{"id":94172,"date":"2007-05-16T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2007-05-15T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/3-s-lakshmi-vs-muthu-backialakshmi-alias-on-16-may-2007"},"modified":"2018-06-03T18:00:50","modified_gmt":"2018-06-03T12:30:50","slug":"3-s-lakshmi-vs-muthu-backialakshmi-alias-on-16-may-2007","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/3-s-lakshmi-vs-muthu-backialakshmi-alias-on-16-may-2007","title":{"rendered":"3 S. Lakshmi vs Muthu Backialakshmi Alias … on 16 May, 2007"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
3 S. Lakshmi vs Muthu Backialakshmi Alias … on 16 May, 2007<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT\n\nDated : 16\/05\/2007\n\nCoram:\nThe Honourable Mr. Justice V. DHANAPALAN\n\nS.A. No.1128 of 1995\n\nT. Sivagnanam\n(died)\n\n1\tS. Thayumanasamy\n\n2\tMangayarkarasi\n\n3\tS. Lakshmi\t\t\t.. Appellants\n\nvs.\n\n1\tMuthu Backialakshmi alias Chellam\n2\tMuthu Rukmini\n\t\t\t\t\t.. Respondents\n\n\nSecond Appeal preferred under Section 100 of Civil Procedure Code against the\njudgment and decree made in A.S. No.8\/1991 on the file of the Sub-Judge,\nPeriyakulam dated 01.03.1995, setting aside the judgment and decree made in O.S.\nNo.677 of 1981 dated 26.04.1990 on the file of the District Munsif Court,\nPeriyakulam.\n\n!For appellants\t\t...\tMr. M. Rajaraman\n\n^For respondents\t...\tMr. R. Nandakumar\n\n\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
\tThe plaintiff and his legal heirs are the appellants in this appeal.\n<\/p>\n
\t2.\tThe plaintiff filed a suit for declaration that the defendants 1 & 2
\nare having only life interest in the suit property and that the plaintiff and
\nhis heirs are entitled to the suit property after the life-time of the
\ndefendants 1 & 2.\n<\/p>\n
\t3.\tThe case of the plaintiff, in brief, is that he is the brother of
\none T.K.T. Ramanathan Pillai and the defendants, who are sisters, are the wives
\nof the said Ramanathan Pillai;  the marriage of the second defendant with
\nRamanathan Pillai is null and void since it took place when the first defendant
\nwas alive; the suit property belongs to Ramanathan Pillai and he executed a
\nregistered will dated 03.12.1965 with regard to his entire properties, breathing
\nlast on 22.08.1966; according to the said will, a provision was made for
\nmaintenance of the defendants, giving them a limited right of enjoyment over the
\nsuit property till their life-time, without any right of alienation or
\nencumbrance; it has been further stated in the Will that after their lifetime,
\nthe suit property would go to the school which Ramanathan Pillai intended to
\nstart; in the meanwhile, the defendants made attempts to encumber the suit
\nproperty and hence, the suit was filed by the plaintiffs for declaration.\n<\/p>\n
\t4.\tIn reply, the defendants filed a written statement wherein they have
\nnot disputed the execution of the will and even according to them, the are
\nentitled to enjoy the suit property till their life-time after which the suit
\nproperty should go to the school intended to be started by Ramanathan Pillai.
