Porkodial Achi and Another vs Sukumaran and Others

V. Ramaswami, J.—One Subbia Chettiar had three sons by name Ramans than Chettiar, Nagappan Chettiar and Annamalai Chettiar The

branches of these three sons were known as S.R.M. Family, S.M. Family and S. A. Family. Ramanathan Chettiar of S. RM. Family had four sons,

of whom, the last was one, S.R.M. Arunachalam Chettiar. He died in or about the year 1934, leaving behind two sons by name Somasundaram

Chettiar and Subbia Chettiar and three daughters, by name Visalakshi Achi, Porkodial Achi and Meenakshi Achi. Subbiah was adopted by one of

his senior paternal uncles. Visalakshi Achi died leaving no heirs.

Somasundaram Chettiar was married to one Valiammal Achi, who died on 21st January 1966. Somasunadaram Chettiar died on 12th April

1966, leaving a registered Will dated 27th May 1961. Porkodial Achi and Meenakshi Achi, the sisters of Somasundaram Chettiar, have filed the

suit, out of which these appeals arise, for a declaration that they are the legal heirs of the deceased Somasundaram Chetttiar entitled to inherit his

properties and the trusteeship of the family Charity Trust, and that they are entitled to the amount of Rs. 2,758 lying in deposit in the Bank of

Karaikudi in the names of the deceased Somasundaram and Subbia Chettiar.

Defendants 1 to 5 are the sons of the 6th Defendant, Rajalakshmi, through the deceased Somasundaram Chettiar. The 7th Defendant in the suit

represented the S.M. Family and Defendants 8 and 9 represented the S.A. Family. Defendants 12, 11 and 10 are the adopted sons, respectively,

of the three senior paternal uncles of the deceased Somasundaram Chettiar.

The suit properties consisted of three items. The first item is a portion of a house in Karaikudi town. The second item is a sum of Rs. 2,758 lying

in deposit in the Bank of Karaikudi in the names of the deceased and the 12th Defendant. The third item relates to the trusteeship right in respect of

some charitable trust property. Under the Will dated 27th May 1961, the deceased Somasundaram had bequeathed all these suit items in favor of

Defendants 1 to 6 describing Valliammal Achi as his senior wife, the 6th Defendant as the junior wife and Defendants 1 to 5 as his sons through his

junior wife.

After the death of Somasundaram, the Plaintiffs have filed this suit claiming that they are the legal heirs according to the Hindu Succession Act

and they are entitled to inherit the estate of Somasundaram. They contended that the 6th Defendant, Rajalakshmi, is not legally wedded to

Somasuadaram, that he was only keeping her as a concubine and that Defendants 1 to 5 are the illegitimate children of Somasundaram through

Rajalakshmi. Therefore, Defendants 1 to 6 are not entitled to inherit the estate of Somasundaram. It was further contended that the Will executed

by Somasundaram was not true and valid. It was stated in the plaint that the deceased was not in a sound disposing state of mind, that he should

have fallen a victing to the deception practiced by his concubine, Rajalakshmi, that the Will was executed under influence and coercion, and that,

therefore, it was not valid. In regard to the trusteeship, the Plaintiffs also contended that the deceased had no testamentary capacity to be queath

the same by Will. In regard to the cash amount of Rs. 2,758 it is stated that there cannot be any valid disposition of the same as it was kept in the

joint names of the deceased and the 12th Defendant and as it had already been earmarked for performing seermurais to the Plaintiffs.

In the written statement filed by the 6th Defendant she pleaded that she was married to Somasundaram on 1st September 1937 at

Mahadanapuram of Thiruchirappalli district; that a ceremony of marriage was performed by Somasundaram tying the Thali around the neck of the

6th Defendant before a sacred lit lamp (lighted Kuthuvilakku) and exchanging of garlands in the presence of chosen relatives and friends. The 6th

Defendant and Somasundaram became husband and wife and since then they were living as husband and wife. This was known to all the relatives

of the Plaintiffs and Somasundaram, and they have been treating them as husband and wife Since it was felt that the ceremonies of the marriage

gone through were not in strict accordance with Hindu Sastras, Somasundaram got the said marriage registered u/s 15 of the Special Marriage

