# AL. PR. RANGANATHAN CHE1TIAR v. AL. PR. AL. PERIAKARUPPAN CHETTIAR

- **Citation:** [1958] 1 S.C.R. 214
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 1958
- **Bench:** Jagannadhadas, B.P. Sinha, Govinda Menon
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/al-pr-ranganathan-che1tiar-v-al-pr-al-periakaruppan-chettiar-1445
- **Pages:** 43

## Headnote

Will-Constructio~Disposition to adopted son, R-Adoption
invalid-Whether R. takes property as persona designata. £Jeetl
Construction-Trust, whether created-Language of deed ambiguous-Subsequent conduct of parties-Burden of proof
P adopted A in 1914 but on account of the acute differences
which arose between them later, he made a second adoption of the
first appellant .in 1926 on the footing that such an adoption was
permitted by special custom in Nattukottai Chetti families. Jn
the partition suit filed by A for himself and on behalf of his minor
son, the first respondent, the validity of the second adoption was
challenged, but the matter was compromised by a Rajinama under
which P was directed to pay the plaintiffs therein Rs. 75,000 each
separately in lieu of their right to partition. Under the terms of
. para 3 of the Rajinama and the hundi executed by P in favour of
the first respondent, the amount was to be paid to the order of three
persons, viz., the father and mother of the first respondent and C,
and the amount itself was to be invested in the name of the first
respondent in Chetti firms to the order of P and C who were to be
in management. In 1929 P executed a will whereby he made
arrangements for certain religious gifts and charities and gave the
residue of the property to his ·wife for her life and thereafter t<>
his second adopted son, the first appellant. On attaining majority
in 1943 the first respondent filed two suits. The first was on the
footing that the amount of Rs. 75,000 which was given to him
under the Rajinama was constituted a trust for his benefit during
his minority under the trusteeship of P and C, that the money
was wrongfully appropriated by C, contrary to the terms of the
Rajinama, and that P as a co-trustee with C was equally responsible for C's breach of trust and that the first respondent was
entitled to have the amount aid out of the estate of P in the
hands of the appellant. The second suit was for the recovery of
the entire properties of P on the ground that the second adoption
was invalid and that the will executed by P was ineffective. It
was found that the adoption of the first appellant was invalid and
that the customary adoption set up by P was made for temporal
rather than spiritual purposes, and the question was whether,
notwithstanding his description as adopted son in the will in
several places, the intention was· that he was to take the property
as persona designata.
As regards the terms of para 3 of the
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
215
Rajinama the language used was ambiguous, whether the power
of investment was vested in both P and C, but looking at the
subsequent conduct of the parties it was found that it was C who
was authorised to collect the amount of the hundi and to arrange
for the investment of the same on the responsibility of the father
and mother of the first respondent.
Held : (1) The question whether a disposition to a person is
intended as a persona designata or 'by reason of his filling a particular legal status which turns out to be invalid, depends on the
facts of the case and the terms of the particular document containing the disposition, and in the instant case, in view of the
exclusion of the validly adopted son and his heirs from succession and the conduct of the parties for over 14 years in allowing
the first appellant to retain the property, taking an overall picture
of the various provisions of the will, it was clear that the first
appellant was intended by the testator to take the property as
persona designata and that the will was therefore effective to
convey title to him.
Nidhoomoni Debya v. Saroda Pershad Mookerjee, (1876) L.R.
3 I.A. 253 and Fanindra Deb Raikat v. Rajeswar Das, (1884) L.R.
12 I.A. 72, referred to.
(2) Trusteeship is a position which is to be imputed to a
person on clear and conclusive evidence of transfer of ownership
and of the liability attached to such ownership on
account of
confidence reposed, and on such liability having been

## Text

_Characters 0–39,729 of 96,903. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39729 for what follows._

1957 -
May,24
214
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1958]
AL. PR. RANGANATHAN CHE1TIAR
v.
AL. PR. AL. PERIAKARUPPAN CHETTIAR
(and connected appeal)
(JAGANNADHADAS, B.P. SINHA and
GOVINDA MENON JJ.)