\nTheir main contention is that since the proposal to build a school did not
\nmaterialise due to the death of Ramanathan Pillai, the Will, which is a
\ncontingent one, fails and becomes inoperative and consequently, their right over
\nthe suit property till their life-time, gets enlarged into an absolute right,
\nand accordingly, they become absolute owners of the suit property.\n<\/p>\n
\t5.\tThe Trial Court, on appreciation of the oral and documentary
\nevidence, coming to the conclusion that the Will is not a contingent one and
\nholding that the defendants are having only life interest and not absolute right
\nover the property and further holding that Section 14(2) of the Hindu Succession
\nAct applies to the facts of the case, decreed the suit, as prayed for.\n<\/p>\n
\t6.\tOn appeal by the defendants, the lower appellate Court differed with
\nthe finding of the Trial Court concluding that the Will is a contingent one and
\nsince the starting of a school by Ramanathan Pillai did not become a reality,
\nheld that the Will has become inoperative and that the life interest of the
\ndefendants gets enlarged into an absolute one under Section 41 of the Hindu
\nSuccession Act and allowed the appeal, thereby, dismissing the suit.  As against
\nthis finding of the lower appellate Court, the present Second Appeal has been
\nfiled by the  plaintiff and his legal heirs.\n<\/p>\n
\t7.\tOn 31.08.1995, this Second Appeal has been admitted on the following
\nsubstantial question of law;\n<\/p>\n
\t“Whether the respondents are entitled to the benefit of Section 14(1) of
\nthe Hindu Succession Act so as to enlarge their estate into absolute one?”\n<\/p>\n
\t8.\tMr. Rajaraman, learned counsel for the appellants has contended that
\nthe lower appellate court has failed to understand the real intention of the
\ntestator and also erred in coming to the conclusion that the second wife, i.e.
\nthe second defendant also is a first-class heir.  The main contention of the
\ncounsel for the appellants is that the lower appellate court has erred in
\nignoring the provisions of Section 14(2) of the Hindu Succession Act and it has
\nfurther gone wrong in coming to the conclusion that Section 14(1) of the Hindu
\nSuccession Act is applicable to the facts of the case.\n<\/p>\n
\t9.\tIn support of his arguments, the learned counsel for the appellants
\nhas relied on:\n<\/p>\n
\ti.\ta judgment of the Supreme Court reported in (2006) 8 SCC 75 in the
\ncase of Sadhu Singh vs. Gurdwara Sahib Narike and Others)<\/a> (para 13)
\n\t“An owner of property has normally the right to deal with that property
\nincluding the right to devise or bequeath the property.  He could thus dispose
\nit of by a testament.  Section 30 of the Act, not only does not curtail or
\naffect this right, it actually re-affirms that right.  Thus, a Hindu male could
\ntestamentarily dispose of his property.  When he does that, a succession under
\nthe Act stands excluded and the property passes to the testamentary heirs.
\nHence, when a male Hindu executes a will bequeathing the properties, the
\nlegatees take it subject to the terms of the will unless of course, any
\nstipulation therein is found invalid.  Therefore, there is nothing in the Act
\nwhich affects the right of a male Hindu to dispose of his property by providing
\nonly a life estate or limited estate for his widow.  The Act does not stand in
\nthe way of his separate properties being dealt with by him as he deems fit.  His
\nwill, hence, could not be challenged as being hit by the Act.”\n<\/p>\n
\tii.\tanother a judgment of the Supreme Court reported in (2006) 8 SCC 91
\nin the case of Sharad Subramanyan vs. Soumi Mazumdar & Others<\/a> (para 19)
\n\t“Learned counsel further contended that there is no absolute rule that all
\nproperties demised to a female Hindu were necessarily in recognition of or in
\nlieu of her right to maintenance.  It was possible, even after the Act came into
\nforce, to create a limited estate by reason of a gift or will.  Such a situation
\nwould fall within the ambit of sub-section (2) of Section 14 of the Act as long
\nas it was not in recognition of or in lieu of right to maintenance under the
\nShastric Hindu law or under a statute.  Learned Senior Counsel relied on Section
\n30 of the Act, which recognises the right of a Hindu to dispose of self-acquired
\nproperty by will.  Mr. Gupta relied on the judgment of this Court in Bhura v.
\nKashi Ram<\/a> which was also a case of limited estate conferred on a female Hindu by
\na will.  This Court held that, upon a proper construction of the will, the
\nbequeathal in favour of the female Hindu was clearly indicative of<\/p>\n
\t“the testator’s intention of only creating a life interest in her and
\nnothing more and the various expressions used therein are indicative of and are
\nreconcilable only with the hypothesis that the testator was creating an estate
\nin favour of …. (the female Hindu) only for her lifetime and not an absolute
\nestate”\n<\/p>\n
\tiii.\tYet another judgment of the Supreme Court reported in (1994) 2 SCC
\n511 in the case of Gumpha (Smt.) & Others vs. Jaibai<\/a> (paras 9 & 12)<\/p>\n
\t“The Court by interpretative process, thus, removed the anomaly arising
\nout of “inapt drafting” by construing the sub-section (1) widely and reading
\nsub-section (2) as a proviso.  But, this wide meaning has to be so read as to be
\nin conformity with Section 30 and sub-section (2) of Section 14.  Tulasamma case
\nwas concerned with the right of maintenance granted to a widow in a decree.  It
\nbecame necessary, therefore, to evolve the principle of pre-existing right.
