Citation Codes

Equivalent Citations

citation codes

Case Number

Civil Suit No. 274 of 1914

Advocates

A. Duraiswami Ayyar for the plaintiff.
D. Chamier for the first defendant.
P. Sambandham for the second defendant.
N. Chandrasekhara Ayyar for the third defendant.
C.P Ramaswami Ayyar for Venkatasubba Mudaliyar, applicant.

Judges

Bakewell, J.

See more information ...

Smart Summary

Judgment Summary — Bakewell, J.

Factual and Procedural Background

Dakshinamurthi Mudaliar was entitled under a decree in Suit No. 45 of 1889 to certain moneys. By an order dated 27 March 1893, Rs. 4,056-12-3 were directed to be transferred by the Registrar to the Accountant‑General for investment. Those moneys represented jewels found to be part of Dakshinamurthi's inheritance and not to have passed under his father's will.

At the date of the decree Dakshinamurthi was a minor. After attaining majority he applied in February 1904 for payment out of funds in Court; his application was confined to the moneys specified in the Accountant‑General's certificate (Exhibits H and H‑1). Due to a mistake by his legal advisers, the Registrar had not transferred the funds to the Accountant‑General pursuant to the 1893 order, and the funds were overlooked when the application for payment was made.

The amount remained in the Registrar's hands and was subsequently paid out of Court to the first defendant, who claimed it as executor of the will of Dakshinamurthi Mudaliar. The will is dated 5 December 1905; the testator died in the same month. The first defendant was appointed executor and administered the estate. The present suit was brought by the deceased's widow on behalf of herself and other legatees for an account of administration and for administration of the estate under the Court's orders.

Legal Issues Presented

Whether the sum of Rs. 4,056-12-3 passed to the residuary legatee under the will of Dakshinamurthi Mudaliar.
Whether a release executed by the plaintiff (alleged by the defendant) barred the plaintiff's claim, given that the document was executed when she was a minor and under a mutual mistake.

Arguments of the Parties

First Defendant (Executor)

Claimed the Rs. 4,056-12-3 as part of the estate and therefore as passing under the will in his capacity as executor.
Pleaded that the plaintiff had executed a release of all claims against him.

Plaintiff (Widow and Legatees)

Asserted entitlement to an account of the estate and administration under Court orders.
Challenged the defendant's entitlement to the Rs. 4,056-12-3, contending it did not pass under the will.
Produced a book purporting to be the defendant's account of administration and used it as evidence; the court found entries in that book to be untrue.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court examined the will's language and the factual circumstances known to the testator at the time of making the will. Clause 2 of the will describes specific property the testator intended to dispose of, including a particular house and "ready money" received under an order of the High Court. Clause 13 provides for the use of "The sum which may be left after deducting the abovementioned legacies and such other expenses" for specified religious purposes.

The judge found that the existence of the Rs. 4,056-12-3 was unknown to the testator when he made his will. Given the will's text—particularly the testator's reference to specific house money already received from the High Court—the court construed clause 13 as referring to the residue of monies actually in the testator's hands and already known to him and not as a general residuary clause capturing subsequently discovered or overlooked funds. The court expressly noted that the ordinary Madras testator is not familiar with the residuary clause as framed in English wills and therefore English rules of construction are not appropriate here.

On the defendant's plea of a release by the plaintiff, the court found the release had been executed while the plaintiff was a minor and had been executed under a mutual mistake; for these reasons the release was held not to be binding on the plaintiff.

The court also evaluated a book produced by the plaintiff purporting to be an account of the defendant's administration. That book was not in the defendant's affidavit of documents and the court considered it to be a fraudulent concoction, with certain entries proved to be untrue by the plaintiff's own evidence.

On the basis of these findings, the court concluded that the Rs. 4,056-12-3 did not pass under the will and should be treated as property not disposed of by the will.

Holding and Implications

Holding: The court decreed that the sum of Rs. 4,056-12-3 did not pass under the will of Dakshinamurthi Mudaliar and that the sum shall go to the plaintiff as on an intestacy.

Consequential orders and direct effects:

The estate must be administered by the Court.
The first defendant (executor) is ordered to account from the date of the deceased's death on the footing of wilful default.
The first defendant must pay the sum of Rs. 4,056-12-3 into Court within ten days.
The first defendant will pay the costs of the suit up to date.

The opinion does not discuss broader legal precedent or establish new rules of law beyond its application to the facts before the Court; its effect is the direct disposition and remedies ordered as set out above.

Show full summary ...