Will-Constructio~Disposition to adopted son, R-Adoption
invalid-Whether R. takes property as persona designata. £Jeetl
Construction-Trust, whether created-Language of deed ambiguous-Subsequent conduct of parties-Burden of proof
P adopted A in 1914 but on account of the acute differences
which arose between them later, he made a second adoption of the
first appellant .in 1926 on the footing that such an adoption was
permitted by special custom in Nattukottai Chetti families. Jn
the partition suit filed by A for himself and on behalf of his minor
son, the first respondent, the validity of the second adoption was
challenged, but the matter was compromised by a Rajinama under
which P was directed to pay the plaintiffs therein Rs. 75,000 each
separately in lieu of their right to partition. Under the terms of
. para 3 of the Rajinama and the hundi executed by P in favour of
the first respondent, the amount was to be paid to the order of three
persons, viz., the father and mother of the first respondent and C,
and the amount itself was to be invested in the name of the first
respondent in Chetti firms to the order of P and C who were to be
in management. In 1929 P executed a will whereby he made
arrangements for certain religious gifts and charities and gave the
residue of the property to his ·wife for her life and thereafter t<>
his second adopted son, the first appellant. On attaining majority
in 1943 the first respondent filed two suits. The first was on the
footing that the amount of Rs. 75,000 which was given to him
under the Rajinama was constituted a trust for his benefit during
his minority under the trusteeship of P and C, that the money
was wrongfully appropriated by C, contrary to the terms of the
Rajinama, and that P as a co-trustee with C was equally responsible for C's breach of trust and that the first respondent was
entitled to have the amount aid out of the estate of P in the
hands of the appellant. The second suit was for the recovery of
the entire properties of P on the ground that the second adoption
was invalid and that the will executed by P was ineffective. It
was found that the adoption of the first appellant was invalid and
that the customary adoption set up by P was made for temporal
rather than spiritual purposes, and the question was whether,
notwithstanding his description as adopted son in the will in
several places, the intention was· that he was to take the property
as persona designata.
As regards the terms of para 3 of the
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
215
Rajinama the language used was ambiguous, whether the power
of investment was vested in both P and C, but looking at the
subsequent conduct of the parties it was found that it was C who
was authorised to collect the amount of the hundi and to arrange
for the investment of the same on the responsibility of the father
and mother of the first respondent.
Held : (1) The question whether a disposition to a person is
intended as a persona designata or 'by reason of his filling a particular legal status which turns out to be invalid, depends on the
facts of the case and the terms of the particular document containing the disposition, and in the instant case, in view of the
exclusion of the validly adopted son and his heirs from succession and the conduct of the parties for over 14 years in allowing
the first appellant to retain the property, taking an overall picture
of the various provisions of the will, it was clear that the first
appellant was intended by the testator to take the property as
persona designata and that the will was therefore effective to
convey title to him.
Nidhoomoni Debya v. Saroda Pershad Mookerjee, (1876) L.R.
3 I.A. 253 and Fanindra Deb Raikat v. Rajeswar Das, (1884) L.R.
12 I.A. 72, referred to.
(2) Trusteeship is a position which is to be imputed to a
person on clear and conclusive evidence of transfer of ownership
and of the liability attached to such ownership on
account of
confidence reposed, and on such liability having been accepted by
the alleged trustee, and in the present case there was no proof
that P became a trustee for the minor's fund and incurred liability
for C's breach of trust.
CIVIL, APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeals Nos.
104 of 1954 and 169 of 1956.
Appeal by special leave . from the judgment and
decree dated November 13, 1950, of the Madras High
Court in A.S. No. 484 of 1947 arising out of the judgment and decree dated December 21, 1946,
of the
Court of the Subordinate Judge, Devakottai in Original
Suit No. 156 of 1944 and Appeal from the judgment
and decree dated September 17, 1952 and October 24,
1952, of the Madras High Court in A.S. No. 243of1947
arising out of the judgment and decree dated December
21, in Original Suit No. 164 of the Subordinate Judge,
Devakottai in Original Suit No. 164.
A. V. Vishwanatha Sastri and M.S.K. Aiyangar, for
the appellants in C.A. No. 104of1954.
1957
Ranganathan
Che/liar
v.
Perlakaruppa1;
Che/liar
1957
Ranganathan
Chettiar
v.
,"'eriakaruppan
Chettiar
216
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1958]
A. V. Vishwanatha Sastri and M. S. K. Sastri, for
the appellants in C.A. No. 169 of 1956.
K.S. Krishnaswamy Iyengar and R. Ganapathy Iyer,
for respondent No. 1 (in both the appeals).
1957. May 24.
The judgment of Jagannadhadas
and B.P. Sinha JJ. was delivered by Jagannadhadas J.
Govinda Menon J. delivered a separate
judgment.
·
.'agnnadhadasJ.
JAGANNADHADAS J.-These two are appeals against
two
separate decrees of the High Court of Madras
arising out of two suits as between the same contesting
parties with reference to a connected set of facts.
Civil Appeal No. 104 of 1954 is before us by virtue of
special leave granted by this Court under Art. 136 (1)
of the Constitution. Civil Appeal No. 169 of 1956 has
come up by reason of certificate granted by the High
Court under Art.
133 (1) (a) of the Constitution. The
parties to the litigation are Nattukottai Chetties, a
wealthy banking community in South India who, at
the time, were having large banking transactions in
Burma and other places in South-East Asia. One AL.
PR. Periakaruppan Chettiar (hereinafter referred to as
Periakaruppa) owned and possessed considerable properties. He adopted one AL. PR. Alagappa Chettiar
(hereinafter referred to as Alagappa) in or about the
year 1914. There arose acute differences between them
from about the year 1924 owing to the alleged wasteful
habits of Alagappa who ran into debts.