\nThat is, if the maintenance was given in recognition of pre-existing right,
\nthen, such acquisition of property was taken out of sub-section (2) to promote
\nthe objective of Section 14.  But, if that concept is extended to a will
\nexecuted under Section 30, it would militate against express provision in
\nSection 30 and sub-section (2) of Section 14.  The right of maintenance
\nexplained in Tulasamma and reiterated in Bai Vajia case was the one recognised
\nunder customary Hindu law to maintain a widow, daughter-in-law, a mother as a
\nmember of the joint family property.  It would not operate where a Hindu is
\nbequeathing his property in exercise of his right under Section 30 of the Act.
\nIn G. Appaswami Chettiar vs. R. Sarangapani Chettiar,<\/a> it was held by this Court
\nthat where a female got a life estate under a will executed by her father, she
\nwas not entitled to claim absolute rights under Section 14(1) and her claim was
\ncovered by Section 14(2).  In Kothi Satyanarayana vs. Gala Sithayya,<\/a> a  life
\nestate created under a Deed of Settlement was held to be an instrument
\ncontemplated under sub-section (2) and, therefore, a female Hindu was held not
\nto have acquired better right than what was given to her under the instrument.
\nThat the Legislature was aware of the unrestricted power of a Hindu to dispose
\nof his property in any manner, he considered proper subject to such restrictions
\nas were operating in different schools is clear from sub-section (2) of Section\n<\/p>\n
14.  It does not curtail or erode the absolute estate which comes into operation
\nby law but excludes from it specifically the property acquired in the manner
\nmentioned therein.  That is if any property is acquired by a female Hindu as
\nprovided in sub-section (2) then, it would be beyond the purview of sub-section
\n(1).  Reason for it was that the legislature  never intended to confer larger
\nestate on females than on males.  If a Hindu could bequeath his property of
\nwhich he was capable of and could create life interest or restricted estate for
\na male, it would have been incongruous to create an absolute estate in favour of
\nfemale.  Sub-section  (2) of Section 14 was read as proviso or exception to sub-
\nsection (1) so that it may impinge as little as possible on the broad sweep of
\nthe ameliorative provision contained in sub-section (1).  In Tulasamma, it was
\nobserved that ‘it cannot be construed in a manner which would sub-section of its
\nefficacy and deprive a Hindu female of the protection sought to be given to her
\nby sub-section (1)’.  True, it is an exception to sub-section (1) and should be
\nread in such a manner as not to rob sub-section (1), ‘of that modicum of
\ncertainty which it must always possess’.  Yet, the field of operation of the two
\nsub-sections is independent and separate.  The legislature while obliterating
\nthe dark side of Hindu law could not have intended to encroach upon right which
\nexisted under customary law and which it widened by adding explanation to
\nSection 30.”\n<\/p>\n
\t10.\tPer contra, Mr. Nandakumar, learned counsel for the respondents,
\nwhile arguing on the conduct of the plaintiff and his relationship with his
\nbrother, has relied on the deposition of P.W.1 himself and contended that P.W.1
\nhad deposed inimically towards Ramanathan Pillai.  It is his further contention
\nthat since the plaintiff himself has admitted that the defendants had been given
\nright of maintenance under Ex.A.1, it can safely be presumed that Ex.A.1 deals
\nwith the pre-existing right of maintenance.\n<\/p>\n
\t11.\tOn the legal aspects, the main contention of the counsel for the
\nrespondents revolves around the applicability of Section 14(1) of the Hindu
\nSuccession Act to the facts of the case.  According to him, the Trial Court is
\ncorrect in decreeing the suit by holding that it is only Section 14(1) of the
\nHindu Marriage Act which is applicable to the facts of the case and not Section
\n14(2).\n<\/p>\n
\t12.\tTo add strength to his arguments, the counsel for the respondents
\nhas relied on a judgment of the Supreme Court reported in (2000) 6 SCC 310 in
\nthe case of Balwant Kaur & another vs. Chanan Singh and others (paras 8 & 24)<\/p>\n
\t“The aforesaid relevant recitals in the Will show that appellant 1 widowed
\ndaughter of the testator, was a destitute and was solely dependent upon the
\ntestator for maintenance and the testator himself was also anxious about making
\nprovision for her maintenance even after his demise and relied upon his
\nbrothers, the other two legatees, for looking after his destitute widowed
\ndaughter of the testator, after his lifetime.  It, therefore, becomes clear that
\nappellant 1 widowed daughter of the testator, was a destitute and had no one
\nelse to fall back upon for maintaining herself but for the testator, her father.
