9911796707
TMI Blog1939 (3) TMI 10X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it property. She made a will in 1899 in and by which she bequeathed all the properties she was possessed of, including the suit property, to the said Lakshminarayana Rao who was her brother's son and to one Lakshmi Narasamma, her widowed daughter. By her will she directed Lakshminarayana Rao to divide the movable and immovable property which she was possessed of into two shares and to enjoy one half share, the other half share to be enjoyed during her lifetime by Lakshmi Narasamma. The said Kanchamma further directed that after the death of Lakshmi Narasamma, Lakshminarayana Rao should take possession of the property in which Lakshmi Narasamma had a life interest. As we construe this will, the entire property was given over to Lakshmina ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l all that interest which Lakshminarayana Rao possessed in the suit property on the date of the power-of-attorney. Acting under this power on 28th October, 1908, she sold the suit property to the first defendant for valuable consideration. The question is, as we have said, whether the vested interest which Lakshminarayana Rao possessed in the half share which Lakshmi Narasamma enjoyed during her lifetime passed under the sale-deed. If we come to the conclusion that it passed, the plaintiff has no locus standi to maintain the suit and his suit is liable to be dismissed. What was conveyed under the sale-deed was three vrittis of land enclosed within particular boundaries. The suit land was sold with all rights. On a proper construction of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... session of the land which she was conveying, that she could not obviously have delivered possession of the half share to which Lakshmi Narasamma was entitled and that this shows that what was sold was only the half share of Lakshminarayana Rao. But the sale-deed makes it clear that she purported to convey not only the entirety of the interest possessed by Lakshminarayana Rao but also to deliver possession of the entirety of the interest. Whether she was right in law in doing so is not the question. What was her intention in conveying the property? There is no doubt that she intended to convey all the interest which her husband possessed on the date of the sale-deed. In this view the plaintiff has no locus standi to maintain the suit. The ap ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