This led to
criminal complaints between them, each against the
other, in 1926. (See Exs. P-5 and D-12). One of Alagappa's creditors obtained a decree against him and
attached Alagappa's half share in the family residential house including the site on which it was situated.
This resulted in a regular suit in which the question
at issue was whether the site was ancestral site and
whether the super-structure was co.nstructed out of the
ancestral funds. It was found that the site was ancestral. Periakaruppa maintained that the super-structure
which was substantial in value compared with the site
was built out of his self-acquired funds and was not
joint family property, while Alagappa and the attaching
S.C.R
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
217
creditor contended to the contrary.
The litigation
1957
went up to the High Court and the High Court accept- Ranga;;;;;-han
ed the contention of
Periakaruppa and made
a
c~uiar
declaration that the site was ancestral ~d that the
Periak'aruppan
super-structure was
the s~lf-acqμisitimi 9f. Periac".:!!!!:'
karuppa. The judgment of the JJigh Coilrt was dated Jagannadhadas J.
November 19, 1926, and is reported inPeriq~arμppan v.
Arunachalam(1).
During the pendency of . this litigation in the High Court the adopted son. Alagappa
filed a suit on September 9, 1926, ori behalf of hi.mself
an(:1 his minor son by name AL. PR. AL. Periakaruppan Chettiar (hereinafter, for distinction, referred to as
junior Periakaruppa) represented by his ·Il1other and
next friend by name Muthayi Achi. . It has to be
mentioned that in or abQut June 47, 1926, Perii!-karuppa
purported to make a secqnd adoption of 1;1 •young
boy by name AL. PR. Ranganathan'Chettiar(hereinafter referred to as Ranganatha) on the footing that
such an adoption was permitted · by speci~l cust()m in
Nattukottai Chetti families. The suit 0.S. No. 114 of
1926 filed by Alagappa and his minor . sori, jμnior
Periakaruppa, was therefore filed as against Periakaruppa and his second adopted son Ranganatha, who
at the time was also a minor. It was for delivery of
a half share of the properties of the family on the
footing that all the properties were joint family pro~
perties and for a declaration that the second adoption was invalid. The first· defendant therein, Periakaruppa, filed a written statement col'ltestirig both these
. matters and claiming that all the suit properties in
their entirety were his self-acquisitfon and that the
plaintiffs had absolutely no rights therein and also
asserting that the second adoption was valid. Before
the suit proceeded to the stage of issues and trial, the
dispute Between the parties was compron;iised by a
Rajinama brought about by fom Panchayatdars, who
were all respectable members of the Nattukottai Chetti
community. Some of the questions that arise in the
present appeals centre round the proper construction
of some of the terms of this Rajinama; which will be
noticed later. It is sufficient to state ~ this stage that
by that Rajinama the two plaintiffs, Alagappa and his
(1) (1926) I.LR. 50 Mad. 582.
28
218
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1958]
1957
minor son, junior Periakaruppa, obtained Rs. 75,000
Ranganathan
each and Alagappa's wife Muthayi Achi, the mother
Chettlar
of the minor son and his nexf friend in the suit, was
Periak~~uppan to get a sum of Rs. 14,000 as her Stridhan. These
Chettlar
amounts were paid by means of four hundis,Rs. 25,000
Jaga11nat1hadas J. and Rs. 50,000 for Alagappa, Rs. 75,000 for junior
Periakaruppa and Rs. 14,000 for the mother, Muthayi
Achi, on Nattukottai Chetti bankers of Periakaruppa
in Burma. It was one of the express terms of the
Rqjinama that all the properties mentioned in the
plaint in that suit and other properties belonging to
the first defendant, Periakaruppa, were admitted to be
his self-acquisitions and that the plaintiffs therein had
no right and connection whatsoever in any of them
or in the charities founded
by Periakaruppa and
in the properties belonging thereto or their management, either in the lifetime of Periakaruppa or
subsequent thereto. It was also one of the specific
terms of the Rajinama that the plaintiffs
should
remove themselves from the family house with all
their belongings and that the possession of the
aforesaid house be delivered to Periakaruppa.
It
was also expressly stipulated that the petition then
pending for leave to appeal to the Privy Coμncil
against the judgment reported in Periakaruppan v.
Arunachalam(') was to be withdrawan. This compromise was certified to be for the benefit of the mmor
plaintiff concerned, as also of the minor defendant
Ranganatha
and was accepted by the Subordinate
Judge before whom the compromise petition was filed.
As a result, the compromise was accepted by the court
on August 15, 1927, and the suit was dismissed in terms
thereof on the same date. About a year and a half
later Periakaruppa executed a will on April 4, 1929.
The genuineness and due execution thereof are not in
question. But the effect of that will is also one of the
main points in dispute. Periakaruppa died about
three months later i.e. on July 14, 1929, and his wife
Lakshmi Achi died within a year thereof on March 11,
1930. By the will, broadly speaking, Periakaruppa
made arrangements for certain religious gifts and
{<) (1926) I.L.R. 50 Mad. 580.
