Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

In order to examine the various contentions advanced at the hearing, it' is necessary to state in brief various events that took place prior to the institution of the suit. One Ramalingam Pillai was the owner of a substantial part of the suit properties. He had a brother by name Kuppan Pillai. Ramalingam Pillai's wife pre-deceased him. He had no children. Ramalingani Pillai and Kuppan Pillai had married sisters. Ramalingam Pillai in 1898 but Kuppan Pillai had pre-deceased him. He had died in 1894, leaving behind him his two daughters Palani Achi Ammal and Pichai Ammal. Kuppan Pillai's wife had also predeceased Ramalingam Pillai. Ramalingam Pillai had brought up his brother's daughters Palani Achi Ammal and Pichai Amnial as his foster daughters. Before his death, Ramalingam Pillai had got married Palani Achi Ammal to V. Rm. Shanmugham Pillai, his maternal uncle's son by his first wife. The said Shanmugam Pillai was associated with Ramalingam Pillai in his business. Du September 29, 1898 Ramalingam Pillai executed a settlement deed (Ex. A-2) settling his properties principally on Palani Achi Ammal, Pichai Ammal and Shanmugam Pillai Under that dead, he gave some properties to his deceased wife's sister's son, Subramania Pillai. Subramania Pillai was the son of Chitravadavammal, sister of the wives of Ramalingam Pillai and Kuppan Pillai. Under Ex. A-2 Plaint-Sch. I properties except item No. 4. were set apart for charities which Ramalingam Pillai was carrying on. Under that document Shanmugam Pillai was declared "Huqdars" of the afore mentioned Annadhana charity. The Huqdarship was to be hereditary in the family of Shammugam Pillai. Ramalingam died very soon after executing Ex. A-2. After the-death of Ramalingam Pillai, Shanmugam Pillai took as his second wife Pichai Ammal, the sister of his first wife Palani Achi Ammal. While managing the Annadhana Charities, Shanmugam Pillai acquired ' item No. 4 of Sch. T. and treated that property as that of the Charity. Shanmugam Pillai had no issues. He had executed a will on December 19, 1926. It was a registered will. That will be revoked on December 29, 1926. He died on December 31, 1926. After his death, his widows put forward another will said to have been executed by him on December 30, 1926 under which substantial bequests were made to Shanmugam Pillai known as Vendor Shanmugam Pillai, the step brother of V. Rm. Shamnugam Pillai as well as to his step sisters Irulammai and her husband Subramania Pillai.

