M JANAKIRAMAN Vs. MEENAKSHI AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE second defendant is the appellant. THE plaintiff and defendants 3 to 8 are the respondents. THE suit properties originally belonged to one Sambamurthi Iyer, He had a son by name Halasyam Iyer and a daughter, the first defendant herein. Plaintiff is the wife of Halasyam Iyer, who pre-deceased his father Sambamurthi Iyer. THE first defendant died during the pendency of the suit and defendants 2 to 8 are added as the legal representatives of the deceased first defendant. Though the plaintiff contended in the earlier suit O.S. No. 21 of 1963 on the file of the District Munsif� s Court, Mayuram, that the properties were the joint family properties and Sambamurthi Iyer was not the exclusive owner and not competent to execute a will in respect of all his properties the suit ultimately went against her as a result of the decision of this Court is A.S No. 19 of 1968.

(2.) THE plaintiffs present case is that she was bond to be maintained by her father-in-law during his lifetime and even if it is held to be only a moral obligation, on his death it ripened into a legal liability and is capable of being enforced against the estate of the said Sambamurthi Iyer, now in the hands of the first defendant, as a result of the will executed by Sambamurthi Iyer. According to the plaintiff the estate of Sambamurthi Iyer is capable of yielding a net annual income of not less than 500 kalams of paddy worth of Rs. 15,000. and the house at Mayuram and other non-agricultural properties will yield an annual income of Rs. 2,500. THE plaintiff has claimed past maintenance at the rate of Rs. 500. per month for a period of nine months and future maintenance at the same rate of Rs 505- per month with a charge on the B Schedule properties.

(3.) THE trial Court held that (1) the plaintiff, who is the daughter-in-law of Samba-murthi Iyer, is a dependant and (2) she has not inherited any share in the estate of the deceased and by virtue of section 22 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act 1956, the liability to maintain the dependant from the estate of the deceased continues, (3) the expression � heir� as used in section 22 includes all those on whom the estate of the deceased devolves whether on intestacy or by means of a testamentary instrument like a will, and whoever gets the estate of the deceased on a part of it, must in proportion get along with it a corresponding obligation or burden of maintaining the dependants of the deceased and as the defendants are in possession and enjoyment of the estate of Sambamurthi Iyer, by virtue of section 22 they are liable to maintain the plaintiff.