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
219
charities and made arrangements for the management
1957
thereof and gave the residue of the property to his wife
Ranganashan
Lakshmi Achi for her life and thereafter to his second
Chettiar
adopted son Ranganatha. Ranganatha, who, some
Peru:k"aruppan
tiine in or about the date of Lakshmi Achi's death in
Chettiar
1930, appears to have attained majority, has been in Jagannadhada3 J,
undisputed possession and enjoyment of Periakaruppa's
properties ever since till late in 1944. Alagappa's son
junior Periakaruppa attained majority in December,
1943, and filed two suits on November 11, 1944, in the
Subordinate Judge's Court of Devakottai, one numbered as O.S. 156of1944 and the other as O.S. 160 of
1944. O.S. No. 156 of 1944 was on the footing that
Rs. 75,000 which was given to him under the above
mentioned Rajinama of the year 1927, was, under the
terms thereof constituted a trust for his benefit during
his minority under the trusteeship of Periakaruppa
himself, and· another person A.P.S. Chockalingam
Chettiar of Athangudi,
(hereinafter referred to as
Chockalingam) the junior paternal uncle of the minor's
mother, Muthayi Achi, and that the money
was
wrongly appropriated by Chockalingam owing to his
straightened circumstances.
His case was that Periakaruppa as a co-trustee with Chockalingam
was
equally responsible for breach of the trust and that
therefore he was entitled to have the moneys found
due on account, paid out of the estate of Periakaruppa
in the hands of Ranganatha as well as from the estate
of Chockalingam in the hands of his son. The second
suit O.S. No. 164 of 1944, was a suit to recover the
entire properties of Periakaruppa in the possession of
Ranganatha for himself and his father Alagappa who
was made the first defendant in the suit, on the ground
that Ranganatha's adoption was invalid, that the will
of Periakaruppa was ineffective
and that the properties devolved on himself and his father Alagappa.
It may be noticed that so far as the father Alagappa
· is concerned the suit would primafacie be time-barred
since it has been filed. about 15 years after the death
of Periakaruppa. The plaintiff junior Periakaruppa
however filed the suit on the footing that in view of
his minority for all this period until December, 1943,
1957
Ranganathan
Chettlar
v.
Periakaruppan
220
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1958]
the suit was not barred. Hereinafter, for convenience,
the first suit O.S. No. 156 of 1944 will be referred to as
the trust suit, and the second suit O.S. No. 164 of
1944 will be referred to as the succession suit.
Chettiar
Jn the succession suit the main questions that arose
Jagannadhadas J. for decision were:
(1) whether the adoption of Ranganatha as a
second adopted son was valid ;
(2) if not, whether the will was effective to convey
the property of Periakaruppa to Ranganatha after the
death of his wife Lakshmi Achi,. notwithstanding the
invalidity of his adoption;
(3) Whether in case the will was ineffective the
properties of Periakaruppa devolved on both Alagappa
and his
son junior
Periakaruppa together
or on
Alagappa alone to the exclusion of junior Periakaruppa;
(4) if the devolution was on both together, whether the rights of junior Periakaruppa were barred by
reason of s. 7 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1908 (Act
IX of 1908).
This involved
the further questions:
(a) whether
by and
under the
Rajinama
Alagappa and his son became divided in status inter se
so as to make s. 7 inapplicable.
(b) whet.her in case the devolution was on both
together as members of a joint family, s. 7 had application to the factual situation in the family.
So far as the adoption of Ranganatha was concerned
both the courts below, while holding that the adoption
as a fact was proved, have found against existence of
the custom pleaded as to its validity and hence concurrently
found the adoption to be invalid.
That
conclusion is no longer in dispute in this Court. As
regards the will both the courts held that the will was
ineffective to vest any title in Ranganatha though on
slightly different grounds. As regards question No. 4
relating to limitation, the two courts came to different
conclusions with the result that the trial court dismissed
the suit as barred by limitation, while the High Court
reversed it and granted a decree for the half share of
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
221
Periakaruppa's properties in favour of junior Periakaruppa holding that in respect of the other half share
the rights of Alagappa were barred and that Ranganatha acquired the same by his adverse, possession. As
regards question No. (3) and the subordinate questions
(a) and (b) of question No. (4), there appears to have
been no serious question raised in the trial court by
the defendant as to the exclusion of junior Periakaruppa
by Alagappa in the matter of succession to Penakaruppa's properties, or any serious questions raised
by the plaintiff as to the Rajinama bringing about a
partition inter se between the father Alagappa and his
minor son junior Periakaruppa and of Alagappa not
being the de facto manager of the family.
It was
accodingly found by the trial court that both of them
succeeded as members of the joint family and that
therefore the minor, junior Periakaruppa, was barred
by virtue of s. 7 of the Limitation Act.
When the
matter came up on appeal to the High Court, a question was raised that s. 7 would not be applicable in this
case unless it was further made out that the father
Alagappa was the de facto manager of the family
consisting of himself and his minor son of which it
is alleged there was no proof or finding. Both the
Judges allowed this point to be raised and called
upon the trial court to take evidence and submit a
finding
in respect of that contention.
