Case Note & Summary
The litigation arose from a dispute over properties left by two deceased women, Neelayadakshi and Chinnayal, within a family. Sivasami Odayar died in 1927, bequeathing certain items to his wife Neelayadakshi absolutely and other items to his mother Chinnayal absolutely, while appointing Chinnayal as trustee of temple properties. Neelayadakshi died in 1931, and Chinnayal inherited her properties as a limited heir. In 1937, a sale deed was allegedly executed by Chinnayal's agent for item 4 in favour of the father of defendants 6 and 7. On August 28, 1940, Chinnayal executed a gift deed in favour of Muthukumaraswami for certain items. On September 4, 1940, a will was purportedly executed by Chinnayal bequeathing remaining properties to Muthukumaraswami. Chinnayal died on September 15, 1940. Muthukumaraswami conveyed the acquired properties to Venugopala, who died in 1943 leaving defendants 1 to 5 as heirs. Around August 1952, Meenakshi and Kamakshi instituted a suit in the Court of Subordinate Judge, Cuddalore, for possession of the suit properties, claiming as heirs of Chinnayal and Neelayadakshi, and denying the validity of the gift deed, will, and sale deed. The trial court held that Chinnayal had no power to dispose of properties inherited as limited heir, the gift deed was valid, there was no sale, but the plaintiffs failed to prove they were reversioners and the will was forged. On appeals, the Madras High Court Single Judge held the will genuine but inoperative regarding trust properties and directed fresh trial on reversioner status. In a Letters Patent Appeal, the Division Bench held the will not genuine, held on record that plaintiffs were next reversioners, and passed a decree for possession and mesne profits past and future, directing an inquiry under Order 20 Rule 12 CPC. Some defendants appealed to the Supreme Court by special leave. The appellants challenged the findings on will execution and attestation, reversioner status, and contended that the High Court lacked power to decree future mesne profits because the plaint had no specific prayer for such mesne profits. The Supreme Court examined the evidence on will attestation, focusing on witness Samiyappa who did not see the other attesting witness Balasubramania sign; the court held that attestation was not proved, and the will failed. On reversioner status, the court noted that no issue was raised at trial and the trial proceeded on the footing that plaintiffs were reversioners; it was not open to appellants to contend otherwise. On future mesne profits, the court analyzed Order 20 Rule 12 CPC and distinguished past and future mesne profits: past mesne profits require pleading, valuation, and court fee under Order 7 Rules 1,2,7 CPC and Section 7(1) Court Fees Act; future mesne profits have no cause of action at suit institution and thus cannot be pleaded or valued, but in a suit for recovery of possession and mesne profits, the court has discretionary power to grant future mesne profits even without specific prayer. The court concluded the suit was one for recovery of possession and mesne profits, thus Order 20 Rule 12 applied, and the High Court had power to decree future mesne profits. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court decree.
Headnote
A) Law of Wills - Proof of Execution and Attestation - Failure to Prove Attestation by Showing One Attesting Witness Saw the Other Sign Vitiates Will - Not mentioned - Appellants relied solely on testimony of Samiyappa, who was not present when Chinnayal affixed thumb impression and did not see Balasubramania sign; therefore attestation not proved. Held High Court rightly held that appellants failed to prove execution and attestation of will dated September 4, 1940 (Paras 130-131). B) Civil Procedure - Mesne Profits - Future Mesne Profits Can Be Granted Without Specific Prayer in Suit for Recovery of Possession - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order 20 Rule 12 - In a suit for recovery of immovable property and mesne profits, court has discretionary power to direct inquiry into future mesne profits even if not specifically claimed; past mesne profits must be pleaded and valued. Held High Court had power to pass decree for future mesne profits despite absence of specific prayer; Order 20 Rule 12 attracts suit; distinction between past and future mesne profits recognized (Paras 132-133). C) Civil Procedure - Reversionary Heir Plea - Party Cannot Raise New Plea Regarding Reversionary Heir After Trial Proceeded on Footing That Plaintiffs Were Reversioners - Not mentioned - The trial proceeded on footing that plaintiffs were next reversioners of Neelayadakshi and no issue was raised; appellants' contention that Meenakshi's son was reversionary heir was not open. Held Division Bench rightly held plaintiffs were reversioners and entitled to succeed (Para 132).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court had power to pass a decree for mesne profits accrued after the institution of the suit without a specific prayer in the plaint; whether the will dated September 4, 1940 was duly executed and attested; whether the plaintiffs were the next reversioners of Neelayadakshi.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the High Court's decree. The will dated September 4, 1940 was not proved due to failure to prove attestation; the plaintiffs were rightly held to be the next reversioners of Neelayadakshi; and the High Court had power to pass a decree for future mesne profits under Order 20 Rule 12 CPC without a specific prayer, directing an inquiry into mesne profits.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- Order 20 Rule 12 CPC enables court to pass decree for past and future mesne profits
- past mesne profits must be specifically pleaded
- valued
- and court fee paid
- future mesne profits cannot be pleaded at institution due to no existing cause of action
- in suit for recovery of possession and mesne profits
- court has discretionary power to grant future mesne profits even without specific prayer
- will execution and attestation must be proved by attesting witnesses who saw other attesting witness sign
- party cannot raise new plea regarding reversionary heir when trial proceeded on footing and no issue raised
