T.R.M. Arunachellam Chetti vs V.R.R.M.A.R. Arunachellam Chetti And ... on 29 September, 1891
10. The next question is as to the nature of the interest possessed by Akkamma in that property. It is reasonably clear that that acquisition was made out of the income of the one-third, allotted to her originally on account of her maintenance, in which she had a life-interest. She was entitled to the beneficial enjoyment of the income during her life. That one-third share was not given to her on account of the share of her husband and was not inherited by her as the separate property of her husband. The income from the one-third share was absolutely hers and any purchase made out of that fund would also be absolutely at her disposal. It would be her stridhanam and descend as such on her death. That position is conclusively established by the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Subramanian Chetti v. Arunachelam Chetti 28 M. 1 and the same result follows from the decision of the Privy Council in the case reported as Musammat Bhagbutti Daee v. Chowdry Bholanath Thakoor 2 I.A. 256 : 1 C. 104 : 24 W.R. 168 : 3 gar. P.C.J. 528 : 3 Suth. P.C.J. 186. Assuming then that when acquired it was the stridhanam property of Akkamma, the further question is whether, she did anything with reference to that property so as to make it devolve not on her own heirs after her death as stridhanam property, but pass along with the one-third share in which she had only a life-estate. It was argued that by some conduct of hers, this property which was her stridhanam was incorporated with the one-third in which she had only a life-estate, i e., that by some conduct of hers her absolute interest in this property was cut down to a life-interest. Assuming that is possible without a transfer inter vivos or devise by Will, in this case there is really no evidence to show that she did anything to convert her absolute interest into a life-estate. The only evidence to which our attention was drawn is a statement in Exhibit XXI, the Will executed by Akkamma. In that, she says that the original one-third and the subsequently acquired one third were enjoyed as joint family property by Subba Reddi, his brother and his sons, and after the death of the two brothers the son of the last brother Kota Reddi became entitled to it and is enjoying it. That statement, however, is not true, and that incorrect recital could not in any way convert her absolute interest into a life-estate. Assuming that she was under a misapprehension and that is the utmost that we can read into that language as to the nature of the interest possessed by her at the time of the acquisition, that cannot cut down her absolute interest into a life-estate. I, therefore, think that nothing was done by her to convert this property into a life-estate so as to make it devolve on her death on the persons who would be entitled to the one-third allotted for her maintenance.