The
trial
court accordingly
took evidence in regard thereto
and returned. a finding that on the evidence, both
the father and the minor son were living as mem- .
hers of a joint family and that the father was in
fact the de facto guardian.
When the matter was
reheard by the same Bench of the High Court on the
return of the finding, the Bench did not go into the
correctness or otherwise of this finding, on the. view
that this finding was of no consequence, if it is found
that by virtue of the Rajinama both the father and
the minor son became divided inter se. The learned
Judges while realising that the finding was called for
on the undisputed assumption that the father and the
son were undivided in status, were of the opinion that
there was nothing to prevent them from . reopening
19S1
Ranganathan
Chettiar
v.
Periakaruppa11
Chettiar
Jaganadhaau• J:
222
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1958)
1951
the same and held on a construction of the Rajinama
Ranganatluzn
that it brought about divided status inter se between
Ch~:1ar
the father Alagappa and his minor son junior PeriaPeriakaruppan
karuppa. In that view they found s. 7 of the
chettiar
Limitation Act had no application to the case and
:'agQllnadlllldas J. came to the conclusion that the succession suit by
junior Periakaruppa was not barred by limitation in
so far as it related to his own share though barred in
respect of Alagappa's share.
Hence the succession
suit ended in favour of junior Periakaruppa in respect
of a half share of the properties left by Periakaruppa.
As regards the trust suit the contentions raised were:
(1) that under the Rajinama both Periakaruppa
and Chockalingam became trustees in respect of the
sum of Rs. 75,000 to be invested in Chetti firms as
provided in the Rajinama;
(2) that as a fact the amount was invested with
Chockalingam, one of the trustees themselves, conrtary
to the law;
(3) that such investment itself constituted breach
of trust for which· Periakaruppa was also responsible.
It appeared on the evidence that out of the trust
.amount, a sum of Rs. 30,000 was invested in the
purchase of a house at Athangudi in South India (the
place of Chockalingam) and that Alagappa and his
minor son, the jonior Periakaruppa, and his family
have been since that purchase on July 23, 1928, living
in that house.
At the trial, therefore, credit was
given to this amount as being proper investment of
the trust funds
in the matter of account-taking by
concession of the lawyer for junior Periakaruppa.
The defendant Ranganatha in addition to contending
that no trust was created, also contended that as a
result of subsequent transactions junior Periakaruppa
got the benefit not only of the purchase of the house
above referred to but also of a mortgage executed
in favour of himself and another by Chockalingam in
1930 for a lakh of rupees of which Rs. 70,000 was his,
of which he obtained the benefit, and that therefore
the alleged breach of trust must be taken to have been
waived and that in any case he was entitled to have
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
223
the mortgage document as much as the purchase of the
1957
house to be taken into consideration for reducing his
Ranganathan
liability in respect of the alleged breach of trust.
Chettlar
These contentions were negatived by both the courts
Peria'karuppan
with the result that there was a decree against Ranga-
. Chettiar
natha and his minor son in respect of half the loss Jagannadhadas 1.
occasioned by the breach of trust, payable out of the
half share pf Periakaruppa's properties in their hands.
The result of the two judgments of the High Court in
botlf the suits was against Ranganatha and hence the
two! present appeals before us by him.
It will now be convenient to take up first the consideration of the succession appeal. The points arising
therein have already ·been set out in the preliminary
narration and need no repetition. The main points
argued before us on this appeal are-
(1) The conclusion of the High Court that the will
of Periakaruppa was inetfective
is erroneous and
Ranganatha, took under the will as persona designata.
(2) In case the will is held to be ineffective and in
the view taken by the High Court that Alagappa and
junior Periakaruppa became divided in status under
the Rajinama the property of Periakaruppa devolved
on Alagappa to the exclusion of junior Periakaruppa
and hence the plaintiff has no right to sue.
·
(3) The conclusion . of the High Court that the
Rajinama brought about divided status inter se
between the father Alagappa and the-minor son junior
Periakaruppa is erroneous and hence the suit is barred
by virtue of s. 7 of the Limitation Act.
A few other minor points have been raised on both
sides which, after consideration, appeared to be unsubstantial and we intimated our view at the hearing
and it is not necessary to refer to and deal with them
any further. We have heard elaborate arguments on
the above three points and have given our careful
consideration to them~
It is obvious that having
regard to the course of events in this family narrated
earlier
the primary question for consideration is
whether or not thewill left by Periakaruppa has brought
about
an
effective
disposition of his properties
M2SC 5
224
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1958}
1957
in favour of Ranganatha. It is only if that has become
Rancanathan
ineffective that the other questions argued before us on
Chettlar
this appeal as set out above. arise for consideration ..