Act, 1954 and the marriage has been entered in the Marriage Certificate Book on 7th April 1966. Defendants 1 to 5 have been born to them of

that marriage and under the provisions of the Special Marriages Act, they shall be deemed to be legitimate children of their suffered parents, The

Defendants denied that the Will suffered from any want of sound disposing state of mind or that it was executed under undue influence and

coercion. The Will was executed by Somasundaram in a sound and disposing state of mind and of his own free Will. There was nothing unnatural

in the terms of the Will either. Thus, Defendants 1 to 6 claim to succeed to the estate of Somasundaram, both as his legal heirs and under the Will

executed by him.

The 12th Defendant filed a separate written statement. In this statement, he contended that though he was adopted to his senior paternal uncle,

by virtue of an agreement between the adoptive mother and the natural father, the properties of the two branches should be held, treated and

enjoyed as belonging to one joint family and divided equally among all the sons of his natural father, then existing and thereafter to be born, and

that, therefore, he would be entitled to a share in Somasuhdaram''s estate. According-to him, the Plaintiffs would be entitled to 2/3rd share in item

No. 1 of the plaint schedule and the 12th Defendant to the remaining l/3rd So far as the second item is concerned, he claimed that the Plaintiffs are

not entitled to any portion of the amount, as they were entitled to only for certain seermurais on festive occasions and he was entitled to the amount

not spent. So far as item No. 3, was concerned, he contended that the management of the charities is restricted by the scheme decree in Original

Suit No. 31 of 1919 to the member of S.R.M, S. M., and S.A., Families and that 3ince the Plaintiffs had married and gone to different families,

they are not entitled to claim the right of management of the trust. He contended further that the management is vested only in the male members of

the families and the Plaintiffs being ladies, on that ground as well, they are not entitled to take part in the management of the trust. But, he

supported the Plaintiffs case that the 6th Defendant was not a legally married wife of the said Somasundaram and that the Will was also not true

and valid.

The learned Subordinate Judge of Devokottai, who tried the suit, held the Will was duly executed and attested out of the free Will of the testator

in a sound disposing state of mind and that it was not the result of undue influence or coercion. The deceased, Somasundaram, was entitled to the

amount lying in deposit with the Bank of Karaikudi and that amount also was disposed of in the Will in favour of Defendants 1 to 6. The turn

management of the trust was property, which was validly disposed of under the Will by Somasundaram in favour of his sons, Defendants 1 to 5.

The learned Subordinate Judge did not accept the claim of the 12th defendant that inspite of his adoption in some other family, he was still entitled

to certain rights in the natural family-His claim for l/3rd share in item No. 1 as a legal heir of Somasundaram was, therefore, rejected. On the

question of the validity of the marriage, the trial Court held that there was, in fact, a marriage on 1st September 1937, though not strictly in

accordance with the Hindu Sastras, that on the registration of the marriage under the Special Marriages Act 1954, the marriage became validated.

Therefore, there was a valid marriage between Somasundaram and the 6th Defendant and Defendants 1 to 5 are the legitimate children of the

deceased Somasundaram. On these findings, the Court below held that neither the Plaintiffs nor the 11th Defendant is entitled to any relief and

dismissed the suit.

The Plaintiffs have filed Appeal Suit No. 314 of 1968 against the dismissal of the suit and the 12th Defendant has filed Appeal Suit No. 570 of

1968 in so far as items 2 and 3 of the plaint schedule are concerned.

