Death of the Ultimate Beneficiary During Lifetime of Life Estate Holder Will Not Defeat Vested Rights: Andhra Pradesh High Court

“The Limited Estate Holder Cannot Convey Any Better Title Than What She Has”, On 24 February 2026, the Andhra Pradesh High Court reaffirming foundational principles of property and succession law. Justice V. Gopala Krishna Rao, exercising jurisdiction under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, dismissed both appeals and confirmed the common judgment of the Subordinate Judge, Tanuku, dated 09.09.1998.

The Court addressed complex issues concerning a 1939 settlement deed, validity of marriage, legitimacy of heirs, proof of a registered Will under Section 68 of the Evidence Act read with Section 63 of the Succession Act, and the legal effect of a relinquishment deed executed by a life estate holder. The ruling firmly establishes that vested rights created under a settlement deed cannot be defeated either by the death of the remaindermen before possession or by unilateral acts of a limited owner.

“Death of the Ultimate Beneficiary During Lifetime of Life Estate Holder Will Not Defeat Vested Rights”

The dispute centered around a registered settlement deed dated 07.10.1939 executed by one Sattemma. Under this document, Narayanamma was granted life interest in the property “without any power of alienation,” while vested remainder rights were conferred upon her sons, Madhavarao and Tammi Naidu, and their male progeny.

Both sons predeceased Narayanamma. The core question before the Court was whether their death before the termination of the life estate extinguished their rights.

The Court answered unequivocally in the negative. It observed that the rights granted under the settlement were vested, not contingent. The enjoyment was postponed, but the interest accrued immediately upon execution of the settlement deed.

The Court held that “the vested rights were conferred in favour of Madhavarao and Tammi Naidu on the date of the registered settlement deed, and the right to enjoy the property alone was postponed.” It further clarified that “the death of the ultimate beneficiary during the lifetime of the life estate holder will not have the effect of defeating the rights which had already vested.”

Thus, upon the death of the vested remaindermen, their widows and legal heirs stepped into their shoes and became entitled to succeed to those vested shares.

“Long Cohabitation Raises Presumption of Marriage” – Marital Status Affirmed

One of the central factual controversies concerned whether Varalakshmi, the appellant, was the legally wedded wife of Tammi Naidu. Oral evidence from the appellant, her brother, and an independent tenant, coupled with documentary material from criminal proceedings describing her as wife, supported her claim.

The High Court noted that the parties had lived together as husband and wife and relied upon the presumption recognised by the Supreme Court that prolonged cohabitation gives rise to a strong presumption of lawful marriage.

Significantly, the trial court’s finding recognising the marriage had not been challenged by way of cross-appeal. After more than two decades, the respondents could not be permitted to reopen that conclusion. The Court therefore affirmed that Varalakshmi was the legally wedded wife of Tammi Naidu.

“Registration Alone Does Not Prove a Will” – Compliance with Section 68 Evidence Act Mandatory

Another important issue concerned the Will dated 09.10.1981 allegedly executed by Narayanamma. The Court reiterated the settled principle that mere registration does not dispense with proof.

It observed that “even though the alleged Will is a registered Will, no importance will be given to the registered Will unless it is proved in terms of Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act read with Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act.”

In the present case, the scribe and both attesting witnesses were examined. They testified that the testatrix gave instructions, the contents were read over to her, she affixed her thumb impression in their presence, and they attested accordingly. Their evidence remained unshaken in cross-examination. The Court found no suspicious circumstances and held that the Will stood duly proved.

Accordingly, the beneficiary under the Will became entitled to Narayanamma’s share.

“Life Estate Without Power of Alienation Means No Power to Relinquish”

A crucial contention raised by the appellant was based on a relinquishment deed dated 06.09.1968 executed by Narayanamma in favour of Tammi Naidu. It was argued that by virtue of this relinquishment, Tammi Naidu became absolute owner, and consequently his widow was entitled to the entire property.

The High Court rejected this contention. Examining the recitals of the 1939 settlement deed, the Court found that Narayanamma had only a limited right of enjoyment and was expressly denied the power of alienation.

The Court categorically declared that “the limited estate holder cannot convey any better title than what she has.” Since Narayanamma did not possess absolute ownership, she could not execute a valid relinquishment affecting vested remainder rights.

The relinquishment deed was therefore held ineffective and incapable of divesting the heirs of their vested interests.

“Without Cross-Appeal, Respondent Cannot Seek Larger Relief” – Appellate Discipline Reaffirmed

During arguments, the respondent sought to invoke Order XLI Rule 33 CPC to claim the entire property, despite not having filed any cross-appeal or cross-objections against the trial court’s findings.

The High Court declined to entertain this plea. It emphasized that the findings of the trial court had remained unchallenged for more than twenty-five years. Having accepted the decree, the respondent could not, at the appellate stage, seek enlargement of relief.

The Court confined itself strictly to the grounds raised in the appeals and refused to modify the decree to the prejudice of parties who had not appealed.

Final Determination of Shares and Dismissal of Appeals

The Court ultimately concluded that Madhavarao and Tammi Naidu each held equal vested shares under the settlement deed. Upon their intestate deaths, their shares devolved in accordance with the Hindu Succession Act upon their respective Class-I heirs. Narayanamma’s limited estate terminated upon her death, and her share devolved under the valid Will.

Finding no illegality or perversity in the trial court’s reasoning, the High Court dismissed both appeals and confirmed the decree in its entirety, directing each party to bear their own costs.

The judgment stands as a strong reaffirmation of the doctrine that vested interests cannot be defeated by premature death or by acts of a life estate holder lacking power of alienation. It also underscores the strict statutory requirements governing proof of Wills and the importance of procedural discipline in appellate litigation.

Date of Decision: 24.02.2026