Periak"druppan
In view of the fact that the genuineness of the will is
Chettiar
not disputed ana no question arises as to the disposing
Jagannati;,das J. capacity of Periakaruppa, the plaintiff in this case,
junior Periakaruppa, can succeed only if he disp!&ces
the will. He has accordingly raised three contentions.
1. That there is no effective dispositive clause in
the will.
·
2. That the disposition, if any, in favour
of
Ranganatha under the will was an attempt to create
an estate in tail-male and hence invalid.
3. The disposition in favour of Ranganatha was
by reason of and on account of, his having been
considered by the testator as his duly adopted son, i.e .•
the . validity of the adoption was the basis and the
condition for the disposition. Sine!" that has now been
found to be invalid, the disposition fails.
Of these three questions the first two though upheld
by the trial court have been rejected by the High
Court. We agree with the reasoning of the High Court
on these two points and they do not call for any
further consideration. We are satisfied that there is
no substance in these contentions. The real question
that arises on a consideration of the will is whether
the disposition of the residue in favour of Ranganatha
contained therein was to him as a persona designata or
is dependent on his being a duly and validly adopted
son.
For a proper appreciation of this contention on both
sides, it is necessary to set out the relevent clauses in
the will.
"(1) I am now 68 years of age, taking into consideration the fact that I have been in indifferent health
for sometimes past I have decided to make an arrangement after my lifetime in regard to my properties
and in regard to the charities established by me and
accordingly I have executed this will whole-heartedly.
(2)All the immovable
and movable properties
entirely, which belong to me as my own and which are
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
225
in my possession are my self-acquired properties.
19s
Excepting myself no other person has any interest or
Ranganathan
right whatever in the said properties.
Chettiar
(3) ....•............................ , . . . . . .
Periak~~uppan
Al (4) Sometime bfacNk Ihtoodk as 1!1Y Cf.h~sdter b(son) Jagann;;u;adai 1•
agappan,
son
o
ac an upatt1
· i am aram
Chettiar, and brought him up in my house and also
got him married. But the aforesaid Algappan conducted himself in immoral ways and had evil intentions and further fell into bad company and after
being duped brought into existence several documents
falsely and colourfully by making it appear that he
had borrowed debts to the tune of about one lakh of
rupees and also caused decrees to be passed in respect
of some of the above mentioned debts and estranged my
feelings and became inimical towards me, and left my
family and was living separately for the past about IO
years and he was
also living in his father-in-taw's
house.
.
(5) Thereafter while the aforesaid
person had
instituted a suit O.S. No. 114 to 1926 against me in the
Sub-Court of Devakotta for his share in the properties
which were in my possession, some of our community
people acted as the panchayatdars and gave an award
in the above suit and a rajinama was filed in the
Court, and all the amounts which were payable by me
according to the said rajinama were already paid by
me entirely. Neither the aforesaid Alagappa Chetti
nor his heirs shall have any manner of right or interest
whatever in the properties which are now in my
possession and in the
properties which might be
acquired hereafter.
(6) Subsequently I took in adoption Nachandupatti Ramanathan Chettiar's son, namely, Ranganathan, aged about 17! years, and he is living with me.
(7) to
(12) ......................••..••...•
( 13) My adopted son Rangana~han and hi~ mal~
heirs shall after the lifetime of my wife Lakshmi Ach1
properly conduct the aforesaid charities. In order to
supervise and see whether Ranganathan conducts the
charities properly without any defect whatever, I have
226
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1958]
z957
· appointed the following persons as the executors,
Ranganathan · namely, (1) my son-in-law Arunachalam Chettiar, son
Chettiar
of Alagapuri .Alagappa Chettiar who is interested in
v.
both myself and Ranganathan, the two sons of
Periaka.~ppan Kanadukathan AL .. K. Chandra Mouli Chettiar,
• Chettiar
namely, (2) Karuppan Chetty, (3) Peria Karuppan
Jagannadhrd~; 1. Chetty, and (4) l\Iurugappan, son of Konapattu Subramanian Chettiar. The said persons shall :_tccordingly
supervise (the performance of the charities) in a proper
manner .
. (14) I am entertaining a· desire that I should
•
spend my lifetime and die at Tiruvarur alone. l\Iy
body shall not be cremated according to our caste -
custom, and a samadhi (tomb) shall be erected for me,
and a la.mp shall be lit therein daily and a person shall
. be appointed to perform Neivedhiyam (by preparing
food) with 1/4 measure of rice by· the big measure
daily. Guru pooja shall be performed once a year in
the Star in which I die, by distributing food to the
mendicants, and by spending an amount to the extent
of Rs. 250 (Rupees two hundred and fifty) every year
by inviting my relations. A sum of Rs. 15,000 (rupees
fifteen thousand) shall be sent for and obtained from
the Saigon firm from out of my own funds for the aforesaid Tirupani (service) in the temple and my wife shall
conduct the aforesaid Tirupani. .The daily expenses
of the Samadhi aforesaid and Guru pooja et9,, shall be
met from the Patasala charity funds and conducted.
