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

2019 Supreme(SC) 201

ASHOK BHUSHAN, K.M.JOSEPH
Murugan – Appellant
Versus
Kesava Gounder (Dead) Thr. LRs – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
For Appellant(s) : Mr. V. Prabhakar, Adv. Ms. Jyoti Parasher, Adv. Mr. N.J. Ramchandar, Adv. Mr. R. Chandrachud, AOR
For Respondent(s): Mr. Vijay Kumar, AOR

Judgement Key Points

The right to receive at the proper time, in the context of property law and succession, refers to the vested interest that a beneficiary or heir acquires upon the occurrence of a specific event, such as the death of the testator or the completion of a condition stipulated in a will or testamentary document. This right becomes vested in the legatee or heir at the moment the event occurs, and it passes to their representatives if they die before receiving it. The right is considered to be vested in interest from the date of the testator's death, provided the terms of the will or legal provisions specify that the interest is to become vested upon that event (!) (!) .

In the context of a bequest, when the terms of the will specify that the legatee is not entitled to immediate possession but is to receive the property at a future time, the right to receive the property at that future time is deemed to be vested in interest upon the testator’s death, unless the will indicates otherwise (!) (!) . This means that the beneficiary’s right to the property is secured from that moment, even if actual possession or enjoyment is postponed until a later date.

Therefore, the right to receive at the proper time is a legal interest that vests upon the occurrence of the specified event (such as the testator's death), and it confers a vested interest in the property or legacy, which can be transferred, claimed, or enforced by the beneficiary or their legal representatives at the appropriate time as determined by the terms of the will or relevant law.


JUDGMENT :

ASHOK BHUSHAN, J.

1. This is the plaintiff’s appeal challenging the judgment of Madras High Court dismissing the second appeal filed by the plaintiffs-appellants.

2. Brief facts of the case are:-

2.1 The suit property belongs to one Petha Gounder. Petha Gounder had two sons namely Kannan and Balaraman and three daughters. Sengani Ammal was wife of Petha Gounder. On 17.05.1971 Petha Gounder executed a Will bequeathing life interest to his sons Kannan and Balaraman and thereafter to the two male heirs of his both the sons, who were to take the property absolutely. Will further stipulated that in event, there is no male heir to one of his sons, the male heirs of other son will take the property. Petha Gounder died on 28.11.1971 leaving behind his wife, two sons Balaraman and Kannan and three daughters. Petha Gounder’s wife Sengani Ammal died on 02.02.1982. Balaraman had one son namely Palanivel.

2.2 Balaraman on his behalf as well as on behalf of his minor son had sold Item Nos.1 to 3 of the suit properties by registered Sale Deed dated 15.12.1981. Balaraman also sold Item





























































































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