1939 (3) TMI 10 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues: Determination of whether a vested remainder conveyed by Lakshminarayana Rao's wife under a sale-deed passed to the first defendant.

Analysis:
The case involved a dispute regarding the conveyance of a vested remainder by Lakshminarayana Rao's wife, Bhramaramba, under a sale-deed to the first defendant. The property in question was bequeathed to Lakshminarayana Rao by Kanchamma, with a life interest granted to Lakshmi Narasamma. The will directed Lakshminarayana Rao to divide the property and enjoy one half, with the other half to be enjoyed by Lakshmi Narasamma during her lifetime. The court interpreted the will to mean that Lakshminarayana Rao possessed a vested interest in the property, capable of being alienated. In 1908, due to debts, Lakshminarayana Rao executed a power-of-attorney in favor of his wife, authorizing her to sell his movable and immovable property. The key question was whether the vested interest in the property was included in the authorization to convey immovable property. The court held that a vested remainder is immovable property, and Bhramaramba was authorized to sell all interests possessed by Lakshminarayana Rao. Therefore, the sale of the property to the first defendant was valid.

The court further analyzed the sale-deed and concluded that Bhramaramba intended to convey the entire interest in the property, excluding Lakshmi Narasamma's life interest. The court emphasized that when a property is conveyed, it should be construed in favor of the grantee, and all interests of the grantor are deemed to pass. Despite the lack of specific mention of the vested interest in the sale-deed, the court held that all interests possessed by Lakshminarayana Rao, including the vested interest in the half share, passed under the deed. The court dismissed the argument that only the half share was sold, emphasizing Bhramaramba's intention to convey all interests possessed by her husband.

Lastly, the court addressed the argument that Bhramaramba could not deliver possession of the half share belonging to Lakshmi Narasamma, indicating that the intention behind the conveyance was to transfer all interests possessed by Lakshminarayana Rao. The court held that the plaintiff had no standing to maintain the suit, and the appeal was allowed, dismissing the suit with costs against the plaintiff. Additionally, the plaintiff was directed to pay the necessary court fee to the government. The Letters Patent Appeal was also dismissed without costs.