Honble SINHA, J.—V. Papaiah Naidu owned a large number of movable and immovable properties. He had 5 sons, viz, V. Perumala Swamy Naidu, V. Sudarshanam Naidu, V. Balakrishna Naidu, V. Deena Dayalu Naidu, V. Ramakrishna Naidu and 4 daughters, viz., Rukminiyamma, Pushpamma, Hamsaveniyamma and Bhagyalakshmiyamma. He executed a Will on 14.7.1932. The said Will was a registered one. A portion of the properties was bequeathed in favour of defendant No. 1. He was then a minor. The properties bequeathed in his favour were described in Schedule E of the Will. In terms of the said Will, the sons of the testator got life interest. Only, after his death his heirs, legal representatives could inherit the same. On 3.12.1975 the original defendant No.1 and his son executed a deed of sale in favour of defendant No. 2, M. Krishna Reddy. On or about 30th January, 1982, defendant No. 2 disposed of the said property in favour of defendant No. 3. Plaintiffs-Respondents who are the daughters of original defendant No. 1 filed a suit on 30.7.1982 before the City Civil Judge, Bangalore on 30th July, 1982 inter alia praying for the following reliefs.

"(a) declaring that the Plaintiffs are also lawful heirs entitled to the bequests under the Will dated 14.7.1932 executed by their grand-father as lineal heirs of the First Defendant,

(b) and consequently restrain by an order of permanent injunction the defendants, their agents, servants from demolishing, altering, constructing or reconstructing the suit schedule property.

(c) grant cost of the suit; and "

2. The plaintiffs, however, did not implead their brother as a party.

3. The bungalow which was the subject mater of the suit was demolished by Appellants herein whereupon the plaint was amended praying for a decree of mandatory injunction for restoration of the said property.

4. The learned Civil Judge in view of the pleadings of the parties framed as many as 12 issues, inter alia, in regard to: (i) limitation, (ii) non-rejoinder of parties, (iii) adequacy of valuation of the suit and amount of court fees.

5. The City Civil Judge, Bangalore by a judgment dated 6.1.1993 dismissed the suit, inter alia, opining that the suit was barred by limitation as also for non-joinder of parties. It was also held that the court fees paid was inadequate.

6. Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said judgment preferred an appeal before the High Court of Karantaka. The said appeal has been allowed by reason of the impugned judgment.

7. The central issue in this appeal revolves round construction of expression heirs used in the Will dated 14.7.1932.

8. Mr. U.U. Lalit, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellants would submit that as the Will refers to Putra Poutra Parampara, the expression used therein, viz., heirs would only be male lineal descendants and not the female ones. The Will, it was submitted, must be construed upon reading it in its entirety.

9. According to learned counsel, the expression Waristdar (heirs) should be understood in the context of other expression used therein, viz., children (Mavvarajjay). Whereas while bequeathing the properties in favour of the ladies, it had specifically been mentioned that on the death of the testator the same will pass on to their children, while bequeathing the immovable properties it had clearly been mentioned that they will pass on to Waristdar, which must be held to mean only sons. The suit, it was submitted, was also barred by limitation as by reason thereof, the sale deed executed in favour of Appellants by the original defendant No. 2 was questioned and in that view of the matter, the High Court committed an error in not invoking the provisions of Article 49 of the Limitation Act, 1963. The learned counsel would contend that the son of the original defendant No. 1 was deliberately not impleaded as a party in the suit as he had also executed the deed of sale dated 3.12.1975 along with his father, the original defendant No. 1 and as such

Click Here to Read the rest of this document