- (1.) One Lakshminarayana Iyer, a Hindu Brahmin, who owned considerable properties in the Trirunelveli district, died on 13-12-l924, leaving him surviving a widow Ranganayaki, and a married daughter Ramalakshmi. Ramalakshmi had married the plaintiff and had a number of children from him. They were all alive in December 1924 when Lakshminarayana died. Before his death he executed a will on 16-11-1924, the construction of which is in controversy in this appeal. By this he gave the following directions : "After my lifetime, you. the aforesaid Ranganayaki Ammal, my wife, shall till your lifetime, enjoy the aforesaid entire properties, the outstandings due to me, the debts payable by me, and the chit amounts payable by me. After your lifetime Ramalakshmi Ammal, our daughter and wife of Rama Ayyar Avergal of Melagaram village, and her heirs shall enjoy them with absolute rights and powers of alienation such as gift, exchange, and sale from son to grandson and so on for generations. As regards the payment of maintenance to be made to Chinnammal alias Lakshmi Ammal wife of my late son Hariharamayyan, my wife Ranganayaki Ammal shall pay the same as she pleases, and obtain a release deed." Ranganayaki entered into possession of the properties on the death of her husband. On 21-2-1928 she settled the maintenance claim of Lakshmi Ammal and obtained a deed of release from her by paying her a sum of Rs. 3,350/- in cash and by executing in her favour an agreement stipulating to pay her a sum of Rs. 240/- per annum.
(2.) Ramalakshmi died on 25-4-1938 during the lifetime of the widow. None of her children survived her. On 24-7-1945 the widow describing herself as an absolute owner of the properties of her husband, sold one of the items of the property to defendant 2 for Rs. 500/-. On 18-9-1945 the suit out of which this appeal arises was instituted by the plaintiff, the husband and the sole heir of Ramalakshmi for a declaration that the said sale would not be binding on him beyond the lifetime of the widow. A prayer was made that the widow be restrained from alienating the other properties in her possession. On 19-9-1945 an ad interim injunction was issued by the High Court restraining the widow from alienating the properties in her possession and forming part of her husband's estate. In spite of this injunction, on 27-9-1945 she executed two deeds of settlement in favour of the other defendants comprising a number of properties. The plaintiff was allowed to amend his plaint and include therein a prayer for a declaration in respect of the invalidity of these alienations as well. It was averred in the plaint that Ramalakshmi obtained a vested interest in the suit properties under the will of her father and plaintiff was thus entitled to maintain the suit.
(3.) The defendants pleaded that the plaintiff had no title to maintain the suit, that the widow was entitled under the will to an absolute estate or at least to an estate analogous to and not less than a widow's estate, that the estate given to Ramalakahmi under the will was but a contingent one and she having predeceased the widow, no interest in the suit properties devolved on the plaintiff. The main issue in the suit was whether the widow took under the will an absolute estate or an estate like the Hindu widow's estate and whether the daughter's interest therein was in the nature of a contingent remainder, or whether she got in the properties a vested interest.;