The court clarified the interpretation of the will and the validity of bequests, emphasizing that the bequest to the son conferred an absolute estate and the additional words did not create a devise in favor of the temple.

Sir Lionel Leach.:-

The appellant is the idol of a Hindu temple at Kasba Tiruchendur in the Province of Madras. The appeal arises out of a suit brought in the name of the idol by the trustee of the temple in the Court of the Subordinate Judge of Tuticorin for a decree for possession of properties which had formed the estate of one Minakshisundaram Pillai, who died on 21st May 1919. The appellant claimed to 6ft entitled to the estate under a will executed by the deceased. The Subordinate Judge construed the will against the appellant and his decision was upheld by the High Court of Madras. The appeal is from the decree of the High Court.

2. The will of the testator is dated 20th May 1919, and reads as follows :

"I am now an in-patient in the hospital at Madura, having undergone an operation for carbuncle. As I have suspicions about my surviving, I have bequeathed to my son, Picha Pillai the right to all my properties and moneys, etc., and he shall solely enjoy them. If he or his son has no child, the said properties shall pass to Subramaniaswami at Tiruchendur."

3. On the next day the testator added this codicil:

"This is written in continuation of the will executed yesterday, the 20th instant. With the money got from my moneys and pro-notes, etc., my elder brothers shall purchase immovable properties such as lands, etc., in the name of my son."

4. The will and codicil were registered.

5. The testator was a member of a joint Hindu family which became divided in 1880. He entered Government service and rose to the rank of deputy collector. He died on 21st May 1919 the day on which he executed the codicil. His son Picha Pillai then entered into possession of the estate and enjoyed it until his death. He died on 10th December 1927, without issue. Thereupon his reversioners took possession of the. properties.

6. On 10th November 1932, the appellant instituted the suit out of which the appeal arises. There were 23 defendants. Defendants 1 to 22 were sued as being in possession of different parts of the estate. Defendant 23 was alleged to be an alienee of one of the other defendants in respect of a part of the estate. The appellant claimed that on the death of Picha Pillai he became entitled to the entire estate. During the pendency of the suit the appellant entered into written agreements of compromise with defendants 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10 and 11. He settled with defendant 13 out of Court and abandoned his claim for relief against defendants 17 to 22, on liberty being given to him to file fresh suits against them.

7. The remaining defendants contested the suit and on the issues framed by him the Sub-ordinate Judge held that the will and codicil were "true and valid"; that Picha Pillai took an Absolute estate, notwithstanding the direction that if he or his son had no child the properties should pass to the temple, and that the bequest to the temple was bad as contravening the rule against perpetuities to be found in S. 5, Madras Act, I [1] of 1911 (re-enacted as S.114, Succession Act, 1925.) In accordance with these findings, he dismissed the suit against the contesting defendants and also against defendant 13 and defendants 17 to 22. As against defendants 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8,10 and 11 he passed a decree in the terms of the compromise agreements which had been filed in Court; but he did not include therein a direction for partition. The agreements of compromise represented 20/27 shares in the estate.

8. In their appeal to the High Court the appellants joined as respondents only defendants 2, 9, 12, 14, 15 and 23.

9. The learned Judges who heard the appeal (Pandrang and Abdur Rahman, JJ.) agreed with the trial Court that the bequest to the son was unconditional and therefore conferred upon him an absolute estate. In the circumstances it was not necessary for them to decide whether the direction that the properties should pass to the temple in the event of Picha Pillai dying childless would have been valid had the gift to him not been unconditi