\nUnder these circumstances, when the testator granted 1\/3rd interest in the suit
\nland to appellant 1 by his Will (as a residue after deducting 2\/3rd interest of
\nhis brothers), even though he conferred life interest on her to that extent, can
\nit be said that the said provision was in lieu of any pre-existing legal right
\nof maintenance from his estate as available to his destitute widowed daughter?
\nIf any pre-existing right is culled out in her favour, at least on the date on
\nwhich the Will started operating upon the death of the testator, then the
\nappellant’s case would squarely be covered by Section 14(1) of the Succession
\nAct but if, on the other hand, it is held that she had no pre-existing right in
\nthe testator’s estate on the date of coming into operation of the Will, then, it
\ncould be said that she got for the first time interest in the testator’s
\nproperty under the Will and consequently Section 14(2) would get attracted, as
\nheld by the High Court.”\n<\/p>\n
\tIn the light of this settled legal position, therefore, the relevant
\nrecitals in the Will have to be construed in the background of admitted and
\nwell-established facts referred to by us earlier.  It is easy to visualise that
\nif the testator had created a life interest to the extent of 1\/3rd of his
\nproperty in favour of his maidservant or female cook who might have served him
\nduring his lifetime, then such female legatees could not have claimed benefit of
\nSection 14(1) and their claim would have been confined only to Section 14(2) as
\nthey would not have any pre-existing legal right of maintenance or dependency
\nqua the estate of the deceased employer but appellant 1, as a destitute widowed
\ndaughter of the testator, stands on entirely a different footing.  The Will in
\nher favour does not create for the first time any such right as might have been
\ncreated in favour of a maidservant or a cook.  In fact, the Will itself
\nrecognises her pre-existing right in express terms and provides that even after
\nhis death, his other legatee brothers have to look after the welfare of his
\nwidowed daughter. Under these circumstances, Section 14(1) can legitimately be
\npressed into service by the learned Senior Counsel for the appellants on the
\nbasis of legal right flowing to her under the relevant provisions of the
\nMaintenance Act.  Once that conclusion is reached, the result becomes obvious.
\nThe judgment and order passed by the High Court cannot be sustained and will
\nhave to be set aside.  Instead, the decree of dismissal of the respondents’ suit
\nas passed by the lower appellate court will have to be confirmed, though on
\nentirely a different set of reasoning, as indicated hereinabove, and not on the
\nground that the earlier part of the recitals in the Will supersede the latter
\npart of the recitals.”\n<\/p>\n
\t13.\tI have given careful thought and consideration to the arguments of
\nMr. M. Rajaraman, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. R. Nandakumar,
\nlearned counsel for the respondents and have also carefully perused the judgment
\nof the Courts below and the evidence on record.\n<\/p>\n
\t14.\tBefore proceeding to decide the substantial question of law, it
\nwould be useful to have a look at the intention of the testator with regard to
\nbequeathing his properties.  As argued by the counsel for the respondents, P.W.1
\nhimself has categorically admitted in his deposition that he had enmity with the
\ndeceased Ramanathan Pillai.  He has further admitted that Ramanathan Pillai
\nmight have lodged a complaint against him with the Devadanapatti police station.
