K. NAINA MOHAMED (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. versus A.M. VASUDEVAN CHETTIAR (D) BY LRS. & ORS.

K. NAINA MOHAMED (DEAD) THROUGH LRS. versus A.M. VASUDEVAN CHETTIAR (D) BY LRS. & ORS.

Restriction in the Will for sale among male heirs and not to strangers is valid, constitutes a right of pre-emption, and does not violate rule against perpetuity. Purchaser who violated this restriction cannot challenge the validity of the restriction. Appeal did not abate as purchaser represented the estate; restriction in Will is enforceable.

Parties
Appellant: K. Naina Mohamed (Dead) Through LRS.; Respondents: A.M. Vasudevan Chettiar (Dead) By LRS. & Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
07 July 2010
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Appeal From Madras High Court Judgment in S.a. No. 360 of 1989
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Rule Against Perpetuity, Execution of Will, Life Interest, Restriction on Alienation, Pre Emption, Abatement of Appeal
Succession Law Civil Procedure Property Law Rule Against Perpetuity Execution of Will Life Interest Restriction on Alienation Pre Emption +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

K. Naina Mohamed (Dead) Through LRS.

Appellant

A.M. Vasudevan Chettiar (Dead) By LRS. & Ors.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Appeal From Madras High Court Judgment in S.a. No. 360 of 1989

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether restriction in Will prohibiting alienation of property to strangers violates rule against perpetuity under s.114 of Indian Succession Act, 1925
  2. 2 Whether appeal stood abated due to death of vendors during pendency of second appeal and non-impleadment of legal representatives
  3. 3 Whether restriction in Will amounts to a valid right of pre-emption

Ratio Decidendi

Restriction in the Will for sale among male heirs and not to strangers is valid, constitutes a right of pre-emption, and does not violate rule against perpetuity. Purchaser who violated this restriction cannot challenge the validity of the restriction. Appeal did not abate as purchaser represented the estate; restriction in Will is enforceable.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Parties to bear their own costs