Kunthalammal v. P.N.K. Suryaprakasaroya Mudaliar

Bakewell, J.:— One Dakshinamurthi Mudaliar was entitled to certain moneys in this Court under decree in Suit No. 45 of 1889. By an order in that suit, dated the 27th March 1893, certain moneys amounting to Rs. 4,056-12-3 were directed to be transferred by the Registrar to the Accountant-General for investment. These moneys represented certain jewels which were found to be part of the inheritance of Dakshinamurthi Mudaliar and not to have passed under the will of his father. At the date of the decree Dakshinamurthi Mudaliar was a minor, but having attained his majority be applied, in February 1904, for payment out of the funds in Court; and it appears from Exhibits Hand H-1, the certificate of funds issued by the Accountant-General, that his application was confined to the moneys specified in that certificate. Owing to some mistake on the part of the legal advisers of the plaintiff in that suit, the moneys in the hands of the Registrar of the Court were not transferred to the Accountant-General in pursuance of the order of the 27th March 1893 and were lost sight of when the application was made by the plaintiff for payment out to him. This is clearly stated by the present first defendant in an affidavit filed by him in that suit on the 8th of August 1914 (Exhibit C). In paragraph 8 he states: “It appears that the said sum of Rs. 4,056-12-3 which appears to have remained in the hands of the Registrar of this Honourable Court was not known to exist and was consequently overlooked and I have now come to know that the said sum of Rs. 4,056-12-3 is standing to the credit of this suit.” The amount was accordingly paid out of Court to the first defendant who claimed it as the executor of the will of Dakshinamurthi Mudaliar.

This will is dated the 5th December 1905 and the testator died in the same month. The first defendant was appointed executor of, the will and has been administering the estate of the deceased, and this suit is brought by the widow of the deceased. On behalf of herself and the other legatees under the will, for an account of the administration of the estate, and for its administration under the orders of the Court. The question has arisen as to whether this sum of Rs. 4,000 and odd passed to the residuary legatee under the will. The will follows the form, which is very well known in this Court, of first stating the property which the testator intends to dispose of and then dividing it up amongst the various beneficiaries. Clause No. 2 of the will reads as follows:—“The house No. 25 in Nattu Pillayar Civil Street and ready money were received (by me) under an order of the High Court according to my adoptive father's will. Of the amount left after deducting the sum spent therefrom, not only is a certain, portion lodged in fixed deposit in Arbuthnot's House in my name and in the name of my senior elder brother P.N.K Suryaprakasaroya Mudaliar but the remaining sum is in shape of secured and unsecured debts and ready money.” The testator then proceeds to give various specific and pecuniary legacies, and in clause 13 he says: “The sum which may be left after deducting the abovementioned legacies and such other expenses shall be utilised in, my name without defect for pooja once, that is, daily, and repairs and other charities for the temple of Sri Vaideswarar in Poona-mallee,” Having regard to the fact that the existence of this sum of Rs. 4,000 and odd was unknown to the testator at the time, and to the statement made by him that he is dealing with a particular house and the moneys which had been already received by him from the High Court, I think that the words in clause 13 refer to the residue of the moneys in his hands which have not been already disposed of by him under the will, and that the sum of Rs. 4,000 and odd is not disposed of by him. I may point out that the residuary clause in the form in which it appears in English wills is practically unknown to the ordinary testator in Madras and that the rules of construction which have been laid down by English Courts are not applicable.

The defendant has also pleaded a release by the plaintiff of all claims against him, but it is clear from the evidence that this document was executed by the plaintiff when she was a minor. It is also perfectly clear that it was executed under a mutual mistake and for that reason also it is not binding on the plaintiff.

The plaintiff has called for and put in a book purporting to be an account of the first defendant of his administration of the estate. It is not in his affidavit of documents and I think it is obviously a fraudulent concoction. Certain entries which appear in it have been proved, by the evidence called by the plaintiff, to be untrue.

There will, therefore, be a decree declaring that the sum of Rs. 4,056-12-3 did not, pass under the will of the deceased but will go to the plaintiff as on an intestacy, that the estate must be administered by the Court and that the first defendant must account from the date of the death of the deceased on the footing of wilful default. The first defendant will pay the costs of the suit up to date. The first defendant is ordered to pay this sum of Rs. 4,056-12-3 into Court within ten days.

Messrs Branson and Branson, Attorneys for the first defendant.

N.R

Kunthalammal v. P.N.K. Suryaprakasaroya Mudaliar

Judgment Summary — Bakewell, J.

Factual and Procedural Background

Legal Issues Presented

Arguments of the Parties

First Defendant (Executor)

Plaintiff (Widow and Legatees)

Table of Precedents Cited

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

Holding and Implications

Kunthalammal v. P.N.K. Suryaprakasaroya Mudaliar

Comments