YELAMANCHILI SIVA PANCHAKSHAMMA GODAVARU versus YALAMANCHILI CHEVA ABHAYI AND ORS.

Citation: [1966] 3 S.C.R. 446 · Decided: 04-02-1966 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P.B. GAJENDRAGADKAR · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

\'ELAMANCHILI SIVA PANCHAKSHAMMA GODAVARU 
v. 
YALAMANCHILI CHEVA ABHAYI AND ORS. 
February 4, 1966. 
(P. B. GAJENDRAGADKAR, C. ]. , K. N. WANCHOO, J.C. SHAH 
B 
S. M. SllCRI AND V. RAMASWAMI, JJ.] 
Will--<:onstructlon 
o/-Prop<rty 
whether could 
be 
claimed as 
~ 
doaignata In terms of the will. 
The reopondent filed a plaint claiming properties mentioned in Sche-
dules A and B thereof on the ground that he was adopted by the appellant 
who was widow of L. Apart from adoption 
the respondent•• claim was 
C 
hued on being mentioned 
as 
ptrsona desiRnata in L's will. 
The re--
levant words in the will were : 
"It has been settled that my wife should 
take, the second son of my elder brother, ........ in adoption, celcbrata 
hiJ marriage, 
etc., and after he passes his minority she should deliver 
pc 1 •ion of my other movable and immovable propertic'i that I have 
........ ". The trial court held that the respondent 
had not been 
adopted hr the appellant nor W8' he entitled to any right< as persona 
da/pDID m Va will. 
On appeal the High Court held that while there 
D 
was no adoption, the respondent was entitled to the property as persona 
dnignata. The appellant came to this Court. The question 
presented 
for determination W8' whether the High Court W8' right in holding that 
upon a true construction 
of the will Ex.B-1 there was 
a gift of the 
property to the plaintiff as persona designa/a. 
HELD : The will contained no direct words of disposition in favour 
of the respondent. There was no expression of devise in favour of the 
E 
rnpondent. There was only a direction to the widow to adopt and 
the gift to the respondent was on condition of being adopted. The 
respondent•s claim as persona dnignata could not therefore be accepted. 
(448 0-H. 450 A] 
Fanlndra Deb Raikat v. Rajeswar Dass, 12 I.A. 72 relied on. 
Nldhoomoni Debya v. Saroda Pershad Mookerjee, 3 I.A. 253 distin-
guished. 
CivtL APPELLATE 
JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 752 
of 1963. 
Appeal from the judgment and decree dated December 16 
1958 of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Appeal Suit No. 284 
of 1954. 
M. A. Narasayya Chaudhury, I. 
Shivamurthy and K. 
R. 
Sarmo, for the appellant. 
W. S. Barlingay and E. Udayaratnam, for the respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
Ramaswami J. This appeal is brought on behalf of the defen-
dant against the judgment and decree of the High Court of Andhra 
Pr11desh dated December 16, 1958 in A. S. No. 284 of 1954 whereby 
F 
G 
H 
' 
, 
' 
GODAVARU v. ABHAYI (Ramaswam1', !.) 
447 
A 
it reversed the judgment and decree of the Court of Subordinate 
Judge, Vijayawada in 0. S. No. 171 of 1950, 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
In the suit which is the subject-matter of this appeal the plain-
tiff alleged that he was duly adopted by the defendant-the widow 
of Lakshmayya-and therefore entitled to properties mentioned in 
Schs. A & B of the plaint. The plaintiff also asserted that, apart 
from his right as an adopted son, he was entitled to the properties. 
claimed as a persona designata under the will dated November 30, 
1946-Ex. B-1 executed by Lakshmayya. The suit was contested 
l>Y the defendant who alleged that the plaintiff was not adopted as 
tlie son of Lakshmayya. The trial court rejected the case of the 
plaintiff that he was adopted by the widow after the death of Lak-
shmayya. The trial court further held that the plaintiff was not 
entitled to any rights under the will as a persona designata. The 
trial court accordingly dismissed the suit. On appeal by the plain-
tiff the High Court confirmed the finding that no adoption had 
been made. It, however, held on the construction of the will 
that the plaintiff was entitled to the properties claimed as a persona 
designata. The High Court allowed the appeal and granted a 
decree to the plaintiff for possession of the properties subject to-
certain incidental directions given in the decree. 
The question presented for determination in this appeal is 
whether the High Court was right in holding that upon a true 
construction of the will-Ex. B-1 there was a gift of the properties 
to the plaintiff as a persona designata. 
· It is necessary, at this stage, to set out the material provisions 
of the will Ex. B-1 executed by Lakshmayya :-
"I have no male or female issue. I have wife, by 
name Sivapanchakshari, mother by name Basavamma, and 
elder brother by name Somaiah. .For the last 10 days 
I am suffering from a disease akin to paralysis and fearing 
that

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