Skip to content


Kannappa Chettiar Vs. Kuppuswami Naidu and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectProperty
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Case NumberLetters Patent Appeal No. 94 of 1969
Judge
Reported inAIR1975Mad256
ActsTransfer of Property Act, 1882 - Sections 23
AppellantKannappa Chettiar
RespondentKuppuswami Naidu and ors.
Appellant AdvocateK.N. Balasubramanian, Adv.
Respondent AdvocateP. Rajagopal, Adv.
DispositionAppeal dismissed
Excerpt:
- - 1. the plaintiff who was unsuccessful in all the courts below is the appellant in this letters patent appeal. it provided that the properties were given by way of settlement to bangarammal and that she was to enjoy them from the date of the settlement. a-1 on 7-7-1938. the lower appellate court was of the view that bangarammal had only a limited interest and absolute right to enjoy the property was given to the children if she had any, and in the event of bangarammal dying without issues, the heirs of the settlor would be entitled to the properties and there is therefore a valid disposition under the settlement deed in favour of the heirs and that muthal naidu had no vested right in him after the execution of ex......the property originally belonged to one muthal naidu. defendants 1. 3. 5 and 7 are the sons of muthal naidu. muthal naidu executed a settlement deed ex. b-1 dated 20-7-1931. by which he gave a life estate to bangarammal. the material part of the document ex. b-1 is extracted in paragraph 6 of the judgment of the first appellate court. it provided that the properties were given by way of settlement to bangarammal and that she was to enjoy them from the date of the settlement. if bangarammal had any children, they should get the properties, if bangarammal had no children, after the lifetime of bangarammal, the properties should vest in the heirs of the settlor it further provided that bangarammal should not alienate any of the properties. examining the clauses, it is clear that (1) the.....
Judgment:

Kailasam, J.

1. The plaintiff who was unsuccessful in all the courts below is the appellant in this Letters Patent Appeal. He filed the suit for a declaration and possession of the plaint B schedule property. The property originally belonged to one Muthal Naidu. Defendants 1. 3. 5 and 7 are the sons of Muthal Naidu. Muthal Naidu executed a settlement deed Ex. B-1 dated 20-7-1931. by which he gave a life estate to Bangarammal. The material part of the document Ex. B-1 is extracted in paragraph 6 of the judgment of the first appellate court. It provided that the properties were given by way of settlement to Bangarammal and that she was to enjoy them from the date of the settlement. If Bangarammal had any children, they should get the properties, if Bangarammal had no children, after the lifetime of Bangarammal, the properties should vest in the heirs of the settlor it further provided that Bangarammal should not alienate any of the properties. Examining the clauses, it is clear that (1) the properties ere settled for life in favour of Bangarammal, (2) that if she has any children, they have to take the properties absolutely and (3) that if she has no children, the properties are to vest, after the lifetime of Banaarammal. in the heirs of the settlor. Apart from the life estate, there is no immediate vesting in favour of the heirs of the settlor. In the event of Bangarammal setting children, they will yet the properties absolutely. So far as the vesting in favour of the heirs is concerned, it is only contingent on Bangarammal dying without any issues. As there is no immediate vesting, the heirs cannot claim any present right m the properties. There will be no vesting if Bangarammal besets any child or till her death without any issue. As there is no vesting the settlor is at liberty to change the provisions of the settlement. This is exactly what Muthal Naidu has done. Under Ex. A-1, dated 7-7-1938, Muthal Naidu settled the properties absolutely on Bangarammal. On that date, Bangarammal did not have any children. Subsequently, under Ex. A-3, dated 15-8-1960, Bangarammal sold the properties to the plaintiff and by virtue of the sale, the plaintiff claims the properties and this claim is resisted by the defendants on the ground that on the date of Ex. B-1, they had a vested interest after the lifetime of Bangarammal.

2. The trial court held that Ex. B-1 conferred a contingent interest in favour of the heirs of the settlor which had become vested in them on the death of Bansarammal without issues, and in that view, Muthal Naidu had no right to divest the said interest accrued under Ex. B-1 in favour of his heirs by executing Ex. A-1 on 7-7-1938. The lower appellate court was of the view that Bangarammal had only a limited interest and absolute right to enjoy the property was given to the children if she had any, and in the event of Bangarammal dying without issues, the heirs of the settlor would be entitled to the properties and there is therefore a valid disposition under the settlement deed in favour of the heirs and that Muthal Naidu had no vested right in him after the execution of Ex. B-1, so as to enable him to confer an absolute interest on his daughter Bangarammal on the date of Ex. A-1. The learned Judge who heard the second appeal dealing with the point found that Ex. B-1 was acted upon and Bangarammal was in possession of the suit properties on the strength of the settlement deed and that Muthal Naidu had no vested right in him after Ex. B-1. so as to be able to confer an absolute interest on his daughter Bangarammal on the date of Ex. A-1. The learned Judge further held that under the settlement deed, Muthal Naidu conveyed, a life estate on his daughter and a contingent interest on the defendants namely that if Bangarammal should die issueless, his heirs should take the property, and there was no vested interest conferred on the settlor by that document, and when there is no vested remainder, then Muthal Naidu cannot execute Ex. A-1 in 1938 so as to confer an absolute interest on Bangaranimal. Whether a vested or contingent interest is created the settlor had no further interest. Even if a contingent interest alone was created, that contingent interest could be conveyed. As far as the heirs are concerned, they had no present vested right and what they could hope to get was on the happening of an uncertain event, namely, Bangarammal dying issue-less. We find that Muthal Naidu had no right to execute the subsequent document Ex. A-1 before the death of Bangarammal, which would have the effect of conveying an absolute right on Bangarammal,

3, In the result, we agree with the view of the learned Judge and dismiss the Letters Patent Appeal. No order as to costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //