power to create the trust, rendering the deed of trust invalid.
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit to set aside a trust deed, claiming it was obtained by fraud and misrepresentation. The plaintiff argued that she had no power to execute the trust deed during her lifetime and that her will should take effect as per the power conferred by her husband's will.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the plaintiff's will was valid and the deed of trust dated 11th March 1920 was invalid. The court also ruled that the plaintiff was not entitled to mesne profits, and the costs of both parties should come out of the estate.
Issues: The issues revolved around the validity of the trust deed, the power of the plaintiff to execute the trust deed, and the entitlement to mesne profits.
Ratio Decidendi: The court analyzed the will of Venkatarama Mudali and interpreted the power granted to Ammakannammal. It concluded that she did not have the power to create the trust, rendering the deed of trust invalid.
Final Decision: The plaintiff was granted a decree for possession of the property mentioned in the plaint, with the deed of trust dated 11th March 1920 being declared invalid. The plaintiff was not entitled to mesne profits, and the costs of both parties were to come out of the estate.
Kumaraswami Sastri, J.
1. This is a suit by the plaintiff for a declaration that the deed of trust executed by her on the 11th March 1920 in favour of the defendants was obtained by fraud and misrepresentation and is inoperative, for setting aside the trust deed on the ground that she was not competent to create the trust, for possession of the suit house and mesne profits. The plaintiff died pending suit leaving a will and the executor under the will has been brought on record.
2. One Venkatarama Mudali, the husband of the plaintiff, who was the last male holder of the property mentioned in the plaint, died on the 1st October 1891 leaving the plaintiff his widow and two daughters Rathnakshi and Ponnammal. He left a will dated the 12th July 1889 as to the genuineness of which there is no dispute as both parties rely on that will in support of their case. " The will after setting out the title of the testator to the property proceeds as follows:
Therefore, after my lifetime, my elder daughter Rathnakshi Ammal, wife of the deceased Duraisamy Mudaliar of Adambakkam, shall take into her possession the aforesaid immovable property and the other moveables and after meeting the expanses for tax and repair out of the rental income derivable from the said house, shall maintain with the remaining income, my wife and her mother Ammakannammal, as well as herself. Further if my younger daughter Ponnammal, the wife of Kunnathur Ganapati Mudaliar, finding it inconvenient to live with her husband who has taken a second wife should come away to (live with) her who is her sister and with her mother, she (my elder daughter) shall protect the said Ponnammal also without giving any differential treatment. Besides as I have no other male or female issue than the said two daughters as the said Rathnajoshi Ammal has now lost all (possibility of having) issue and as the said Ponnammal has had no issue till now, Rathnakshi shall arrange that, after the death of my wife and my daughters the whole of my said property shall be taken and enjoyed by the issue of the said Ponnammal if the latter happens to bear issue in the future. If the said Ponnammal does not happen to have any such issue, my wife and Rathnakshi Ammal jointly or the survivor after the death of either of them may make arrangements such that such of them as they choose may get and enjoy (properties). My ordinary household sundry articles shall also be provided for in the same manner. But any arrangements made by my wife, and Rathnakshi Ammal jointly, or by one of them on surviving the other, and providing for persons of their choice taking and enjoying the property, shall take effect after the deaths of wife and my two daughters. Such is the will which, having-been written to my dictation and found to be correct on being read out (to me), I make and leave, willingly and of my own free will.
3. Rathnakshi died issueless on the 7th October 1915 and Ponnammal died issue-less on the 5th January 1918. On. the 25th October 1916, Ammakannammal executed a deed of gift in respect of the house mentioned in the plaint in favour of the trustee of a temple in Chintadripet. It will be noted that this deed was executed during the life time of Ponnammal but after the death of Rathnakshi. On the 11th March 1920 the plaintiff executed another deed in favour of the present defendants whereby she after reciting that the deed of 1916 was not acted upon arranged for the performance of the trust mentioned therein through the defendant. She then filed the present suit on the 15th March 1924 in forma pauperis to set aside the deed of trust. After filing the suit she executed a will dated the 18th March 1924 whereby she gave the properties to the grandson and granddaughter of her husbands brother. Probate was granted of this will which has been filed as Ex. A in the suit. The contention of the legal representative of the plaintiff is that under the terms of the will of the plaintiffs husband she had no power to
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
