1972 (5) TMI 60 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Validity of alienation of Plaint-Sch. IV properties by the widows.
2. Estoppel and election concerning the plaintiffs.
3. Nature of dedication of properties under Ex. A-2 (complete or partial).
4. Validity of alienation of properties set apart for charities.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of Alienation of Plaint-Sch. IV Properties by the Widows:

The court examined whether the alienation of the Plaint-Sch. IV properties by Palani Achi Ammal and Pichai Ammal was open to challenge. It was established that these widows had only a widow's estate in the properties left by their husband, and the impugned alienations were not effected to meet any necessity of the estate. Therefore, the alienations were prima facie not binding on the reversioners. However, it was emphasized that an alienation by a Hindu widow is only voidable and not void, allowing reversioners the choice to avoid or affirm the same. Both the trial court and the appellate court concluded that the plaintiffs could not avoid the alienations due to estoppel or election.

2. Estoppel and Election Concerning the Plaintiffs:

The third plaintiff was found to be clearly estopped from challenging the alienations. Despite the High Court's conclusion that the will put forward by the widows was not genuine, the third plaintiff entered into an agreement with the widows, obtaining some properties as the absolute owner and acknowledging their rights to the remaining properties, including those alienated to defendants 1 to 4. This agreement, Ex. B-5, was executed with full knowledge of the alienations, thereby estopping the third plaintiff from contesting their validity.

For plaintiffs 1 and 2, the trial court and the High Court held that they were estopped from challenging the alienations as they had elected to stand by Ex. B-2 after attaining majority. The plaintiffs' father, Vendor Shanmugam Pillai, had entered into an agreement (Ex. B-2) with the widows, securing immediate possession of properties for himself and his minor sons. Plaintiffs 1 and 2, upon reaching majority, continued to enjoy and alienate properties obtained under Ex. B-2, thereby ratifying the agreement and precluding themselves from challenging the alienations.

3. Nature of Dedication of Properties Under Ex. A-2 (Complete or Partial):

The court addressed the dispute regarding the properties set out in Sch. I of the plaint, specifically whether the dedication made under Ex. A-2 by Ramalingam Pillai was complete or partial. The trial court held that there was a complete dedication for charities, while the High Court could not reach a firm conclusion due to insufficient evidence. The High Court noted that the plaintiffs failed to provide acceptable evidence regarding the income of the properties set apart for charities. Consequently, it was determined that the dedication was only partial, meaning the properties retained their private character and the widows had a beneficial interest in them.

4. Validity of Alienation of Properties Set Apart for Charities:

Given the determination that the dedication was partial, the court concluded that the widows had a beneficial interest in the properties set apart for charities. The plaintiffs were precluded from questioning the validity of the alienations of these properties due to their previous actions and agreements. The court emphasized that equitable principles such as estoppel, election, and family settlement serve an important purpose in the administration of justice and should not be narrowly interpreted.

Conclusion:

The appeal was dismissed with costs, affirming the decisions of the trial court and the High Court that the plaintiffs were precluded from challenging the alienations of the properties in question.