The first point that arises for consideration in this appeal is as to whether there was any legally valid marriage between Somasundaram and

Rajalakshmi, the 6th Defendant in this appeal, and whether Defendants 1 to 5 are the legitimate children of Somasundaram. In her evidence

Rajalakshmi, the 6th Defendant, had stated that she was married to Samasundaram on 1st September, 1937 and that the marriage took place

between 5 p. m. and 5-30 p. m. in the school of at Mahadanapuram, of which D.W.I., Ratnammal was the Headmistress. There was a picture of

Lord Krishna. Her aunt Ponnammal lit the Kuthuviakku and her uncle Arunachala Chettiar, the husband of Ponnammal, gave two garlands, one

each to her and Somasundaram, and they exchanged their garlands. Somasundaram also tied a thali around her neck. The elders present,

thereafter blessed the couple. The ceremony was followed by a dinner. The ceremony and the dinner was attended by about 30 persons, of whom

some were relations of the parties and some friends. The grand father and grand mother of Rajalakshmi were also present. She also admitted that

though Somasundaram and herself are Hindus, they belonged to different castes. No purohit was present for officiating the marriage ceremony.

There is ample evidence to show that a marriage took place between the 6th Defendant, Rajalakshmi and Somasundaram in the form and manner

spoken to by the 6th Defendant as D.W. 6, D.W. 1, the Headmistress of the school who claims to be a family friend of Rajalakshmi corroborates

this evidence. D. W. 2, the daughter of D.W.I, who had studied with Rajalakshmi in the Training School at Thanjavur from 1935 to 1937 was also

present at the marriage and had spoken to the marriage in identical terms as that of her mother, D.W.I, and corroborates the evidence of

Rajalakshmi. Arunachalam Chettiar and Ponnammal, the uncle and aunt of Rajalakshmi, and her grand parents are not alive. But, Subbia Chettiar,

the brother of Arunachalam Chettiar, who was also present at the marriage ceremony, had come and given evidence as D. W. 5 and this witness

also speaks to the fact of the marriage on 1st September 1937.

We have also the documentary evidence relating to the proposal for the marriage, between Rajalakshmi and Somasundaram. Exhibit B-4 is a

letter written by Arunachalam Chettiar, the uncle of Rajalakshmi to Somasundaram Chettiar, her husband. This letter is, dated 24th December,

1936. This letter states that Rajalakshmi''s holidays would be beginning in another 10 day''s time and that as already desired, the marriage between

Rajalakshmi and Somasundaram could be performed during the holidays. It is further stated that since, he is intending to go to Burma, it would be

convenient for him to have the marriage performed during the holidays itself. This letter is proved by D. W. 5, as in the hand writ-ting of his

brother, Arunachalam Chettiar. The. marriage itself is stated to have taken place only on 1st September, 1937, as the 6th Defendant expressed the

desire that she would complete her course in the Training School. Nothing hat also been elicited to discredit the evidence of D. Ws 1 and 2, who

are independent witnesses. The learned Subordinate Judge, who had the advantage of observing the demeanour of these witnesses has specifically

stated that they had impressed him very much as straightforward witnesses and speaking the truth. We also do not see any thing to discredit their

evidence. We have, therefore, no doubt that a ceremony of marriage in the form spoken to by the 6th Defendant, did take place between

Somasundaram and Rajalakhmi, the 6th Defendant.

But, for a valid marriage under the Hindu Law, two essential rites had to be performed. They are, the invocation before the sacred fire and

saptapathy, or taking of seven steps by the bride and bridegroom jointly before the sacred fire. Only on the completion of the 7th step, there could

be a valid marriage under Hindu Law. Further, the orthodox Hindu Law did not recognise any marriage between different castes, though both

parties may be Hindus. These essential requirements are absent and. therefore, there was no valid marriage, as recognised by. Hindu Law.

It is also in evidence that subsequent to the marriage in 1937, Somasundaram and Rajalakshmi lived as husband and wife till the death of

Somasundaram on 12th April 1966. This is spoken to by D.W Section 1 and 5, in addition to the evidence of the 6th Defendant, Rajalakshmi

herself. Even the 12th Defendant who is the natural brother of Somasundaram in his evidence, as D. W. 7, has admitted that Somasundaram and

Rajalakshmi were living in the same house ever-since, September 1937 and that Somasundaram had told him that Rajalakshmi was his wife,

though he would add that he was keeping her as a concubine.

