CHOCKALINGA SETHURAYAR & ORS. versus ARUMANAYAKAM

Citation: [1969] 1 S.C.R. 874 · Decided: 28-08-1968 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.M. SIKRI · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

• . 814 
€HOCKALINGA SETHURA YAR & ORS. 
' 
. 
·v. 
ARUMANAYAKAM 
August 28, 1968 
[S. M. S!KRI, R. S. BACHAWAT AND K. S. HEGDE, JJ.J 
Hindu Law Inheritance Amendment Act (2 of 1929) Succession to 
trusteeship. 
\ 
HindU Law-Will-Vamsathar-Scope. 
A Hindu governed by the Mitakshara law died leaving behind hls wife 
K and a foster son D. 
He had executed a will constituting a 
private 
trllst. 
Under the will, K and D were constituted as trustees after the 
testator's death and after the death of K 
and D the sons of D 
were 
to be trustees, and in their ·absence the 'Vamsathar' of D were to the 
trustees. 
D predeceased It. After K's death R became the trustee. 
R 
died issuele.ss, and the respondent (whO was the 'Sister of R) claimed the 
trusteeship; on the othor hand the appellants (who we're the grand-sons of 
paternal uncle of R) pressed their claim for trustee"ship on the ground 
that they belonged to the 'vamsa' of R. The trial court •accepted the appel-
lant's claim, but in appeal the High Court held that the trusteCllhip devolv-
ed on the respondent. Dismissing the appeal, this Court; 
HELD : The respondent was entitled to succeed to the trusteeship 
previously held by her brother R. 
A 
B: 
c 
D 
A true reading of the will, shows that the testator had prescribed a line 
, E 
of succession for !he devolution of the trusteeship only upto a point and 
not beyond it. 
According to the will after the death of the testator his 
wife and foster son were to be the trustees and after their life.time the 
sons of D, if any., should succeed to the trusteeship aad in their absence 
the 'vamsathar' of D should ·lake over the lrusteeship. The direction con-
tained in the will as' to the line of succession. ex:hausted itself as soon as 
R became the trustee. He remained as the trustee till hls death. 
There-
fore there was no question of the 'vamsathar' of R succeeding to the 
.F 
trusteeship. 
As soon as R~ took over the trusteeship, the mode of succes-
sion presCribcd in the will came to an end. 
R became a fresh stock of 
desce!1t. 
Thereafter the succession "'.'as, regulated by the ordinary rule 
df Mital;shara law. [877 G-878 BJ 
Under the Hindu Law Inheritance Amendment Act, 1929 (2 of 1929), 
the sister is given a higher pl~ce i.n the line of succession than what she 
had under the customary law in respect of properties of her brother not 
G 
held by him in coparcenary and not disposed of by him by wiJI. In view 
of that Act, as regards the individual properties of D, the respondent was a 
nearer heir than the appellants. 
Even if the expression 'property~ used in 
Act 2 of 1929 docs not include a trusteeship right, still it is a well establish-
ed proposition of law that succession to trusteeship similar to the one in 
this case is governed by the ordinary rules of inheritance under the Hindu 
Jaw. 
Act 2 of 1929 has amended the general •Jaw of inheritance in certain 
respects and the same alteration must be recognised in regard to succession 
H 
to trusteeship as well. [877 C-D; 878 DJ 
S'ethuramaswcmiar v. Merus'!-vamiar, L.R. 45 I.A. 1, applied. 
• 
/ 
•
CHOCKALINGA V, ARUMANAYAKAM (Hegde, l.) . 
875 
A 
Ramanathan Chetty v. Murugappa Chetzy, I.L.R. 27 Mad. 192 and 
Angurbala Mullick v. Debabrata Mullick, [1951] S.C.R, 1125, followed. 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 1162 
of 1965. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated 
B 
November 3, 1959 of the Madras High Court in Appeal No. 276 
c 
. D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
of 1955. -
G. L. Sanghi for the appellants. 
R. Thiagarajan, for the respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Hegde, J. 
This appeal by certificate is directed against the 
decision of the High Court of Madras in A.S. No. 276 of 1955. 
The question that arises for decision herein is whether the appel-
lants or the respondent should be held to be the trustees of the 
suit trust. 
The Trial Court upheld the claim of the appellants 
whereas the High Court in appeal came to the conclusion that 
the trusteeship has devolved on .the respondent . 
For the purpose of deciding the controversy' before us it is 
not necessary to refer to the various facts that were placed be-
fore the Trial Court or the High Court. The facts material for 
our present purpose are these : 
One Rangayya Sethurayar (who will hereinafter be referred 
to as ltangayya I) was a well to do person. He died in the year 
i 886 leaving behind him his wife Karuthammal. 
He had no 
issues but he was bri

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.