1964 (4) TMI 139 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Construction of Ranganathan Chettiar's will.
2. Validity of the settlement deed, Ex. B. 17.
3. Genuineness of the will, Ex. B. 61.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Construction of Ranganathan Chettiar's Will:

The primary issue was whether Bagirathi, the widow of Ranganathan Chettiar, obtained an absolute estate or merely a life estate under her husband's will. The will bequeathed properties to Bagirathi, with specific instructions for different properties. The court noted a significant distinction between the house situated to the west and other properties. The will allowed Bagirathi to enjoy the properties throughout her life and left it to her discretion to dedicate them to any charity. However, the western house was to be enjoyed by her for her lifetime, after which she was to gift it to one of Chakrapani Chettiar's sons. The court concluded that the testator intended different estates for the two sets of properties. For the properties other than the western house, there were no words indicating a mere life estate, and the language used suggested an absolute estate. The court found no trust or power of appointment in favor of charity, thus affirming an absolute estate for Bagirathi for these properties. However, the western house had a mandatory direction for its disposition, indicating a life estate for Bagirathi and a remainder to one of Chakrapani Chettiar's sons. Therefore, the plaintiffs were entitled to recover possession of the western house.

2. Validity of the Settlement Deed, Ex. B. 17:

The plaintiffs contended that the settlement deed executed by Bagirathi in favor of her cousin brother Sivaprakasa was sham and nominal. Despite a recital in a subsequent conveyance suggesting the settlement deed was nominal, the court found ample evidence, including lease deeds and other transactions, indicating that the settlement deed was intended to be operative. The court upheld the Subordinate Judge's finding that the settlement deed was valid and operative.

3. Genuineness of the Will, Ex. B. 61:

The plaintiffs challenged the genuineness of the will executed by Bagirathi in favor of Sivaprakasa. The court examined the circumstances surrounding the will's execution, including the testatrix's capacity, the relationship between the parties, and the naturalness of the disposition. Despite the non-registration of the will and certain adverse circumstances, the court found that the will was genuine and duly executed. The evidence of attesting witnesses and the absence of any compelling reason to doubt the will's authenticity led the court to uphold its validity. The will conveyed all of Bagirathi's properties to Sivaprakasa, except the western house, which was decreed in favor of the plaintiffs.

Conclusion:

The appeal was partly allowed. The plaintiffs were entitled to recover possession of the western house, while the rest of the properties were validly bequeathed to Sivaprakasa under the will, Ex. B. 61. The settlement deed, Ex. B. 17, was also upheld as valid and operative. The appeal was dismissed in other respects, with costs awarded against the plaintiffs.