Somasundaram had settled some properties under exhibit B-5., dated 24th November,1947 and A-1, dated 17th April, 1953. In both these

documents, he has described the 6th Defendant as his second wife. In the Will dated, 27th May, 1961 also he has described the 6th Defendant as

the second wife. Though the second Plaintiff and her husband would deny that they were living as husband and wife they could not deny the fact

that they were living together in the same house and Defendants 1 to 5 were their children born to them during thatperiod. The trial Court also

accepted this evidence and held that they were living as husband and wife till the death of Somasundaram, ever since the marriage in 1937. We

also accept this evidence and hold that they were living as husband and wife till the death of Somasundaram. We have already noticed that the first

wife Valliammal Achi died on 21st January, 1966. Finding that the ceremony of marriage was not strictly in accordance with the Hindu Law, as it

then was, Somasundaram and Rajalakshmi had filed an application u/s 15 of the Special Marriages Act, 1954 on 1st March, 1966 for registration

of the marriage under that Act. The public notice, as required by Section 16 was issued by the Joint Sub-Registrar, exercising the powers of

Marriage Officer, Pudukkottai, on 4th March, 1966 informing that the marriage will be registered after 30 days from that date and calling for

objections, if any. The marriage was registered on 7th April, 1966, there being no objection from anybody for registering the same. It seen from

the certificate issued to the parties that Somasundaram and Rajalakshmi have signed the Marriage Register in the presence of the Joint Registrar

and Marriage Officer, Pudukkottai, and in the presence of three witnesses and certifies that the ceremony of marriage has been performed

between Somasundaram and Rajalakshmi and that they have been living together as husband and wife since the time of the marriage and that in

accordance with their desire to have their marriage registered under the Act the said marriage had been registered under the Act, having the effect

as from the 7th April, 1966. The certificate also mentions the names of Defendants 1 to 5 as that of the children born to them after the date of the

ceremony of marriage. It may be seen from the provisions of Section 13 (2) of the Act that on a certificate being entered in the Marriage

Certificate Book by the Marriage Officer, the certificate snail be deemed to be conclusive evidence of the fact that a marriage under the Act has

been solemnised and that all formalities respecting the signatures of witnesses have been complied with. The effect of such registration is provided

u/s 18, which makes that as from the date of such entry, the marriage shall be deemed to be a marriage solemnised under the Act and all children

born after the date of the ceremony of marriage, whose names shall also be entered in the Marriage Certificate Book, shall in all respects be

deemed to be and always to have been the legitimate children of their parents. Since the marriage, in this case, has been registered under the Act,

though at the time when it was originally, solemnised it was not in accordance with Hindu Law, the marriage becomes a legal marriage and,

therefore, the progeny legitimate children.

Though Section 13 (3) makes the certificate conclusive evidence of the fact that the marriage under this Act has been solemnised, the learned

Counsel for the Appellants contended that the conditions necessary for registration of the marriage required u/s 15, are not present in this case and

that, therefore, the registration did not establish any valid marriage. One of the conditions required in Section 15 is that a ceremony of marriage has

been performed between the parties and that they have been living together as husband and wife ever-since. According to the learned Counsel, the

ceremony of marriage required in this condition is a ceremony, as contemplated, under the Hindu Law and not any other form of ceremony, and

the use of the words husband and wife in this requirement also show that there should have been a valid marriage. In other words, according to the

learned Counsel unless there had been a valid marriage, that could not be registered under the Act. In this connection, he wanted to rely on the

meaning given to the words husband and wife, marriage and ceremony in various dictionaries, He also relied on two decisions of the Supreme

Court viz, Bhaurao Shankar Lokhande and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra and Another, and Priya Bala v. Suresh Chandra. AIR 1971 S.C.

1153.

In both these cases, the question for consideration was whether for a prosecution for bigamy u/s 494 Indian Penal Code, it, was necessary to

establish that the second marriage had been duly performed in accordance with the essential religious rites applicable to the form of marriage gone

through. u/s 494, whoever haying a husband or wife living, marriage, in any cases in which such marriage is void, by reason of its taking place

during the lifetime of the husband or wife, shall be liable to for punishment.

