Lex1. R. MUTHAMMAL (DIED) 2. PARAMESW ARI THAYAMMAL versus SRI SUBRAMANIASWAMI DEVASTHANAM, TIRUCHENDUR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
• • S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 1. R. MUTHAMMAL (Died) 2. PARAMESW ARI THAYAMMAL v. 729 SRI SUBRAMANIASW AMI DEVASTHANAM, TIRUCHENDUR 1960 J,l. M uthammaZ (Died) Parameswari Thayammal v. (S. K. DAS A. K. SARKAR and M. HrnAYATULLAH JJ). Subramaniaswami ' · ' Devasthanam Hindu Law-Exclusion from inheritance-Litnacy, if must be congenital. A Hindu was found to be a lunatic when succession opened. It was claimed that under the texts lunacy must be congenital to exclude from inheritance. Held, under the Hindu law lunacy as distinct from idiocy need not be congenital to exclude from inheritance, if it existed when succession opened. Muthusami v. Meenammal. (1920) I.L.R. Mad. 464, Wooma Parshad Roy v. Grish Chunker Prochundo, (1884) I.L.R. IO Cal. 639 and Deo Kishen v. Budh Prakash, (1883) I.L.R. 5 All. 5oq (F.B.) approved. Murarji Gokuldas v. Parvatibai, (1876) I.L.R. l Born. 177 and Sanku v. Puttamma, (1891) I.L.R. 14 Mad. 289,_disapproved. CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION: Civil, Appeal No. 20.0 of 1955. Appeal from the judgment and decree dated Janu- ary 20, 1943, of the Madras High Court in A. S. No. 392 of 1943, arising out of the judgment and decree dated March 30, 1943, of the Sub Judge, Tuticorin in 0. S. No. 34 of 1939 . S. V. Venugopalachariar an\} S. K. Aiyangar, for the appellant No. 2. A. V. Viswanatha Sastri, R. Ganapathy Iyer and G. Gopalakrishna, for respondent No. 1. 1960. January J.1. The judgment of the Court was delivered by HIDAYATULLAH J.-This appeal has been filed on Hidayatul/ah J. leave granted by the High Court of Madras against its judgment and decree dated January 20, 1947, by which the decree of the Subordinate Judge, Tuticorin, dated March 30, 194:3, was substantially modified . .., 93 730 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1960 (2)] r960 Before the application for leave to appeal to the R. Muthammal Judicial Committee .could be filed, the first defendant (Died) (Ramasami Pillai) died, and the applic:.tion for leave Parnmeswa.i was filed by his widow, R. Muthammal, who was the Thayammal fourth defendant in the suit. R. Muthammal also died v. . . soon afterwards, and her place was taken by Parames- subrama niaswam• . Th l (h d l b f R · D th am wari ayamma er aug 1ter orn o amasam1 '"~" Pillai), who was the fifth defendant in this case. Along Hidayatullah ]. with these three defendants, the other members of Ramasami Pilfa,i's family were also joined as defend- ants. The suit was filed by Sri Subramaniaswami Devasthanam, Tiruchendur (hereinafter called for brevity, the Devasthanam), and the Devasthanam is the only contesting respondent in this Court. One Poosa Pichai Pillai had five sons and three daughters, of whom Meenakshisundaram Pillai died on May 21, 1919. Before his death Meenakshi- sundaram Pillai executed a registered will on .May 20, 1919, and a registered codicil on May 21, 19'9. By these documents, he left his entire property to his only son, M. Picha Pillai, with the condition that should he die without issue, the property was to go to the Devasthanam . . M. Picha Pillai died a bachelor on December 10, 1927. Three claimants claimed the property after his death. The first naturally was the Devasthanam claiming under the gift over to it. The other two were tho heirs of M. Picha Pillai, who asserted that the gift over was void, and Meenakshisundaram's wife's brother and sister, Arunachala Irungol Pillai and N.S. Muthammal (third defendant), respectively, who claimed under an alleged will of M. Picha Pillai. The heirs of M. Picha Pillai were defendants 7, 8, 10, 13 and 14, the father of defendants 9, and the first defendant. These claimants denied the claim of the Devasthanam, contended that the will and the codicil above mentioned gave an absolute estate to M. Picha Pillai, and that the gift over to the Devasthanam was, therefore, void. The Devasthanam filed O.S.No. 57 of 1932 for declaration and possession of the proper- ties covered by the will, together with other reliefs. During the pendency of the suit, the heirs of M. Picha • - - - - - • S.C.R. SUPREME COURT REPORTS 73I Pillai and the present defendants 15 and 16 (two of I96° the three sons of Arunachala Irungol Pillai) assigned R. Muthammal their interest in favour of the Devasthanam. The (Died) result of the suit, therefore, was that a decree in favour Parameswari of the Devasthanam was passed in regard to the Thay
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.