The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the language of the will and the application of Section 88 of the Indian Succession Act to determine the nature of the estate conferred.

1. This appeal raises two questions; (1) whether one Ponnammal Achi was married in the Asura form so that her stridhanam property goes to her brother Nataraja Pillai; (2) whether she took an absolute estate without any executory or other gift over in favour of Nataraja Pillai, under the will of her husband Samia Pillai.

2. The first question is primarily one of fact. The burden is upon the appellant to displace the presumption that the marriage is in the ordinary form. The learned trial Judge has considered the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses. He has seen the witnesses and we have not. We see nothing in the record to show that his conclusions as to the credibility or weight of testimony or evidence is wrong and we see, therefore, no reason for differing from his conclusion of fact. That conclusion was that it is not proved that Ponnammal Achi was married in the Asura form.

3. The second question raises a point on the construction of a will. Points of great complexity can arise when the will to be construed is written in a precise language possessing many terms of art the content of which has been defined by Courts. Matters are made much more difficult where the will is in a language as uncertain and so lacking in precision as Tamil and terms are used which one side alleges have a technical meaning and the other side alleges have something less than a technical meaning and which if found in an English will would be construed as cutting down rather than as extending the bequest in question but which when found in this will admittedly have not that effect.

4. The relevant words, in the translated form that seems best to render the original, are as follows:

After my death, my wife Ponnammal Achi, enjoying with all rights and powers of alienation by gift, exchange or sale the movable and immovable properties belonging to me by ancestral right and self-acquisition and situate in Tirappu Melaiyur village, Melaiyur vattam, Malaiyur Mahanam, Kumbakonam Taluq, Madharjunam Sub-District, Tanjore District, shall herself discharge the debts payable by me on bonds and pro-notes amounting to Rs. 3,000.

5. I have hereby given full authority to the said Ponnammal Achi, my wife for affecting sales, etc., after my death, in respect of my immovable and movable properties either for the purpose of discharging the debts or for any other reason... My wife shall have my obsequies performed at a cost of Rs. 300.

6. If after the alienations that may be made by my wife Ponnammal Achi for the purpose of discharging the afore-mentioned debts and for meeting the aforementioned expenses, there be any property, movable or immovable, left at the time of her death, the same shall be taken, after her death by Nataraja Pillai."

7. It should not be overlooked that this will is dated 1899 at that time it was a common or, at least a possible, opinion that a grant of the absolute estate to a Hindu widow did not confer upon her the right of alienation. Indeed that was so held by the High Court of Allahabad in Surajmani v. Rabinath Ojha 25 A 351 : A W N 1903 66. That was put right on appeal.

8. The words "enjoying with all rights and powers of alienation by gift, exchange or sale," are words which standing alone or uncontrolled by the context are apt words to describe an absolute estate. Thus Sedasiva Ayyar, J, in Muthu Venkatanarayanan Chetty v. Authi Pandu Ranga Naidu 51 Ind. Cas. 217 : (1919) M W N 103 observes:

I venture to think that with full proprietary powers (Sarva Swatantrathudan) is the strongest expression that an alianor can employ to confer an absolute estate of the alienee.

9. That observation emerged when discussing and criticising Manika Mudali v. Muthachi Kavandan 30 Ind. Cas. 685 : 18 M L T 34 : 2 L W 887 where Ayling, J. expressed the view that those words did not confer an absolute estale. It was noted by Spencer, J., in Muthu Venkatanarayanan Chetty v. Authu Pandu Ranga Naidu 51 Ind. Cas. 217 : (1919) M W N 103 that those words do not