Will interpretation ascertains testator's intention from entire document and schedule; specific equal extents to beneficiaries indicate no preferential larger share despite land shortage, rejecting claim to full bequest.

JUDGMENT :

P.B. BALAJI, J.

1.The plaintiff, aggrieved by the reversal findings rendered by the first Appellate Court setting aside the decree passed by the trial Court and thereby dismissing the suit, is the appellant.

2.The second appeal was admitted by this Court on 17.02.2017 on the following substantial questions of law.

“a) Whether the lower Appellate Court is right in reversing the Judgment of the trial Court since the fourth defendant has admitted in the evidence that he has no objection in granting a decree for 19 ½ cents in favour of the plaintiff as per the Will?

b) Whether the first defendant is entitled to convey under Ex.B7 to fourth defendant pending suit more area what she has obtained under Ex.B.3 and B.4 from her husband Raj?

c) Whether the defendants 2 and 3 are right in setting aside the subdivision order, dated 06.04.1998 in the absence of any appeal by first defendant under Section 11 of the Tamil Nadu Survey and Boundaries Act, 1923?

d) Whether the subdivision effected on 08.02.2002 is right since the same is contrary to paragraph No.3 of the written statement of third defendant?”

3. I have heard Mr.C. Godwin, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr.K.N.Thampi, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents 5 to 7 and 9 to 13 and Mr.R. Ragavendran, learned Government Advocate for the respondents 3 and 4.

4. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to as per their rank before the trial Court.

5. Brief facts that are necessary to adjudicate the present second appeal are as hereunder:

5.1. The plaintiff and the first defendant's husband are brothers, they being the sons of one Appavu Nadar. The said Appavu Nadar was the original owner of the property, which is the suit property, forming and part of a larger extent of land. The said Appavu Nadar had executed a Will dated 06.10.1969, in and by which he had bequeathed 11 1/2 cents on the southern side out of 54 cents to his son Rajamani, through his first wife; the middle portion measuring 19½ cents to the plaintiff viz., Thompson, who is the younger son of Appavu Nadar, the northern portion of 19 cents to the elder son, viz., Raj. The said Raj in and by a settlement deed dated 04.03.1974, settled the northern extent of 19 cents with a tiled building standing on the said land in favour of his wife, the first defendant, retaining a life interest in and by a subsequent release deed dated 16.08.1978, the life interest was also released in favour of his wife/first defendant. The father, Appavu Nadar died and according to the plaintiff, the two sons were in enjoyment of the respective properties gifted to them and in view of the settlement in favour of the first defendant, the first defendant took the share of the elder son Raj. Subsequently, the first defendant, in and by sale deed dated 10.08.2005 sold the property settled on her by her husband Raj, to the fourth defendant/Kasi Nadar. Pending the suit, the said Kasi Nadar passed away and his heirs were brought on record. Sub division was also effected by the Tahsildar.

5.2. The plaintiff contending that he is in possession of 19 cents bequeathed to him and the shops constructed on the said land, paying taxes for the said shops, aggrieved by the first defendant approaching the Collector with objections regarding sub