In interpreting documents like the trust deed Ex. Al, the entire document must be read as a whole, and conflicting provisions should be resolved in accordance with the principal intention of the executant. Legal principles established in previous cases should be considered to support the interpretation.

1. The appeal is directed against the decision of Madhavan Nair J. in second appeal confirming the decision of the Subordinate Judge reversing the decision of the Munsiff. The first matter for consideration is the interpretation of Ex. Al; and the second question is whether S.11 of the Transfer of Property Act applies to the case.

2. Ex. Al of 1074 is captioned a trust deed; and the executant thereof, Subrahmania Pattar of Kundoor Kuttala Madom, creates a trust by the same. The document recites that the executant had already constructed a temple and installed therein the idol of Guruvayurappan in 1071; and had also constructed an oottupura (feeding house) and other accessory buildings and Brahmins and Gosayees were being fed. Then follows the recital that the properties mentioned in the document with the buildings and other improvements thereon are dedicated to Guruvayurappan. The recital continues that from 1075 onwards the income of the properties after payment of Government revenue, etc., has to be utilised for meeting the expenses of the pooja, (worship) and the feeding at the oottupura, in addition to an annuity of 60 paras of paddy to Krishna Sastrigal and another 36 paras of paddy to Subrahmania Pattar, both of Parli Gramom, as they were vaideek (learned in the vedas) Brahmins, to protect their 'vaideek vrithi' and also to enable them and their families to enjoy the same. One more recital to be noted is that the executant was already paying these annuities as charity from the income of the properties; and that the same should be continued in the future also.

3. The appellants are the heirs of Krishna Sastrigal and they claimed arrears of annuity due to them.The trial court allowed their claim and granted a decree for sale of the properties. In appeal the learned Subordinate Judge reversed the decree; and the same was confirmed in second appeal by Madhavan Nair J. Our learned brother observes:

"Reading the document as a whole, the intention of the executant of this document appears to be very clear that he wanted only to perpetuate the religious and charitable purposes which he had in view. He must have never contemplated a case of any portion of the income of the property being given to persons who are not following a religious or vedic life. But it is true that no such condition is expressed when he provided that the annuity may be continued to be given to the heirs of the vedic Brahmins whom he adored with the annuity. Being essentially a trust for religious and charitable purposes if it can be construed to avoid disbursement of the income for non-religious or non-charitable purposes, I am of opinion that such a construction should be adopted."

We are not able to agree with this view of our learned brother. There is no restriction that the annuities should be confined to vedic Brahmins alone. In the absence of any such restriction, it may not be proper to read into the provisions of the document that the executant "must have never contemplated a case of any portion of the income of the property being given to persons who are not following a religious or vedic life". This is no more than an assumption not warranted by the express words of the document.

4. It is well-known that in interpreting documents like this the entire document has to be read as a whole; and if all the provisions can be given effect to without overriding any principle of law, it has also to be done. If there are conflicting provisions, those provisions which are in accordance with the principal intention of the executant have to be given effect to; and the other provisions which go against such intention or against any principle of law have to be ignored. Bearing this in mind, if the provisions of Ext. Al are considered, what we find is that the provisions for payment of annuities to Krishna Sastrigal and Subrahmania Pattar and their families is only in accordance with the intention of the executant; and it may also be given effect to withou