(15) Apart from the properties which have been
set apart for the abovementioned charities and the
properties which have to be newly purchased hereafter
for the same, as my adopted son Ranganathan and
his male heirs have to take all the immovable and
mova:ble properties belonging to me and as the aforesaid adopted son namely Ranganathan is now a minor
the said Ranganathan shall after he attains majority
•
· and if he is of good behaviour (take in his possession)
the aforesaid properties after my lifetime and afterthe
lifetime of my wife Lakshmi Achi and enjoy them.
(16) In case the aforesaid Ranganathan does not
conduct himself pr_operly or if my wife Lakshmi A chi
'
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
227
does not like, the following two persons, namely, (1)
t9H
K.AS.P.Rm. Ramaswami Chettiar, son of Athanguqi
Ranganathatt
Palaniappa Chettiar, and (2) PL.T. Rm;. Ramaswami
Chmiar
Chettiar, son of Karaikudi Thenappa Chettiar shall
Periak~~appan
manage my properties after the lifetime of my wife
Chettiar .
Lakshmi
Achi
till Ranganathan comes of good Jagannadhadas :J.
_
behaviour. The amount which may be found just fot
family expenses shall be paid till such time
when
the aforesaid Ranganathan begins to conduct himself
properly and when the properties are delivered in his
possession.
(17)
..•................•................••
(18) For the expenses of the maintenance right,
etc., of my wife Lakshmi Achi and for the necessary
expenses of pilgrimages to sacred places a sum of
Rs. 15,000 (fifteen thousand) dollars has been credited·
in her name in the Saigon firm, and she shall send for
and obtain the amount of interest alone got for the
said amount every year and spend it according to her
pleasure. My adopted son Ranganathan and his male
heirs shall take the principal amount.
(19)
............ ·.· ...•. ~· .......•.......•
(20) As regards the substantial
tiled building
which belongs to me and which is in my own place
and which I am residing, and one bungalow building
built by me in the Therodam veedhi (street in which
the chariot is drawn) in the said place, my wife shall
enjoy them after my lifetime and after her my adopted
son Ranganathan and his male-heirs shall perm~mently
and for ever enjoy the said buildings. Apart· from
enjoying the abovementioned two buildings, none of
them shall have any right to alienate them in any
manner.
(21) If apart from the matters specified by me
herein, it is necessary that any documents should be
brought into existence after my lifetime during the lifetime of my wife regarding the properties belonging to
me and regarding the charity properties and regarding
the family maintenance from time to time. I have
hereby given authority to my wife
Lakshmi Achi
mentioned above to execute such documents regarding
228
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[1958]
1957
the same.
My adopted son Ranganathan shall perform
Ranganathan
the funeral obsequies for myself and for my wife.
chettw
. (22) and (23) ......................••........
.Perlllk",;,uppan
(Sd.) A. L. P.R. Periakaruppan Chetty."
Chtttlilr
In order to understand the background of this will, it
'"'""";;;n;,,,01 1 is necessary to recapitulate the previous family history
· which has already been adverted to at the commencement of this judgment. That is as follows. Periakaruppa
adopted Alagappa in or about 1914. He apparently
was a spendthrift in his habits and incurred
many
debts. There developed ill-feeling between them which
led to mutual criminal complaints against each other
in 1926. One of his creditors obtained a decree and
attached
the family
house. This led to litigation
in which
Periakaruppa asserted and succeeded in
establishing that the superstructure of the family
house, which was a costly one, was his own self-acqisition. During the pendency of this litigation Periakaruppa adopted for the second time, Ranganatha,
claiming to do so by way of custom in the Nattukottai
Chetti community. This led to a suit for partition by
Alagappa clai.ming all the properties to be joint properties and for a declaration that the second adoption
was invalid. This suit was at a very early stage
compromised on the terms that Alagappa and his son
were to take away as between themselves a sum of
Rs . 1,50,000 in cash and would have no claim of any
kind of any of the properties in the possession of
•
Periakaruppa and no claim to inte1;fere in any manner
with the various charities and religious endowments
which Periakaruppa made. The properties were all
admitted to be the self-acquisitions of Periakaruppa
and his right to alienate the property by will was
specifically recognised. Alagappa with his wife and
son was to clear out of the family house with all their
belongings. Alagappa got his share of the cash under
the
Rajinama by means
of two hmidis one for
Rs. 25,000 and another for Rs. 50,000. They were
specifically delivered over, as recited in one of the
terms of the Rajinama, to one Chockalingam who was
made responsible to discharge all the encumbered debts
so far incurred by Alagappa, from out of the moneys
:S.C.R
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
229
.of those two hundis so as to make sure that no liability .
