Emerging startup of 2023 by Headstart
Emerging startup of 2023 by Headstart
Appellants: Siddamurthy Jayarami Reddy (D) by LRs (Heirs of T)
Respondent: Godi Jayarami Reddy and Another (Sons of the ex-son in law of the testator)
Hon’ble Justice Aftab Alam and R.M Lodha, JJ
Date Of Appeal: 2005
Date Of Judgement: Mon Apr 11 2011
Bijivemula Subba Reddy was a 75-year-old man who left behind a Will dated 21.05.1920, in favour of his wife Subbhamma, daughter Pitchamma, son- in- law Rami Reddy, a widowed sister Chennamma, a widowed daughter-in-law, and granddaughter Lakshumamma.
His daughter Pitchamma was married but had no children. The testator wished for her to adopt a son with her husband's consent so as to marry the adopted son to his granddaughter Lakshumamma.
After the death of the testator, Pitchamma wanted to adopt Godi Reddy as her son but her husband did not agree. Subsequently, he left Pitchamma and remarried someone else and had two children with his new wife, one of whom is the Appellant in the current case.
Lakshumamma married Godi Venkat Reddy in 1926 and out of that wedlock one son, Godi Jayarami Reddy, the Defendant in the current case, was born.
The Appellant claimed that they also had a claim over the 1/3rd share in the property owned by the testator. The Trial Court held that they did not have a claim over the property as a beneficiary in the Will but as legal heirs of the son-in-law Rami Reddy. The High Court reversed the judgment and held that they have right to claim a share in the property under the Will, and thus, the current appeal was preferred by the Appellants.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court looked into the intention of the person who made such Will. His desire to leave his entire estate for his granddaughter was clear, however, he added a condition that she is to get married to the adopted son of his daughter Pitchamma and son – in – law Rami Reddy. But, Rami Reddy refused the adoption.
Rami Reddy left the family of the testator and the village Chennavaran somewhere in 1924 and went to a nearby village Pappireddypally where he got married for a second time. Rami Reddy neither continued as a guardian of the minor granddaughter Lakshumamma nor looked after the testator's wife, widowed daughter-in-law, widowed sister, and daughter. This raises the question of whether the sons of Rami Reddy out of a different marriage even have a claim over any property described in the Will. Another important point is that Rami Reddy lived for 19 years after the death of the testator but never claimed under the Will.
Thus, it was held that the Appeal did not hold any merit and was dismissed.
The Court explained the difference between two types of conditions in a Will. If a Will gives someone full ownership of a property but adds restrictions that limit their rights, those restrictions are invalid. However, if the Will states that ownership will end if a certain event happens (as long as it follows the law), that condition is valid. In this case, the testator wanted his daughter to adopt a son with her husband’s consent and for his granddaughter to marry that boy. He included a condition that if Rami Reddy opposed this plan, he would lose his share of the property. Even though this condition was not stated outright, it could be understood by reading the Will as a whole.
The most effective way to shape your future is by taking action today.
Disclaimer: Please note My Legacy Box ("formerly Oiconomos") is not a law company/firm and does not offer legal advisory. Though materials, software, and services are available to use publicly, they cannot substitute legal counsel by legal practitioners. We do not endorse or solicit the work of any legal counselor.