\nIn this regard, it would also be useful to refer to some portions of Ex.A.1,
\nWill dated 03.12.1965 made by Ramanathan Pillai and the same are extracted as
\nunder:\n<\/p>\n
\t“. . . vd; Ma[Sf;Fg; gpd;dhy; vd;Dila brhj;Jf;fisg; bghUj;J jhth Kjypa
\ntptfhuq;fs; Vw;glhky; ,Uf;Fk; bghUl;Lk; vd; kidtpfs; vd; Ma[Sf;Fg; gpd;
\nve;jtpjkhf f\\;lq;fs; Vw;glhky; epk;kjpahf fhyr;nrkk; bra;a ntZbkd;w vz;zj;Jld;
\nehd; ,e;j capy; rhrdk; vGjpitj;jpUf;fpnwd;. . . . nkny fz;l gpufhuk; moapy; fz;l
\nbrhj;Jf;fis vd; kidtpfs; mDgtpj;Jte;J ,Uth;fspy; bja;thjPdkhf ahUk; xUth;
\nfhye;brd;W nghdhy; capUld; ,Ug;gth; g{whr; brhj;ija[k; mile;J nkny fz;l gpufhuk;
\nmDgtpj;J tuntz;oaJ.  nkw;go brhj;Jf;fis vd; Ma[Sf;Fg;gpd; vd; kidtpfs; ,UtUk;
\nnkny fz;l gpufhuk; mDgtpj;J nkw;goahh;fs; fhyk; brd;w gpd; vd; bgauhy;
\neph;khzpf;f ,Uf;Fk; fy;tp epiyaj;jpw;F nrh;j;Jf; bfhz;L murhq;fk; nkw;ghh;itapy;
\nelj;jp tu ntz;oaJ.  moapy; fz;l brh;jJf;fs; vdf;F rh;t Rjd;jpu ghj;jpag;gl;lJ.
\nnkw;go brhj;Jf;fisg; bghUj;J vd; rnfhjuh; T. rptQhdj;jpw;nfh mtuJ re;jjpfSf;nfh
\nkw;w ahUf;Fnk vt;tpj ghj;jpankh chpiknah fpilahJ vd;W vd; kdg;g{h;z
\nrk;kjj;jpd;nghpy; ,e;j capy; rhrdk; vGjp itj;jpUf;fpnwd;. . .’<\/p>\n
\t15.\tFrom the portion of the Ex.A.1 extracted above, it is seen that the
\ntestator, viz., Ramanathan Pillai has made it clear that after his life time,
\nthe suit property has to devolve upon his wives till their lifetime and even in
\nthe event of demise of one of his wives, the suit property should devolve on the
\nwife who is alive.  He has further made his intention clear that after their
\nlife-time, the property should go to the educational institution intended to be
\nstarted by him.  Finally, the most important point to be noted from the above
\nextracted portion of the will made by the testator is he has expressed in strong
\nterms that the appellant\/plaintiff or his heirs cannot have any right towards
\nthe suit property.  Thus, it is evident that Ramanathan Pillai was very
\nparticular that the suit property should be enjoyed only by his wifes and not by
\nhis brother.\n<\/p>\n
\t16.\tNext, while deciding the substantial question of law, it would also
\nbe useful to refer to Sections 14(1) and 14(2) of the Hindu Succession Act and
\nthey read as under:\n<\/p>\n
Section 14(1)
\nProperty of a female Hindu to be her absolute property<\/p>\n
\tAny property possessed by a female Hindu, whether acquired before or after
\nthe commencement of this Act, shall be held by her as full owner thereof and not
\nas a limited owner.\n<\/p>\n
\tExplanation: In this sub-section, “property includes both movable and
\nimmovable property acquired by a female Hindu by inheritance or devise, or at a
\npartition, or in lieu of maintenance or arrears of maintenance, or by gift from
\nany person, whether a relative or not, before, at or after the marriage, or by
\nher own skill or exertion, or by purchase or by prescription, or in any other
\nmanner whatsoever and also any such property held by her as stridhana
\nimmediately before the commencement of this Act.\n<\/p>\n
Section 14(2)<\/p>\n
\tNothing contained in sub-section (1) shall apply to any property acquired
\nby way of gift or under a will or any other instrument or under a decree or
\norder of a civil Court or under an award where the terms of the gift, will or
\nother instrument or the decree, order or award prescribe a restricted estate in
\nsuch property”\n<\/p>\n
\t17.\tIn the judgment reported in (2006) 8 SCC 75 (supra) relied on by the
\ncounsel for the appellants, it is held that when a male Hindu executes a will
\nbequeathing the properties, the legatees take it subject to the terms of the
\nwill unless of course, any stipulation therein is found invalid.  In the present
\ncase, the Will states that the defendants are entitled to enjoy the suit
\nproperty till their life-time and after that, the suit property would go to the
\nschool intended to be started by the testator.  Since the proposal to start a
\nschool did not turn into a reality, the Trial Court has held against the
\nrespondents saying that their right is limited to their lifetime and not an
\nabsolute one.  Even according to the judgment relied on by the counsel for the
\nappellants (supra), the legatees can take the property subject to the terms of
\nthe will.  In the instant case, since the proposal to start a school had not