It was contended on behalf of the prosecution that for an offence u/s 494, Indian Penal Code it was not necessary that the second marriage

should be valid one and a person going through any form of marriage during the lifetime of the first wife would be guilty of the offence. In rejecting

this contention in the first of the cases, the Supreme Court observed:

Prima facie that expression ''whoever ...marries'' must mean ''whoever ...marries validly'' or ''whoever ...marries and whose marriage is a valid one.

If the marriage is not a valid one, according to the law applicable to the parties, '' no question of its being void by reason of its taking place during

the lifetime of the husband or wife of the person marrying arises. If the marriage is not a valid marriage, it is no marriage in the eye of law.

In the latter case also, (he Supreme Court quoted this passage with approval and followed the same. In both these cases, it was found that the

second marriage was not valid in law, as the homam and saptapathy were absent in the ceremonies performed. No question of the register ability

of such a marriage under the Special Marriages Act arose for consideration in those cases.

We are unable to agree with the learned Counsel that in order to gel the marriage registered under the Act, there should have been valid

marriage as contemplated under the Hindu Law. If that were so, absolutely, there was no necessity for the enactment. Section 18 declares the

children born after the date of the ceremony of marriage, as legitimate. If the marriage was valid under the Hindu Law, the children always are

legitimate and there was no need or requirement of their names to be entered in the certificate and declaring them to be legitimate children of their

parents. The proviso to Section 18 is also noteworthy. That provides that the registration of the marriage makes the children legitimate for the

purpose of inheriting the rights in and to property of the parents and it did not confer upon such children any right in or to the property of any

person other than their parents. In any case, but for the passing of the Act, such children would, have been incapable of possessing or acquiring

any such rights by reason of their not being the legitimate children of their parents. There is no dispute that the other condition required u/s 15 are

comp-lied with in this case. We have no doubt that the registration of the marriage under the Special Marriages Act has validated the marriage and

the children had become legitimate children of their parents.

We are also of the view that the marriage, even if it had not been validly registered, has been validated by Section 7-A of the Hindu Marriage

Act, 1955 as amended by the Hindu Marriage (Madras Amendment) Act, (Madras Act, No. XXI of 1967). Section 7-A of the Hindu Marriage

Act, 1955, which was amended by Madras Act XXI of 1967, validated not only the Suyamariyathai marriage or Seerthirutha marriage, but has

also validated all such marriages which were solemnised at any time before the commencement of that Act. That section applies to any marriage

between any two Hindus whether called Suyamariyathai or Seerthirutha or by any other name, solemnised in the presence of relatives, friends or

other persons, by each, party to that marriage declaring in the language understood by the parties that each takes the other to be his wife or as the

case may be, her husband, or, by each party to the marriage garlanding the other or putting a ring upon any finger of the other; or by tying of the

Thali.

We have seen already that the evidence in this case discloses that there was a marriage between Somasundaram and Rajalakshmi, in which

they have exchanged their garlands and Somasundaram also tied a Thali to Rajalakshmi. Therefore, the marriage which took place in 1937

squarely falls within the provisions of Section 7-A. Clause (2) (b) of Section 7-A states that notwithstanding anything contained in Section 7 or in

any text, rule or interpretation of Hindu Law or any other custom or usage or in any judgment or decree or order, of any Court, all marriages to

which that section applied solemnised at any time before such commencement, shall be deemed to have been, with effect on and from the data of

solemnization of such marriages, good and valid in law. 21. The learned Counsel for the Appellants contended that Section 7-A (2) (b) deals with

marriages that took place from the commencement of the Hindu Marriages Act, 1935 and the date on which the amending Madras Act XXI of

1967 came into force and it would not validate any marriage that took place prior to the Hindu Marriages Act, 1955. We are unable to agree with

this contention of the learned Counsel. The language of Section 7-A (2) (b) is clear and unequivocal and makes the marriages solemnised, at any

time, before the commencement, valid in law. A reading of Section 7-A (3) would also make it clear that the section is retrospective and validates

even marriages held prior to 1955,

A similar view was taken by a Division Bench of this Court, to which one of us was a party, in the decision in Raghuvir Kumar by next friend

and mother Smt. D.P. Kamala Kumari and Another Vs. Smt. Shanmughavadivu and Others, . In that case also the marriage took place in 1943

and the ceremony adopted was that of tying of the Thali and exchanging of garlands in the presence of friends and relatives. This Court held that

Section 7-A (2) (b) validates all marriages to which Section 7-A apples, before the commencement of the Act and that the marriage in that case

was valid in view of the retrospective nature of the provisions of Section 7-A.

