Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: Vested remainder in Chebrolu Thayaramma (Deceased) And ... vs South India Educational Trust Rep. By ... on 3 September, 2007Matching Fragments
1. The suit is filed for delivery of vacant possession of plaint A schedule properties to the plaintiffs after removing the superstructure built thereon by the defendants and also for past and future mesne profits.
2. The averment in brief found in the plaint is as follows:
a) Plaintiffs 2 to 7 are the legal heirs of the deceased first plaintiff Chebrolu Thayaramma. The first defendant "South India Educational Trust" (for short "SIET") is a registered Educational Trust. The lands bearing R.S. No. 3799 and 3798/2 described as items 1 and 2 in schedule A to the plaint originally belonged to the first plaintiff's grandfather M. Narayanasamy Chetty. In and by a deed of family settlement dated 1.2.1937, a life interest in items 1 and 2 of the plaint A schedule properties was created in favour of the father of the first plaintiff M. Lakshmiah Chetty and the vested remainder was granted in favour of the first plaintiff. Atchanna Chetty, the elder brother of M. Lakshmiah Chetty was nominated as the Trustee of the suit properties for the benefit of the life estate holder under the said deed.
Whether the suit is maintainable in the absence of prayer to set aside the private sale dated 22.8.1949 and 30.11.1956 and the order for sale made on 31.5.1949 by this Court.
8. If the preliminary issue is decided in favour of the first defendant, the question of embarking upon an adjudication on the other issues will not survive for consideration. If the plaintiffs survive the lethal preliminary issue, then, the court is bound to decide the other issues framed in the suit.
9. As far as the preliminary issue is concerned, the plaintiff contends that the contingent right viz., vested remainder gets crystalised only on the death of her father in the year 1975. Therefore, the plaintiff who had not acquired any right of alienation by her father had not rightly filed any suit previously challenging the court auction sale and private sale of the property of the first plaintiff. Further, the alienation had been made by her father sans her consent and knowledge and therefore, such alienations made by her father are void and non-est. The alienations so made by her father did not extinguish her right to seek her claim to the suit property.
22. The deceased first plaintiff was given vested remainder of the first and second item of A schedule property under the family settlement deed, Ex.P1. Of course, the vested remainder blossoms only on the death of the life estate holder viz., Lakshmiah Chetty in the year 1975. The vested remainder contemplated under Ex.P1 was already knocked away through the court auction sale at the instance of his father Lakshmiah Chetty. She cannot wait till the death of the life estate holder to challenge the alienation made by her guardian as her right to challenge has already accrued even on the date of alienation of items 1 and 2 of A schedule property. Of course, she had been afflicted with the disability of minority at the time of the alienation of the properties by her natural guardian, but, such disability keeps her right to challenge the alienations alive only during the subsistence of such disability and three years which followed thereafter.
26. What is "vested interest" has been defined under Section 19 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Interest created in favour of a person on a transfer of property on the happening of an event becomes vested. Even if such a person for whose benefit, interest is created on a transfer of property was not living then, he acquires such vested interest immediately upon his birth although he may not be entitled to the enjoyment immediately on his birth. Here, in this case, though the life estate has been given to the father of the deceased first plaintiff, the right to the vested remainder conferred on her takes effect from her birth despite the fact that the life estate holder has the right to enjoy the property till his lifetime. The vested remainder of the property may come to the deceased first plaintiff only after the demise of her father, but, the right to such vested remainder of the first plaintiff is recognised even from the time of her birth. Therefore, the first plaintiff cannot slumber over the alienations made already by her father totally ignoring the very vested remainder conferred on her under Ex.P1 till the life estate holder passes away in the future.