\nturned into a reality, naturally, the  right of the defendants over the suit
\nproperty gets enlarged into an absolute one and this aspect is substantiated in
\nthe judgments of the Supreme Court relied on by the counsel for the respondents.\n<\/p>\n
\t18.\tFurther, it is also worthwhile to discuss the aspect of
\n‘kalakshemam’ dealt with in the judgment relied on by the counsel for the
\nrespondents reported in AIR 1990 MADRAS 379 (supra).  In that judgment, the term
\n‘kalakshemam’ is discussed as hereunder:\n<\/p>\n
\t“A reference to Tamil Lexicon Vol.II, Part I, published under the
\nauthority of the University of Madras, at page 897, would show that the word
\n‘kalakshemam’ has several meanings and one of them is ‘means of subsistence’.
\nIf we are to understand the word ‘kalakshemam’ in the context in which it is
\nused in Ex.B.2, Will, it would only mean ‘means of subsistence’ and nothing
\nelse.  The words (matter in vernacular omitted) manifestly indicate that
\nRanganayakiammal wanted some properties for her maintenance after the death of
\nRamasamy Iyengar.  Then, Mr. R.S. Venkatachari would argue that in the document
\nRanganayakiammal is given right to the income from the properties not only for
\nher ‘kalakshemam’ but also to pay wages to her attendants and also for doing
\n‘dharma’ and therefore, in any event, it cannot be said that the right in the
\nproperty was given to her only for her maintenance.  But payment of wages or
\nsalary to her attendants and doing some ‘dharma’ can justifiably be construed as
\npart of her maintenance and not different.  Therefore, without any hesitation,
\nit can be safely concluded that Ranganayakiammal was given right in the property
\nfor her maintenance during her lifetime.”\n<\/p>\n
\t19.\tEven in the instant case, the testator has made it in a clear
\nlanguage that the purpose of his writing the will is towards the means of
\nsubsistence of his two wives, which in other words, can be interpreted as for
\nthe maintenance of his wives after his lifetime.\n<\/p>\n
\t20.\tIn the case of V. Tulasamma vs. V. Sesha Reddy<\/a> (dead) by L.Rs (in
\nshort “the Tulasamma case”) reported in AIR 1977 SC 1944, while deciding as to
\nwhether 14(1) or 14(2) is applicable, it was held as follows:
\n\t“Sub-section (1) of Section 14, is wide in its scope and ambit and uses
\nlanguage of great amplitude. . . . It will therefore be seen that sub-section
\n(1) of Section 14 is large in its amplitude and covers every kind of acquisition
\nof property by a female Hindu including acquisition in lieu of maintenance and
\nwhere such property was possessed by her at the date of commencement of the Act
\nor was subsequently acquired and possessed, she would become the full owner of
\nthe property.”\n<\/p>\n
\t“Where, however, property is acquired by a Hindu female at a partition or
\nin lieu of a right of maintenance, it is in virtue of a pre-existing right and
\nsuch an acquisition would not be within the scope and ambit of sub-section (2)
\neven if the instrument, decree, order or award allotting the property prescribes
\na restricted estate in the property.”\n<\/p>\n
\t21.\tIn this context, some useful reference could be made to para 15 of
\nthe judgment of the Supreme Court reported in  (2006) 8 SCC 75 in the matter of
\nSadhu Singh vs. Gurdwara Sahib Nariki and others<\/a> (supra) and the same reads as
\nunder:\n<\/p>\n
\t“Dealing with the legal position established by the decisions in Tulasamma
\nand Bai Vajia Vs. Thakorbhai Chelabhai, the position regarding the application
\nof Section 14(2) of the Act is summed up in Mayne on Hindu Law thus:
\n\t“Sub-section (2) of Section 14 applies to instruments, decrees, awards,
\ngifts, etc. which create independent and new title in favour of females for the
\nfirst time and has no application where the instruments concerned merely seek to
\nconfirm, endorse, declare or recognise pre-existing rights.  The creation of a
\nrestricted estate in favour of a female is legally permissible and Section 14(1)
\nwill not operate in such a case.  Where property is allotted or transferred to a
\nfemale in lieu of maintenance or a share at partition, the instrument is taken
\nout of the ambit of sub-section (2) and would be governed by Section 14(1)
\ndespite any restrictions placed on the powers of the transferee.”\n<\/p>\n