1957
would arise out of the debts previously incurred by
Ranganathan
Alagappa which might affect Periakaruppa. It is in
Chetttar
evidence that after this compromise Alagappa and his
Pertak";,uppan
family consisting of his wife and son cleared out of the
Chettiar
original family house built by Periakaruppa and that Jagan~da~ J.
they were living separate from Periakaruppa. Periakaruppa and his second adopted son Ranganatha
were presumably living together in that original family
house as stated in the will. This Rajinama was on
August 15, 1927, and the will was executed on April 4,
1929, i.e., a year and eight months thereafter. It may
be noticed at this stage that the Rajinama while it
admits one of the 'points in controversy in suit, viz.,
that the property is self-acquired property of Periakaruppan, is silent about the other question at issue,
viz., as to the validity of the second adoption and in
fact the suit was terminated by a formal dismissal
thereof presumably leaving this disputed question at
large.
The will starts with an assertion that all the movable and immovable properties in his possession are
his self-acquired properties and that excepting himself
no other person has any interest or right therein. It
asserts that Alagappa conducted himself in immoral
ways, fell into bad company, brought into existence
several false and colourable documents and borrowed
debts to the tune of about a lakh of rupees and caused
decrees. to be passed in some of them and became
inimical towards him. It asserts that Alagappa left
his family and was living separately for the past about
ten years. Notwithstanding that he was an undisputed
adopted son, he referred to him in the will as
'Abhimanaputra' (foster-son). In contrast with this he
states that Ranganatha was taken in adoption by him,
that Ranganatha was at the time of the will about· 17!
years old and that he was living with him. Clauses 7
to 14 of the will ref er to various religious and charitable
endowments which he had made and the properties
which he gave to them. It also enumerates
the
arrangements for their management By cl. 8 he makes
provision for the construction
1 and maintenance of
230
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[19581
19s1
Brahmana Veda
Patasala attached to the temple of
Ranganathan
Sri Sri Theagarajaswami in Thiruvarur. Clauses 8 and
c1re11iar
9 set apart certain properties for the due maintenance
Periak"druppaa
of the said Patasala. Clause 10 relates to the establishChettiar
ment of three charities in addition to the
above
Jazan;;;;;n;adas J. Patasala charity,
to be conducted and maintained
out of the income of the same properties as have been
set apart for the Pata:Jala charity. In cl. 11 he states
that no person shall have any right to alienate or
encumber the properties set apart for the charities. By
cl. 12 he appoints his wife Lakshmi Achi as the manager to conduct the above charities after his lifetime.
By cl. 13 he directs that his 'adop~ed son' Ranganatha
and his male heirs shall after the lifetime of his wife
Lakshmi Achi properly conduct the above-said charities.
He appoints three persons as executors to supervise the
management by 'Ranganatha'. By cl. 14 he expresses
a desire to spend the rest of his lifetime at Thiruvarur
and die there. He says that his body shall not be
cremated according to custom but that a samadhi
(tomb) should be erected for him and that a lamp is to
be lit there daily and that a person should be appointed
to perform Neivedhiyam daily, of a specified quantity
of rice. By the same clause he also enjoins that
Guru pooja should be performed once a year in the
star in which he dies by distributing food to the mendicants by spending Rs. 250 every year. He does not
specifically indicate who is to perform the Guru pooja.
The context may well be taken to indicate that the
paid employee was to do it. He indicates that a sum
of Rs. 15,000 was set apart for the above purpose in a
Saigon firm and that it should be sent for and utilised
by his wife for the aforesaid Tirupani. This, in the
context, seems to refer to the construction of the
Samadhi. He also says that the daily expenses of the
samadhi and the Guru pooja expenses should be met
from the Patasala charity funds. Thereafter come
the various provisions relating to the disposition of the
residue of his property. The effect of these provisions
in els. l 5 and 16 is that after this lifetime his wife
Lakshmi Achi should enjoy the residue and that thereafter the "adopted son Ranghanatha" is to take them
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
231
into his possession and enjoy them (after the death
. t9S7
of himself and his wife) on his attaining majority and
Ranganathan
if he is of good behaviour. It is specifically pro·
Chettiar
vided that if " the aforesaid Ranganatha" does not
Periak~~uppan
conduct himself properly
or if his wife
Lakshmi
Chettiar
Achi does not like (him ) two
specified persons, Jagann-;;;;;adas J.
K.AS.P.Rm. Ramaswamy Chettiar and PL. T. Rm'.
Ramasami Chettiar should manage the
properties
after the lifetime of Lakshmi Achi till "Ranganatha"
comes of good behaviour and that he should
be
paid by them just enough for his family expenses
till such time when 'the aforesaid Ranganatha' begins
to conduct himself properly and that the properties
are to be delivered into his possession then. Under
cl. 18 the 'adopted son Ranganatha' should take the
princip~l amount of Rs. 15,000 set apart for his wife
Lakshmi Achi after her death. There is also cl. 20
which
provides that the substantial tiled
building
belonging to him which is in his own place and in
which he was residing and one bungalow built by him
in the Therodum Veedhi (Car Street) shall be enjoyed by
his wife after his own lifetime and that after her lifetime 'his adopted son Ranganatha" and his male
heirs shall permanently and for· ever enjoy the said
buildings. There. are a few other specific legacies in
cl~. 17 and 18 which require no notice.