LexLAKSHMANA NADAR AND OTHERS versus R. RAMIER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
19.53 Bn.sir-ul-Huq and Others v. The State of lV eNt Ben.gal. . 11'1ohajan J. 19.53 April 14. 848 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1953] offence under section 297 could be said to have been made out. This point, in our opinion, "is not open at this stage, it having been held that all the ingredients of the offence had been established on the record. Even otherwise there is no substance in the contention because the prosecution evidence is sufficient to hold the offence proved against all the appellants . For the reasons given above we hold that there is no substance in these appeals and they are accordingly dismissed. Appeals dismissed. Agent for the appellants: Sukumar Ghose. Agent for the respondent: P. K. Bose. Agent for the complainant: 8. C. Bannerjee. LAKSHMANA NADAR AND OTHERS v. R. RAMIER. [MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN and S. R. DAS JJ.] Hindu law-Will--Beqiwst to wife for her lifetime and to daitghter absolutely after wife's lifetime-Estate taken by wife- TVhether ordinary life estate or Hindn widow's estate-Danghter's estate-Whether vested-Death of daitghter be/ore widow, effect of -Constrnction of Hindn will-Gnidina principles. A Hindu Brahmin governed by the l'IIitakshara law made a \vill in \vhich he gave the following directions: "After my life. time, you, the aforesaid Rauganayaki Ammal, my wife, shall till your lifetime enjoy the aforesaid entire properties ... After your lifetime, Ramalakshmi Ammal, our daughter and her heirs shall enjoy them with absolute rights and powers of alie.nation such as gift, exchange and sale from son to grandson and so on for gener- ations. As regards the payment of maintenance to be made to 0, wife of iny late son, H, my wife Ranganayaki Ammal shall pay the same as she pleases and obtain a release deed." After the death of the testatol' his \vife entered into possession of his pro- perties bnt Lefore the r1eath of his wifo, his daughter and all her children died: Held, (i) that on a proper constrndion of the will in the light of surrounding circumstances, the testator had conferred on bis I ~1 I I I • S.C.R. Sl:PREME COURT REPORTS 849 v-i·ife only an or<linary life estate, and alien'.ttions made by her would not endnre·beyond her lifeti1ne : (ii) that tlie testator's <laughter obtained under the will a vested interest in the properties after the lifetime of the widovt, to which her husband succeeded on her death. The rule of const!·uction by analogy is a dangerous one to follow in construing 'i\rills differently \\rorded 1 and executed in different surroundings. Ram Bahadur v. Jaoer Nath Prasad (3 Pat. L .. J. 199), Pavani Subbamma v. Ammala Rama Naida ([!937] l :II.L.J. 2GS), Natlrn Rain j\fohajan v. Ganqa, Bai ([1938] 2 M.L.J. 562), Vasantn Rao Ammennarnrna v. Venkata Kodanda Rao ([1940] I )'f.L,,T.188), Jlaha- raja of Kolhapur v. Sundarmn Iyer (I.L.R. 48 :Vlad. 1), Maha-med Shni11,sool '" Shewakram (2 I.A. 7), Rotna Chetty v. Nara.11anr;swami Chetty (26 :11.L .. J. 616), Mst. Bhaowati Devi v. Chowdry Bholona.t/1 Thttkur (2 !..\. 256) and L•zllu v. Jagmohan (LL.R. 22 Born. 409) re£errecl to. Jnclgment oft.he }fadras High Court affirmed. C1vrL APPELLATE JuRISDIC1'ION; Civil Appeal No. 95 of 1952. Appeal from the judgment and decree dated the 27th February, 1950, of the High Court of Judicature at Madras (Rao and Ayyar ,JJ.) in Appeal No. 635 of 194G arising out of judgment and decree dated the 13th August, 1946, of the Court of the Sub- ordinate Judge of Tinnevelly in Original Suit No. 50 of 1945. K. S. Krishnaswarny Iyengar (S. Rarnachandra Iyer, with him) for the appell::mts. K. Ra;jah Iyer (R. Ganapathy Iyer, with him) for the respondent. 1953. April 14. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by ~lAHAJAN J.-One Lakshminarayana Iyer, a Hindu Brahmin, who owned considerable properties in the Tirunclveli district, died on 13th December, 1924, leaving him surviving a widow Ranganayaki, and a married daughter Ramalakshmi. Ramalakshmi had married the plaintiff and had a number of children from him. They were all alive in December, 1924, when Lakshminarayana died, Before his death he . JlU - 195,J Lakshntana. Nadar and Olh61's v. R. Ramier 1953 Lakshmana Nadar on.d Otl1erB ,._ R. Rrunh~ Jfahaja11 J. 850 SUPREME COUHT REPORTS [1953] executed a will on 16th November, HJ24, the construc- tion of which is in controversy in this appeal. By this will he gave the following directions:
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.