\t22.\tFrom a reading of the last portion of the above referred judgment of
\nthe Supreme Court which is a recent one, in which the decision of the Supreme
\nCourt in the Tulasamma’s case is followed, it is clear that once a property is
\nallotted to a female in lieu of maintenance or a share at partition, the
\ninstrument is taken out of the ambit of sub-section (2) and would be governed by
\nSection 14(1) despite any restrictions placed on the powers of the transferee.
\nIn the instant case also, since Ramanathan Pillai has bequeathed the suit
\nproperty in favour of the defendants in lieu of their maintenance, the life-time
\ninterest which the defendants have got from Ex.A.1, the will, gets blossomed or
\nenlarged into an absolute right.\n<\/p>\n
\t23.\tOf course, the counsel for the appellant, in support of his argument
\nthat since the intention of the testator to start an educational institution did
\nnot materialise and as such the will is not a contingent one and the defendants
\nhave only life interest and not absolute right over the property, has pointed
\nout Section 124 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 which reads as under:
\nBequest contingent upon specified uncertain event, no time being mentioned for
\nits occurrence –\n<\/p>\n
\tWhere a legacy is given if a specified uncertain event shall happen and no
\ntime is mentioned in the will for the occurrence of that event, the legacy
\ncannot take effect, unless such event happens before the period when the fund
\nbequeathed is payable or distributable.\n<\/p>\n
\t24.\tBut, in this context, it is worth-referring to Section 133 of the
\nIndian Succession Act which reads as under:\n<\/p>\n
Original bequest not affected by invalidity of second:\n<\/p>\n
\tIf the ulterior bequest be not valid, the original bequest is not affected
\nby it.\n<\/p>\n
Thus, from a reading of Section 133 of the Indian Succession Act referred to
\nabove, it is clear that the transfer made to the transferee is not affected by
\nthe non-occurrence of a particular event, in the case on hand, starting of
\neducational institution by the testator.\n<\/p>\n
\t25.\tSince the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in Sadhu Singh’s case
\n(supra) is squarely applicable to the case on hand in which the defendants get
\nthe suit property in lieu of maintenance or means of subsistence or kalakshemam
\nand more so, when the  plaintiff had not maintained a cordial relationship with
\nhis deceased brother, viz., Ramanathan Pillai, the testator, who has also very
\nspecifically expressed in the will that the plaintiff or his heirs cannot claim
\nany right over the suit property, I am of the considered view that the
\ndefendants are entitled to the benefit of Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession
\nAct so as to enlarge their estate into an absolute one. As such, the substantial
\nquestion of law formulated in this appeal is answered in favour of the
\nrespondents.\n<\/p>\n
\t26.\tIn view of the above, the judgment of the lower appellate court in
\ndeclaring that the respondents are entitled to enlarge their estate into
\nabsolute one is upheld and accordingly, the suit is dismissed.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn the result, the appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed.  No costs.\n<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
1\tThe Sub-Judge, Periyakulam<\/p>\n
2\tThe District Munsif Court, Periyakulam<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court 3 S. Lakshmi vs Muthu Backialakshmi Alias … on 16 May, 2007 BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT Dated : 16\/05\/2007 Coram: The Honourable Mr. Justice V. DHANAPALAN S.A. No.1128 of 1995 T. Sivagnanam (died) 1 S. Thayumanasamy 2 Mangayarkarasi 3 S. Lakshmi .. Appellants vs. 1 Muthu Backialakshmi alias […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-94172","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\n3 S. Lakshmi vs Muthu Backialakshmi Alias ... on 16 May, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/3-s-lakshmi-vs-muthu-backialakshmi-alias-on-16-may-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"3 S. Lakshmi vs Muthu Backialakshmi Alias ... on 16 May, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/3-s-lakshmi-vs-muthu-backialakshmi-alias-on-16-may-2007\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2007-05-15T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-06-03T12:30:50+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"23 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/3-s-lakshmi-vs-muthu-backialakshmi-alias-on-16-may-2007#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/3-s-lakshmi-vs-muthu-backialakshmi-alias-on-16-may-2007\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"3 S. Lakshmi vs Muthu Backialakshmi Alias … on 16 May, 2007\",\"datePublished\":\"2007-05-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-03T12:30:50+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/3-s-lakshmi-vs-muthu-backialakshmi-alias-on-16-may-2007\"},\"wordCount\":4557,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/3-s-lakshmi-vs-muthu-backialakshmi-alias-on-16-may-2007#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/3-s-lakshmi-vs-muthu-backialakshmi-alias-on-16-may-2007\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/3-s-lakshmi-vs-muthu-backialakshmi-alias-on-16-may-2007\",\"name\":\"3 S. Lakshmi vs Muthu Backialakshmi Alias ... on 16 May, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2007-05-15T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-06-03T12:30:50+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/3-s-lakshmi-vs-muthu-backialakshmi-alias-on-16-may-2007#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/3-s-lakshmi-vs-muthu-backialakshmi-alias-on-16-may-2007\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/3-s-lakshmi-vs-muthu-backialakshmi-alias-on-16-may-2007#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"3 S. Lakshmi vs Muthu Backialakshmi Alias … on 16 May, 2007\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"3 S. Lakshmi vs Muthu Backialakshmi Alias ... on 16 May, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/3-s-lakshmi-vs-muthu-backialakshmi-alias-on-16-may-2007","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"3 S. Lakshmi vs Muthu Backialakshmi Alias ... on 16 May, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/3-s-lakshmi-vs-muthu-backialakshmi-alias-on-16-may-2007","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2007-05-15T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-06-03T12:30:50+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"23 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/3-s-lakshmi-vs-muthu-backialakshmi-alias-on-16-may-2007#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/3-s-lakshmi-vs-muthu-backialakshmi-alias-on-16-may-2007"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"3 S. Lakshmi vs Muthu Backialakshmi Alias … on 16 May, 2007","datePublished":"2007-05-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-03T12:30:50+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/3-s-lakshmi-vs-muthu-backialakshmi-alias-on-16-may-2007"},"wordCount":4557,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/3-s-lakshmi-vs-muthu-backialakshmi-alias-on-16-may-2007#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/3-s-lakshmi-vs-muthu-backialakshmi-alias-on-16-may-2007","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/3-s-lakshmi-vs-muthu-backialakshmi-alias-on-16-may-2007","name":"3 S. Lakshmi vs Muthu Backialakshmi Alias ... on 16 May, 2007 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2007-05-15T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-06-03T12:30:50+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/3-s-lakshmi-vs-muthu-backialakshmi-alias-on-16-may-2007#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/3-s-lakshmi-vs-muthu-backialakshmi-alias-on-16-may-2007"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/3-s-lakshmi-vs-muthu-backialakshmi-alias-on-16-may-2007#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"3 S. Lakshmi vs Muthu Backialakshmi Alias … on 16 May, 2007"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/94172","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=94172"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/94172\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=94172"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=94172"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=94172"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}