N. KASTURI versus D. PONNAMMAL AND OTHERS

N. KASTURI versus D. PONNAMMAL AND OTHERS

Clause 12 was intended to operate at the time of the testator's death and not later; therefore the appellant did not acquire any interest under clause 12 and his rights were governed by clause 11 which required his adoption by the widow before any interest could arise.

Parties
Appellant: N. Kasturi; Respondent: D. Ponnammal; Respondent: Mangayarkarasi Ammal; Respondent: Pichai Ammal; Respondent: Kalyanasundaram (respondent No. 5)
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
23 February 1961
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Judgment and Decree Dated September 17, 1952 of the Madras High Court in A. S. No. 270 of 1948
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Adoption, Vesting and Defeasance, Intestacy, Testamentary Intention, Postponement of Vesting
Wills and Succession Hindu Law Civil Appellate Jurisdiction Construction of Wills Adoption Vesting and Defeasance Intestacy Testamentary Intention +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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

N. Kasturi

Appellant

D. Ponnammal

Respondent

Mangayarkarasi Ammal

Respondent

Pichai Ammal

Respondent

Kalyanasundaram (respondent No. 5)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Judgment and Decree Dated September 17, 1952 of the Madras High Court in A. S. No. 270 of 1948

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether clause 12 of the will gave the appellant a vested interest in half the properties subject to defeasance by subsequent adoption
  2. 2 Whether clause 12 operated at the time of the testator's death or could vest later upon non-adoption until a future adoption
  3. 3 Whether the will should be construed so as to avoid intestacy or postpone vesting

Ratio Decidendi

Clause 12 was intended to operate at the time of the testator's death and not later; therefore the appellant did not acquire any interest under clause 12 and his rights were governed by clause 11 which required his adoption by the widow before any interest could arise.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • No order as to costs