IN THE HIGH COURT OF MARAS
Devadoss
Piramu Ammal
Versus
Serunatha Ammal
Decided On : 8 October, 1924
Will - Property Devolution - Tamil Nadu Act - [Indian Succession Act, 1925, Section 57] - The court discussed the interpretation of the Will in the light of the intention of the testator, the meaning of specific words used in the Will, and the absence of a residuary clause. The court emphasized that the intention of the testator should be gathered from the language used in the Will and not from extraneous circumstances. The court held that there was an intestacy with regard to the plaint properties and that the widows of the testator were entitled to them.
Fact of the Case:
The widows of the testator brought a suit for possession of the properties devised in a Will. The lower court held that the properties passed to the foster son under the Will, while the widows appealed against this decision.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was an intestacy with regard to the plaint properties and that the widows were entitled to them. The court also held that the foster son was entitled to be paid back the amount he spent in removing encumbrances on the property.
Issues: Interpretation of the Will, devolution of properties, liability to pay back amount spent on property encumbrances.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the intention of the testator should be gathered from the language used in the Will and not from extraneous circumstances. The absence of a residuary clause in the Will was also considered in determining the devolution of properties.
Final Decision: The plaintiffs were granted a decree for possession of the plaint properties, and the foster son was entitled to be paid back the amount he spent on removing encumbrances on the property.
Devadoss, J.
1. One Achia Pillai executed a Will, Exhibit A, on 22nd May, 1908, devising his properties to his foster son, Nallakannu Pillai, 1st defendants husband, and bequeathing some properties to the plaintiffs, his wives, to be enjoyed by them for life. Achia Pillai bought the plaint properties in 1909 and 1913 and died in 1914, Nallakannu Pillai died in 1917. The plaintiffs have brought this suit for possession of the plaint properties. The 2nd defendant is the alienee of the properties from the 1st defendant. The District Munsif held that there was an intestacy as regards the plaint properties; that the plaintiffs, being the widows of Achia Pillai were entitled to the properties and gave a decree in their favour. Both the 1st defendant and the 2nd defendant preferred separate appeals against the decree of the District Munaif. The Additional Subordinate Judge of Tinnevelly held that the plaint properties passed to Nallakannu Pillai under the Will and dismissed the plaintiffs suit. The plaintiffs have preferred these two second appeals against the 1st defendant and the 2nd defendant.
2. The first question for determination is whether there was an intestacy as regards the plaint properties. The Will is in Tamil and the operative portion of the Will is, "I have bequeathed my ancestral and self-acquired properties worth Rs. 4,000 and my assets and liabilities (thanarunangal) to the said Nallakannu Pillai. My idea is that the said properties should be enjoyed by me during my lifetime and after my death they should pass on to the said Nallakannu Pillai." The question is whether the properties acquired after the execution of the Will passed to Nallakannu Pillai under this Will. The Subordinate Judge is of opinion that it was the intention of the testator to bequeath all his properties to Nallakannu Pillai and that, therefore, the Will must be construed in the light of that intention. It is also urged by Mr. Ramachandra Iyer, Who appears for the respondent in Second Appeal No. 688 of 1922, that Nallakannu Pillai was treated as a son and was asked to perform the funeral ceremonies of the testator and of his wives, and that he gave only a life-interest to his widows in some property with reversion in favour of Nallakannu Pillai and, therefore, it must be presumed that the intention of the testator was that all his properties should devolve on Nallakannu Pillai. In construing a Will written in the vernacular and executed by a villager, the Court has to see what the language of the Will is, and in what sense the words in the Will were used by the testator. There is no evidence that the Will was drafted by a solicitor or a lawyer. Aohia Pillai was an ordinary villager of some means in a village in Ambasamudram taluk, Tinnevelly district. Mr. Ramachandra Iyer contended that the word "thanam" is used as meaning wealth or property and should not be held to mean only out-standings or cash. "Thanam" is a Sanskrit word and no doubt its literal meaning is wealth. But we have to see in what sense the word "thanarunangal" is used in the Will. In the first place the testator was not a Brahmin but a Vellala, and in the second place the word "thanarunangal" is used in contradistinction to the word "sothu" in the Will. It would not be right to give the words in a document the etymological or the literal meaning and consider such meaning to have been that of the execntant. Where no terms of art are used, the Court should understand the words of the Will as the testator understood them or intended they should be understood. Words have different shades of meaning in different places. The question is, "What did the testator, a man of the Tinnevelly district and a non-Brahmin understand by the word "thanarunangal." The Will gives a clear indication as to what he meant. He devises certain properties to Nallakannu Pillai, describes them in the sohedule to the Will, gives their value and describes them by the word "sothukkal" and adds the word "th
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.