The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the nature of estate conferred under a will. The court emphasized the importance of reading the will as a whole to gather the true intention of the testator and concluded that the intention was to confer an absolute estate on Punnen Punnen.

1. The short point that arises for consideration in this appeal is as to the nature of the rights conferred in the suit properties on Punnen Punnen, father of the plaintiff, under the will, Ext. C.

2. One Varkey Punnen was the original owner of the suit properties and he had two sons, Punnen Varkey and Punnen Punnen. The sons of Punnen Varkey are defendants 1 to 3. Punnen Punnen had a son, the plaintiff, and daughters who are defendants 16 to 19. Varkey Punnen executed a will, Ext. C on 29-1-1064 in and by which he bequeathed the properties to his sons, Punnen Varkey and Punnen Punnen, and also made other dispositions to his other relations. The 7th defendant is the widow of Punnen Punnen.

3. According to the plaintiff, his father Punnen Punnen was not given any rights in respect of the suit properties by Varkey Punnen, and the bequest under Ext. C was only in favour of the plaintiff. In this

view, he challenged the several alienations & transactions entered into by his father Punnen Punnen and later on by his mother and sisters on his behalf.

4. The contesting defendants pleaded that Punnen Punnen, the father of the plaintiff, got absolute rights under the will, Ext. C and that the plaintiff was not entitled to challenge any of those transactions. They also pleaded that the plaintiff was not entitled to challenge the transactions entered into by the mother, 7th defendant in this case, in her own capacity and also as guardian of the plaintiff. They contended that the 7th defendant was entitled to represent the plaintiff in these transactions and that the alienations were supported by consideration and were effected for purposes binding on the plaintiff.

5. Several issues were framed by the learned Second Additional District Judge of Kottayam and the second issue framed in the suit was as follows:

"What were the rights of the said Punnen over plaint schedule properties under the will of 1064 executed by his father? Has he absolute rights? Was his position only that of a trustee?"

Though the suit was of 1124, when it was actually taken up for trial and when the chief-examination of the plaintiff as Pw.1 was over, the second defendant, one of the sons of Punnen Varkey, filed an application, C. M. P. 2616/55 praying that the issue No. 2 extracted above may be disposed of preliminarily on the ground that if the finding on that issue was against the plaintiff, a trial of the suit on other issues will become unnecessary.

6. The learned additional District Judge accepted this request of the second defendant and heard arguments on the interpretation of Ext. C. After considering the various clauses in the said document, the learned judge came to the conclusion that Punnen Punnen, the father of the plaintiff, got an absolute estate from Varkey Punnen under Ex. C just as his brother, Punnen Varkey got under the same document. In this view, the learned judge held that some of the clauses in the will placing a restriction on the power of alienation of Punnen Punnen were not valid and binding on Punnen Punnen. In consequence, the learned judge also held that the alienations effected by Punnen Punnen, the father of the plaintiff, in respect of certain items of the plaint schedule could not be challenged by the plaintiff, as Punnen Punnen dealt with these properties in his right as full owner, conferred on him under the provisions of Ext. C. It appears to have been also argued before the learned judge that the beneficiary under the will, Ext. C is the plaintiff and that his father, Punnen Punnen, was constituted a trustee under the will. But the learned judge rejected this contention.

7. After holding that Punnen Punnen, the father of the plaintiff, took an absolute estate under the will and that the plaintiff is incompetent to question any of the dealings of his father, the learned judge adverted, to another contention raised before him on behalf of the plaintiff. The contention appears to have been that in spite of the findings recorded a