1939 (3) TMI 10

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....relevant facts are not in dispute. One Kanchamma was the last owner of the suit property. She made a will in 1899 in and by which she bequeathed all the properties she was possessed of, including the suit property, to the said Lakshminarayana Rao who was her brother's son and to one Lakshmi Narasamma, her widowed daughter. By her will she directed Lakshminarayana Rao to divide the movable and immovable property which she was possessed of into two shares and to enjoy one half share, the other half share to be enjoyed during her lifetime by Lakshmi Narasamma. The said Kanchamma further directed that after the death of Lakshmi Narasamma, Lakshminarayana Rao should take possession of the property in which Lakshmi Narasamma had a life intere....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... land. There can be no doubt therefore that Bhramaramba was authorised to sell all that interest which Lakshminarayana Rao possessed in the suit property on the date of the power-of-attorney. Acting under this power on 28th October, 1908, she sold the suit property to the first defendant for valuable consideration. The question is, as we have said, whether the vested interest which Lakshminarayana Rao possessed in the half share which Lakshmi Narasamma enjoyed during her lifetime passed under the sale-deed. If we come to the conclusion that it passed, the plaintiff has no locus standi to maintain the suit and his suit is liable to be dismissed. What was conveyed under the sale-deed was three vrittis of land enclosed within particular bounda....