Srinivasan, J.@mdashThe only question in this appeal is whether under Ex.A-1 the legatee gets absolute estate or a life estate over the property
bequeathed to her. One Mandaiyan @ Siddhi Reddy executed Ex.A-1 on 14.5.1948 bequeathing his properties, one of them being the suit
property. The suit property is given to his daughter Poppammal. At that time, she was a minor and her guardians were directed to manage the
property during her minority. After the marriage with one Ellamma Reddy, herself and her husband executed a sale deed in favour of the first
defendant for a sum of Rs. 1,000 on 7.4.1956. The plaintiffs are the children of the said Poppammal. They have filed the suit for declaration of
their title to the property and for an injunction restraining the first defendant from alienating or encumbering the suit property in favour of any other
person.
2. The trial court held that the estate given to Poppammal was only a limited estate and the alienation by her will not bind the plaintiffs after her
lifetime. However, the trial court dismissed the suit as premature in view of the facts that Poppammal was alive and that she was entitled that
Poppammal was alive and that she was entitled to enjoy the property during her lifetime. On appeal, the learned appellate Judge has confirmed the
finding that Poppammal has got a limited estate under Ex.A-1 but"", he granted a decree in favour of the plaintiffs declaring that the plaintiffs are
entitled to possession of the suit property after the lifetime of Popammal. The first defendant was directed to deliver possession of the suit property
to the plaintiffs after the lifetime of Popammal. The prayer for injunction was rejected. The cross objection filed by the defendants as against the
findings rendered by the trial court was also dismissed.
3. A perusal of Ex.A-1 proves beyond doubt that what was given to Poppammal by the testator was an absolute estate and not a life estate as
contended by the plaintiffs. The relevant part of the document reads as follows:
4. What is significant to note is that the will recites that the property had already been given to Poppammal. The expression used is
The purpose of the will is only to appoint a guardian for the minor in order to safeguard her interest and administer the property during her minority.
Accordingly directions are given in the will to the said guardian not to alienate the property during the minority and on her attaining majority it shall
be handed over to her, and the guardian is also directed to handover the property to the husband of the legatee, if she was a minor at the time of
her marriage. The last part of the recital extracted above is relied upon by the plaintiffs. According to that part of the clause, the property is to be
enjoyed by the legatee that is the daughter of the testator and after her by her children.
5. It is argued that the testator intended to give a life estate to the legatee, his daughter and vested remainder to her children who are to enjoy the
property after her lifetime, For this purpose reliance is placed on the judgment of a single Judge of this Court in Hamsaveni Ammal and Ors. v. S.
Rajagopal Chettiar 91 L.W. 32. It was held in that case that even if words are used as possible of construing an absolute estate in favour of one,
that absolute interest could be construed as having been cut down to a life interest where successive absolute estates are given and the dominant
intention of the testator was to benefit each dones. In such a case, the successive absolute interests also will have to be construed as successive life
estates. The learned Judge placed reliance on the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Ramachandra Shenoy and Another Vs. Mrs. Hilda Brite and
Others, . In the case before the Supreme Court, absolute estate was given not only to the first done a but also to her children who were to take the
property after her lifetime the will having conveyed an absolute interest in favour of the subsequent donees. The Supreme Court held that it was a
case of life estate with vested remainder being give to the ultimate donee. But in Hamsaveni Ammal'' case 91 L.W. 32 there was no such recital
giving absolute estate to the male children of the first donee who was the wife of the testator. But, yet on a construction of the entire will, the
learned judge came to the conclusion that what was given to the legatee was only a life estate and after her lifetime, her male children were to take
an absolute estate of the property. The decision turned upon the language used in that will. 6. The rule will have no relevance in the present case for
the following reasons:
(1) As pointed out already, the recital in the will is to the effect that the property has already been given to the testator''s daughter Poppammal.
(2) There is no clause whatever restricting the right given to the daughter Poppammal in any manner. A reading of the will shows that she is to
enjoy the property absolutely without any restriction.
(3) The mere fact that the testator has mentioned that after the lifetime of his daughter, her children will enjoy the property will not alter or cut down
the estate given to the first donee of the daughter. Sections 95 and 97 of the Indian Succession Act are relevant in this regard. Section 95 of the
Act reads that where property is bequeathed to any person, he is entitled to the whole interest of the testator therein, unless it appears from the will
that only a restricted interest was intended for him. u/s 97 of the Act, where property is bequeathed to a person, and words are added which
describe a class of persons but do not denote them as direct objects of a distinct and independent gift, such person is entitled to the whole interest
of the testator therein, unless a contrary intention appears by the will. In the illustrations to the section, the following are relevant: A bequest is made
to A and his children - to A and his heirs - In each of those cases, A takes the whole interest which the testator had in the property. In the
presence case, what has been done by the testator is only to refer to the fact that the property has already been given to his daughter and that she
will enjoy the same and after her lifetime her children will take it. That would only mean in the circumstances that if she leaves the property without
alienating it during her lifetime, it can be taken by her children. 7. It is urged by learned Counsel for the respondent that the testator has not used
the expression
while giving the property to his daughter but, he has used the same expression when he has dealt with another property which was given to his
wives. In the later part of the will, the testator has dealt with another property which he has chosen to given to his wives Poppammal and
Paiyammal. While doing so, he has stated that they shall enjoy the property during their lifetime absolutely with powers of alienation. No doubt
there is a distinction in the language employed by the testator when he gave property to his daughter and another property to his wives. But, it must
be remembered that in so far as the daughter is concerned, the testator had already given property to her even before executing the will and he is
only referring to the past transaction in the will. In such circumstances, there was no necessity for him to use the expression once again in the will
while referring to the giving of the property to the daughter.
8. Learned Counsel for the respondents has drawn my attention to the Judgment of this Court in Kasturi and Anr. v. Venu and Anr. (1996) 1
L.W. 635. Reference has been made in that decision to Sections 83, 84, 88 and 77 of the Indian Succession Act. In that case, the testator be
bequeathed the property to the wife A for lifetime and then to testator''s son G for his life and after his life-time to male progenies of G. Since died
without any male issues, the plaintiff (son of predeceased daughter of the testator) claimed that the estate reverted back to the testator and intestate
succession opened as a consequence of which the plaintiff became entitled to have the decree for partition and separate possession of his 1/3rd
share. That was negatived by the Court. The facts of the case are entirely difference and the ruling has no bearing whatever to the present case.
9. I have no hesitation to hold that the estate given to Poppammal, the daughter of the testator was absolute one and she had every right to alienate
the same during her lifetime. It is contended that at the time of Ex.A-2. the sale in favour of the first defendant Poppammal was only a minor and
she could not have executed the document along with her husband. There is no basis for such a contention. The document reads as if she was a
major entitled to alienate when she joined her husband in executing the document. There is nothing on record to show that she was a minor at that
time. Such a contention has not been put forward in any of the Courts below. I hold that the plaintiffs have to fail as they are not entitled to the
property in view of the fact that it has been alienated by her mother in favour of the first defendant absolutely.
10. In the result, the second appeal is allowed. The judgments and decrees of the courts below are set aside. The suit O.S.No. 364 of 1982 on the
file of the District Munsif, Mettur is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
