In case of no such santhathis then to the mother of "S" absolutely.

One Lakshmi Ammal who was absolutely entitled to the property which is the subject-matter of the appeal being childless, brought up her brother’s daughter, Sivakami Ammal. The respondent to this Appeal, Sitalakshmi Ammal, is Sivakami’s mother. On 15th April, 1929 Lakshmi Ammal executed a deed of settlement in favour of Sivakami, the material portion of which is as follows:-

“ You shall enjoy the said property without the right of any alienation till your lifetime and after your lifetime the male children that may be born to you or in their absence the female issue born to you shall take the same and enjoy with absolute rights. In case you have no issue whatever, your mother, Seethalakshmi Ammal, and her heirs shall take the undermentioned property with absolute rights and enjoy the same.” Subsequently, Sivakami was married to the first appellant. There was no child born of the union and on 24th February, 1957 Sivakami died. The respondent, the mother of Sivakami, filed a suit to recover possession of the property, claiming under the settlement deed aforesaid. Several defences were raised to the action by the appellant who was in possession of the property, but all of them were overruled by the learned Subordinate Judge of Cuddalore, who passed a decree in favour of the respondent.

Mr. M. S. Venkatarama Ayyar, who appeared for the appellants in this appeal, pressed before us only two contentions, namely, (1) that, under the settlement deed, Sivakami obtained an absolute estate in the property settled, and that, on her death, the first appellant, as her heir, would be entitled to it; and (2) that, even if it were to be held that Sivakami had only a life estate in the property, the disposition in favour of Sitalakshmi, her mother, was void, being intended to take effect on an indefinite failure of issue to Sivakami, and that therefore there was intestacy in regard to the remainder. It was further stated that the first appellant who was also the stridhanam heir of Lakshmi Animal would be entitled to the property, or, at any rate, the respondent being a remoter heir of Lakshmi Ammal, would not be entitled to maintain the suit for eviction.

The first point presents little difficulty. A reading of the will shows that only a limited life-estate was intended to be created in favour of Sivakami. Her powers of alienation were restricted. There is a gift over of the remainder after her death. Mr. Venkatarama Ayyar contended that the restriction in regard to the power of alienation could only be regarded as a repugnant clause. It is a settled rule of construction that a will or deed of settlement will have to be read as a whole before finding out the nature of the estate conferred on the legatee or settllee. Taking the document as a whole, there can be no doubt that what was intended to be given to Sivakami was only an estate for life. This was the view taken by the learned Subordinate Judge, and we are of opinion that it is correct.

The next contention relates to the validity of the gift in favour of Sivakami’s mother. Although this point has not been taken before the learned Subordinate Judge, we allowed the appellant to raise the same as it is a pure question of law. The settlement deed is in Tamil. Dealing with the remainder after the lifetime of Sivakami, it states in effect:

If you get male santhathi, such male santhathi would get the property absolutely after you If there is no such male santhathi, your female santhathis would take the property absolutely. If there are no such santhathis at all, the under-mentioned property would be taken by your mother absolutely.“

Mr. M. S. Venkatarama Ayyar, contends that the word ”santhathi “ is one of wide import and that it would include all descendants of Sivakami, namely, son grandson, great grandson, etc., indefinitely. He referred in this connection to the meaning of the corresponding English word ‘descendants‘ in Stroud’s Judicial Dictionary, where it is stated thus:

” D