In Commissioner of income tax v. Raju Chettiar. 83 L.W. 315 the learned Chief Justice applied the provisions of Section 7-A to marriage held

long prior to the Hindu Marriages Act, 1955.

In this case, as already seen, the ceremony of marriage was solemnised in the presence of relative and friends and that there was exchange of

garlands and tying of Thall. Therefore, even without registration of the marriage under the Special Marriages Act, the marriage between

Somasundaram and Rajalakshmi was good and valid in law, and in view of Sub-section (4) to Section 7-A Defendants 1 to 5 born of such

marriage are their legitimate children.

On the question of the truth and validity of the Will, it was contended by the learned Counsel for the Appellants in these appeals, that

Somasundaram was living with the 6th Defendant, that she had a dominating influence over him, that he was merely a tool in her hands and that the

Will was the result of undue influence and coercion of the 6th Defendant. He also contended that Somasundara was not in a sound disposing state

of mind. It was further submitted that the Will did not provide anything for the first wife, Valliammal Achi, which is very unnatural and proves that

the Will could not have been a voluntary act of the testator. The Will is a registered document. It was attested by three witnesses, of whom one is

now dead and the other two witnesses have been examined as D. Ws. 3 and 4. D.W. 3 is an Advocate of Pudukkottai with 36 years of practice

to his credit. He was the Standing Counsel for the deceased Somasundaram. He had deposed that the Will was executed any Somasundaram in

his house in the presence of all the witnesses and the witnesses attested the same in the presence of each other. He had further stated that

Somasundara was in normal health when he executed the Will. This evidence is corroborated by D. W. 4 the other attesting witness. Nothing has

been suggested in the cross-examination of these witnesses as to why their evidence should not be accepted.

The second Plaintiff who examined herself as P.W. 1 merely stated that her brother, deceased Somasundaram was having blood-pressure

prior to his death and that he was operated for Hydrocel two years prior to his death .P.W. 3., her husband also stated that the deceased was

having blood-pressure and Hydrocele and that he was operated for Hydrocele in 1963.

The 12th Defendant, who examined himself as D.W. 7, merely stated that he came to know of the Will subsequent to the death and he did not

know under what circumstances he signed the Will. He added that 5 or 6 years before his death, he was having blood-pressure. It might be that

Somasundaram was having blood-pressure some time prior to his death. But, that fact alone, in our opinion, would not prove that he was not in a

sound disposing state of mind, at the time when he executed the Will. As already stated, the Will was executed on 27th May, 1961, about 5 years

prior to his death. It was also a registered Will. It is also in evidence that he himself, in his own hand, prepared a draft of the Will. It is produced in

these proceedings and marked as exhibit B-3 and he had made later certain corrections before executing the Will. The document was presented

for registration by the testator. During the 5 years subsequent to the execution of the Will. he had a completely normal life. We are, therefore,

unable to accept the contention of the learned Counsel that he was not in a sound disposing state of mind at the time when he executed the Will.

The plea of undue influence is not based on any evidence. But, the learned Counsel wants us to infer undue influence on the ground that

Somasundaram was not hating a happy married life with his first wife Valliammal Achi, and that he was living with the 6th Defendant throughout his

life and she must have had a dominating influence over him. Assuming that the deceased had more reliance and was affectionate towards the 6th

Defendant, thereby must have desired to satisfy and keep the 6th Defendant happy, we arc unable to agree with the learned Counsel that such an

influence would amount to undue influence vitiating the With in itself.

Very often people execute Wills only out of strong attachments to the donees because of the anxiety of the testators to provide for their future.

In such cases, it may be executed either at the instance or request of the donees or without such perluasion. But, we do not think that that by itself

would vitiate the deed. The question in all such cases would be as to whether the influence was so much as to hold that the document was not the

act of the testator, but that he had merely signed the document mechanically. As already stated, there is absolutely no evidence to show that the

document was not executed out of free volition of the testator.