Shortly after the execution of Ex. B-2, the senior widow Palani Achi Ammal filed a suit for partition of the properties mentioned in Ex. B-2. That suit was decreed. Thereafter on July 20, 1931, the senior widow settled the properties that she got as her share under the partition decree Ex. B-3 on Kanthimathimatha Pillai, his wife Pichai Ammal and their minor daughters as per the registered settlement deed Ex. B-3. This Pichai Ammal is the daughter of Subramania Pillai son of the original settlor's wife's sister Chitravadamal. The two widows Palani Achi Ammal and Pichai Ammal had brought up Pichai Ammal daughter of Subramania Pillai as their foster daughter and had got her married to the aforesaid Kanthimathinatha Pillai. The settlement proceeds on the basis that Palani Achi Ammal is absolutely entitled to the properties settled. Thereafter the junior widow Pichal Ammal settled the properties that she got under the partition decree in favour of Palani Pillai, the 4th defendant in the suit, as per the registered settlement deed Ex. B-4 dated December 20, 1937. Palani Pillai is the son of Kanthimathinatha Pillai. He is referred to in the settlement deed as the second son of the foster daughter of the widows, Pichal Ammal. After the execution of Ex. B-2, Sankaralingam Pillai, brother of Vendor Shanmugam Pillai who was not a party to Ex. B-2 filed a suit for declaration that the alleged will dated December 30. 1926 is a forged document. The suit was decreed. The trial court held the will put forward to be a forgery. Palani Achi Ammal and Pichai Ammal were defendants in that suit. The defendants appealed against the decision of the trial court. When the matter was pending in appeal in the High Court Sankara- lingam Pillai died. Thereafter the third plaintiff who was his adopted son was brought on record as the legal representative of Sankaralingam Pillai. He was represented by his guardian Meenakshi Ammal. That appeal was dismissed. The High Court came to the conclusion that on the evidence on record, it was not satisfied about the genuineness of the will. The present third plaintiff became major in 1938. Even after obtaining a decree in his favour in the will suit, the third plaintiff entered into an agreement with the two widows on October 27, 1938 (Ex. B-5). Under this deed he took substantial properties and acknowledged the absolute right of the widows as regards the other properties detailed therein. It may be noted that by the time Ex. B 5 came to. be executed alienations in favour of Defendants 1 to 4 had already taken place. Under Ex. B-5, the third plaintiff also acknowledged the right of those defendants who were also parties to that deed, to the properties settled on them. Further under that document the third plaintiff acknowledged the right of the two widows and defendants 1 to 4 to manage the properties set apart for charities. We have earlier mentioned that at the time Ex. B-2 was executed, plaintiffs 1 to 2 were minors. As seen earlier, the father of the plaintiffs had secured for himself and for is sons several items of properties under that agreement. The first plain tiff became major on January 10, 1931 Thereafter he, on his own behalf and as the guardian of his minor brother joined his aunt, Irulammal in partitioning the properties jointly obtained by them under Ex. B-2. Ex. B- 10 dated October 11, 1931 is a settlement deed executed by the first plaintiff for himself-and as the guardian of his brother, the second plaintiff settling some of the properties obtained under Ex. B-2 on their sister. The second plaintiff after becoming a major joined with the first plaintiff in conveying an item of property secured under Ex. B-2 in favour of one Subbiah Konar (Ex. B-11). Plaintiffs 1 and 2 effected various alienations under Ex. B-12, B-15 and B-16 to B-42 of the properties obtained by them under Ex. B-2. All these transactions proceeded on the basis that the arrangement entered into under B-2 as was valid one. Those transactions show that plaintiffs 1 and 2 ratified the arrangement made under Ex. B-2. The third plaintiff in his turn alienated several items of the property obtained by him under Ex. B-5. On October 16, 1939, he sold some portions of that property under Ex. B-34 for Rs. 4,000/-. Again under Ex. B-36, he sold some other items on July 13, 1953 for a sum of Rs. 25,000/-. He also effected certain exchanges under Ex. B-34 and B-35., All these transactions proceeded on the basis that the arrangement made under Ex. B-5 was a valid one. Having set out the course of events, we shall now examine whether it is open to the plaintiffs to challenge the alienations effected in favour of D-1 to D-4. We shall first take up the question whether the alienation of the Plaint-Sch. IV properties by Palani Achi Ammal and Pichai Ammal is open to challenge. There is now no dispute that these two widows had only widows' estate in the properties left by their husband. The impugned alienations were not effected to meet any necessity of the estate of the deceased last male holder. Hence prima facie, the impugned alienations, are not binding on the reversioners. But it is now well settled that an alienation by a Hindu widow is only void-able and not void. The reversioners may or may not choose to avoid the same,-see Ramgouda Annagouda and ors. v. Bhausaheb and ors. (1) and T. V. R. Subbu Chetty's Family Charities v. M. Raghava Mudaliar and ors(2). Both the trial court as well as the appellate court have come to the conclusion that the plaintiffs are not entitled to avoid the alienations in question either on the ground of estoppel or election.

failed to establish the same, for the purpose of this case, we have to proceed on the basis that the dedication was only partial and the properties retained the character of private properties. Therefore the, widows of V. Rm. Shanmugam Pillai had a beneficial interest in those properties see Kalipada Chakraborti and anr. v. Palani Bala Devi and ors(1). As seen earlier they had alienated their interest in those properties. For the reasons already mentioned, the plaintiffs are precluded from questioning the validity of those alienations. It is not open now to them to contend that the alienations in question are invalid. It is not necessary for as to decide in this case whether their successors can challenge those alienations. Suffice it to say that the plaintiffs are precluded from challenging those alienations.