PALANIVELAYUTHAM PILLAI AND ORS. versus RAMACHANDRAN AND ORS.

Citation: [2000] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 1 · Decided: 09-05-2000 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. MAJMUDAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

PALANIVELA YUTHAM PILLAI AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
RAMACHANDRAN AND ORS. 
MAY 9, 2000 
[S.B. MAJMUDAR AND U.C. BANERJEE, JJ.] 
B 
Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments-Original Sett/or granted 
management rights to his widow and she entrusted all responsibilities to A 
through a General Power of Attorney and later on also appointed him C 
successor-trustee-Scheme of administration prepared by the Board of 
Commissioner for Hindu Religious Endowments in 1945-A executed two 
wills on same day; (i) bequeathing management rights upon his son-in-law 
B (ii) bequeathing his personal properties to his sons-Trial Court held, in 
the partition suit filed regarding properties of A, that properties for which 
management rights were bequeathed could not be partitioned as they were D 
subject matter of Katta/ai grant and that the first will was valid and legal-
High Court affirmed findings-On appeal Held, the first will was not executed 
, 
in suspicious circumstances and A was in sound disposing state of mind as 
he had made another will favouring his own sons on the same day as regards 
his personal properties-Original sett/or did not pass on a life estate or a E 
widow's estate to his widow and did not intend to pass on any rights to his 
heirs of lineal descendants, therefore she had every right to select A in her 
place-A also had every right to will away the said trusteeship inf avour of 
B, who although a stranger, was found competent-First will was not 
unauthorised or illegal as a limited right to manage properties was 
transmitted to 8-Scheme of administration prepared in 1945, although not F 
highlighted before the Trial Court and High Court, binding upon A and after 
him B and even aey other person who is further entrusted with the management · 
rights-Madras Hindu Religious Endowment Act, 1926-Section 57. 
The original settlor, under a Gift Deed, entrusted right of management 
of property of a temple under a kattalai grant to his second wife along with G 
the responsibilities of carrying out charitable work on behalf of the deity. 
She executed a general power of attorney in favour of A in 1922 entrusting 
him all responsibilities. She, later on in 1924, executed a will and appointed 
him a successor-trustee in the said property. He carried out his 
responsibilities as a power of attorney holder before her death and that of a H 
I 
2 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2000] SUPP. I S.C.R. 
A successor-trustee after her death in 1950. The Board of Commissioner for 
Hindu Religious Endowments in 1945, settled a scheme of administration 
under Section 57 of the Madras Hindu Religious Endowments Act. 
In 1955, A executed two wills on the same day, (i) bequeathing the 
management and trusteeship rights to B, his son-in-law (ii) bequeathing his 
B personal properties to his sons. The properties of A were sought to be 
partitioned in the original partition suit. It was contended before Trial Court 
that the first will was illegal and inoperative as right of management could 
not have been given by A to a stnmger ignoring his own sons. It was held that 
as the properties were subject matter of a Kattalai grant, they could not be 
C partitioned, and that the contents of the first will were legal and valid. High 
Court affirmed these findings in appeal. Hence this appeal. 
Appellants contended that t.he first Will had been executed in suspicious 
circumstances as A was not in good health; that the will was not legally proved 
as the attesting witnesses were not examined in proof thereof, that the right 
D of management could not have been given to a stranger; that the original 
settlor had only created a life interest on widow's estate in favour of his second 
wife and as she had no issues or legal heirs, the right of management would 
revert to the reversioners being :the lineal descendants of the original settlor 
after her death; that A could continue in management as a reversioner but 
could not have willed the said right in favour of a stranger; and that the scheme 
E prepared by the Board of Commissioner for Hindu Charitable Endowments, 
in 1945, had not been complied with by B. 
Respondents contended that the will had not been executed in suspicious 
circumstances; that the second will regarding personal properties was 
F executed in favour of the appe,llants on the same day, which proved his 
testamentary capacity; that the second wife of the original settlor was 
entrusted with all absolute right of management and trusteeship and sam

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