The learned Counsel for the Appellants next submitted that the testator had not made any provision for his wife Valliammai Achi, which is very

unnatural, which improbabilises that. the document would not have been the voluntary act of the testator. Factually, the learned Counsel is not right

in this submission. Ample provisions has been made in the Will for his first wife. The Will stated that she had been provided for her residence, a

portion in the main house in M.M. Street at Karaikudi and she was given a right of residence till her life time. He has also stated in that Will that he

had already given jewels, cash and other properties to his first wife and that they are in her possession. He has divided only the other properties

into six shares and has given l/6th share to his second wife and each of his sons. Thus, there is nothing to indicate that there is anything unnatural in

the Will. As already stated, D. Ws. 3 and 4 have spoken to the due execution and attestation of the Will as required by, law, and the testator

himself has presented the Will for registration.

We are, therefore, of the view that the Will was duly executed and attested in a sound disposing state of mind and it was a true and valid

document.

The learned Counsel for the 12th Defendant (Appellant in Appeal Suit No. 520 of 1968) contended that he was entitled to item No. 2 of the

plaint schedule and that, therefore, it could not have been conveyed under the Will to Defendants 1 to 6. He claimed title to this amount on the

ground that inspite of his adoption, he retained his rights in the natural father''s family by virtue of the agreement between the adoptive mother and

the natural father at the time of the adoption. No evidence is produced in this case relating to the arrangements agreed upon at the time of the

adoption. On other hand, we have the evidence of the partition deed, exhibit B-10 executed between the deceased and the 12th Defendant. This

deed discloses that to deceased and the 12th Defendant agreed to provide for seermyrah to be done to their sisters (the Plaintiffs). It is seen from

the agreement, which is marked as exhibit B-1, in this case, that the deceased and the 12th Defendant will have to deposit Rs. 2,000 each, and

both should manage the amounts and the seermurais have to be performed. If there is anything left out, both will have to take in moieties. If the

amount is not sufficient, it was agreed between the parties that each will have to contribute his share in moieties. The right of Somasundara in

respect of this money has been conveyed in favour of Defendants 1 to 6. Therefore, Defendants 1 to 6 will be entitled to the seermurais along with

the 12th Defendant in terms of the agreement and according to the custom in their family and it is only after the life time of the Plaintiffs, and if any

amount is in balance, it will have to be divided between Defendants 1 to 6 on the one hand and the 12th Defendant on the other. Therefore, neither

the 12th Defendant nor Defendants 1 to 6 have any right to claim exclusively the amount. But, it will have to be administrated as provided under

exhibit B-11 agreement. But, in any case, the Plaintiffs are not entitled to any right in any portion of this amount, or for the management of the

same, except to a right for the seermurais to be done in accordance with the custom in their family and in terms of the agreement.

The learned Counsel for the 12th Defendant then contended that Defendants 1 to 6 are not entitled to any turn management in respect of item

No. 3 of the plaint schedule. He contended that deceased had no disposing power over the trusteeship and that, therefore, Defendants 1 to 6 did

not and could not derive any right to the same. But, the learned Counsel could not rely on any provisions of law or fact in support of this

contention.

It is seen from the scheme decree made in Original Suit No. 31 of 1919, which is marked as exhibit A-2 in this case that each of the branches

were given the right of management of the trust property. Even if it was a bare right to the office of the trustee, since the disposition was by Will

and to Defendants 1 to 5, who are the sons of the testator, the disposition was valid in law. Therefore, there is no substance in this contention of

the learned Counsel.

We accordingly confirm the findings of the Court below that the Will was true and valid and conveyed an absolute title to Defendants 1 to 6 in

item 1 of the plaint schedule, and a right of management in item No. 2, as per the agreement, exhibit B-11 and to the right of turn trusteeship and

management in respect of item No. 3, in terms of the scheme decree in Original Suit No. 31 of 1919.

For the foregoing reasons, the appeals fail and art dismissed with costs of the Defendants 1 to 6.