9911796707
TMI Blog1943 (9) TMI 9X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e said to aggregate in value ₹ 24,00,000. He married three times. By his first wife, who predeceased him, he had a son and three daughters. The son also predeceased him. The daughters are alive and have married. His second and third wives survived him. There was no issue of the second marriage and by the third wife he had a daughter, who died during the pendency of the administration suit. His son married Umayal Achi, the plaintiff in the administration suit. There was no issue of this marriage. 3. By his will the testator nominated as his executors AR.SM.A. Sundaresan Chettiar (a cousin) and CT.L.RM. Arunachalam Chettiar (a son-in-law). He directed that his widows should each adopt a son and that the plaintiff should do likewise. Only boys approved of by the executors were to be adopted. The testator directed that certain legacies should be paid. The legacies were substantial in amount but they absorbed comparatively little of the estate. He indicated that the trusts should devolve upon his heirs, and after making other provisions to which reference is not necessary he gave these directions: As soon as each of the adopted sons becomes a major as stated above they shall ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... valid; that the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act, 1937 and the amending Act of 1938 (Act 11 of 1938) were ultra vires the Indian Legislature; and that she, as the senior widow was entitled to inherit the full estate and have the management of the trust properties. In her written statement defendant 2 supported the will, but averred that in the event of the Court holding it to be invalid she and defendant l were entitled to share the inheritance. She denied any right in the plaintiff for the same reason as defendant 1 had advanced, namely, that the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act, 1937 and the amending Act of 1938 were ultra vires the Indian Legislature. Inferentially she denied that there was any intestacy. Defendants 3 and 4 maintained that the testator was in a sound state of mind when he executed the will and denied that they had exerted any undue influence. They averred that the will was valid and that it disposed of the whole of the testator's estate. They claimed that they were bound to administer the estate and accumulate the income for the benefit of the boys to be adopted in accordance with the directions given in the will. The pleadings contain other ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7, was intra vires the Legislature; (v) by reason of that Act the plaintiff was an heir and was entitled to a half of the residue of the personal estate of the deceased; (vi) the testator's widows were entitled to the other half in equal shares; (vii) the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act, 1937, did not make the plaintiff an heir so far as the trust properties were concerned; (viii) the testator's widows alone could claim the right to possession and management of the trust properties; (ix) the estate was of such magnitude that it would be dangerous to entrust the assets to the plaintiff and defendants l and 2 without safeguards and it was desirable that the properties should be left in charge of an officer or officers of the Court until safeguards had been furnished; and (x) the receivers already appointed should continue to act pending the passing of the final decree. 9. Appeal No. 321 of 1940 has been filed by the plaintiff; Appeal No. 3 of 1941 by defendant l; Appeal No. 104 of 1941 by defendants 3 and 4 and Appeal No. 239 of 1941 by defendant 2. The plaintiff says that the Subordinate Judge erred in not giving her a share in the management of the trust propert ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... share. Should it transpire that she is dissipating moneys which have come to her and is thereby defeating the reversioner he can ask the Court to insist on security being furnished, but such a position could only arise after partition. An unlawful alienation of immovable property does not affect the reversioner's rights. He is entitled to gain possession of it when the estate falls in. The same principles apply to the trust properties. Either the heirs or the executors are entitled to be placed in possession of them as soon as it is conveniently possible. Therefore the directions given by the Subordinate Judge in this connexion must be set aside. 11. The questions which remain for decision in the appeals from the preliminary decree passed in the administration suit are these : (1) Is the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act, 1937, intra vires the Legislature? (2) If it is, what rights does it confer upon the plaintiff? and (3) Who are entitled to possession and management of the trust properties? 12. After the Subordinate Judge had delivered his judgment the Federal Court considered the validity of the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act, 1937, on a reference mad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Act because the testator was joint with his father and what he died possessed of was property which had come to him as the surviving member of the joint family. It is said that the Act only applies to property which a person has acquired otherwise than by survivorship. We are not prepared to interpret the Act in this restricted sense. It was placed on the statute book in order to give a widow and a predeceased son's widow a share in the estate of the deceased over which he had a disposing power. In our opinion the insertion of Section 5 puts this beyond doubt. The testator had full disposing power over all the properties of which he died possessed except with regard to the trust properties and Mr. T. R. Venkatarama Sastriar who has appeared for defendant l and whose arguments have been adopted by Mr. N. Raja-gopala Iyengar on behalf of defendant 2, has conceded this. We hold that the personal estate of the testator constituted his separate property within the meaning of the Act. 14. With regard to the trust properties the position is different. In no sense can they be regarded as the separate property of the testator. In Bhabatarini Debi v. Ashalata Debi ('43) 30 A.I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction to be put on general words used in an English Act of Parliament is, that Parliament was dealing only with such persons or things as are within the general words and also within its proper jurisdiction and that we ought to assume that Parliament (unless it expressly declares otherwise) when it uses general words is only dealing with persons or things over which it has properly jurisdiction. It has been argued that that is so only when Parliament is regulating the person or thing which is mentioned in the general words. But it seems to me that our Parliament ought not to deal in any way, either by regulation or otherwise, directly or indirectly, with any foreign person or thing which is outside its jurisdiction, and, unless it does so in express terms so clear that their meaning is beyond doubt, the Courts ought always to construe general words as applying only to persons or things which will answer the description and which are also within the jurisdiction of Parliament. In this case there is more than a presumption that in placing the Hindu Women's Eights to Property Act on the statute book the Indian Legislature intended to legislate only with regard to properties wit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be the trustees hereditarily . Exhibit 4 is dated 31st July 1926. It would appear to apply to trusts created before the testator's time. It states that, for the proper conduct of the above charities we shall during our lifetime be the trustees and then our heirs, and, after their lifetime their heirs shall be trustees, hereditarily and manage the same maintaining proper account therefor. Exhibit 5 is a deed of a similar nature and contains the same provision. 18. As in England the law in this country is that where a trustee is the sole or surviving trustee the estate descends to his personal representative unless the deed of foundation otherwise provides. Therefore all the trusts of which the testator was the trustee devolved upon his personal representatives. The executors say that they are his personal representatives by reason of S, 211, Indian Succession Act, 1925, and this is true, but this does not mean that they are entitled in law to retain possession of the trust properties. These properties devolve on the testator's heirs, who are here his widows and the duty of the executors, had receivers not been appointed, would have been to deliver them to the widows. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
