Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. Ramaratnam, in his affidavit, in support of his caveat, impugns the will and contends that he is the foster son of the deceased Amaravathi Ammal and that on or about 7-4-1943, Ratnavelu Mudaliar, the husband of Amaravathi Ammal, entered into a contract with an Orphanage at Tanjore, in pursuance of which Ramaratnam, an orphan in the Orphanage, was allowed to be taken away by Ratnavelu Mudaliar and brought up by him and Amaravathi Ammal as their own son. In O. S. 1410 of 1968, on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras, Ramaratnam instituted a suit against Ratnavelu Mudaliar, Amaravathi Ammal and the Orphanage, in which he alleged that by virtue of the contract between the Orphanage and Ratnavelu Mudaliar, a trust had been created in respect of the properties of Ratnavelu Mudaliar in favour of Amaravathi Ammal on 27-7-19165 in breach of the said trust was void and not binding upon Ramaratnam. The contention of Ramaratnam is that he has thus a caveatable interest in the suit properties.

It would therefore follow that though Sundarammal's father predeceased Amaravathi Ammal, Sundarammal would, along with the sister of Amaravathi Ammal, be entitled to succeed to the estate of Amaravathi Ammal. As she has a direct interest in the estate of Amaravathi Ammal, I hold she is competent to participate in these proceedings, even assuming that the restricted interpretation of the expression "any interest in the estate of the deceased" is accepted.

12. As regards caveator Ramaratnam, he claims to be the foster son of Amaravathi Ammal and her husband Ratnavelu Mudaliar. As a foster son, no doubt, he would not be entitled to succeed to the estate of either of them. But even during the lifetime of Ratnavelu Mudaliar and Amaravathi Ammal he had instituted a suit in O. S. 1410 of 1968 on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras in which he claimed that Ratnavelu Mudaliar had entered into a contract with the orphanage, where by he agreed that Ramaratnam should become his heir and inherit his entire property. It is also the contention of Ramaratnam in O. S. 1410 of 1968 on the file of the City Civil Court, Madras, that by virtue of the Mudaliar had created a trust in his favour and that the settlement made by him subsequently in favour of Amaravathi Ammal was void inasmuch as it was in contravention of the trust.