LexA. SREENIVASA PAI AND ANR. versus SARASWATHI AMMAL ALIAS G. KAMALA BAI
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E F G H 122 A. SREENIVASA PAI AND ANR. v. SARASWATHI AMMAL ALIAS G. KAMALA BAI JULY 12, 1985 [ E. S. VENKATAAAMIAH AND V. KllALID, JJ. j Interpretation: Construction of documents ·- Intention of parties in cons t- ruing a "Will" - Intention, how to be ascertained. The appellant No. 1, A Sreenivasa Pai, executed a Settle- ment Deed in Malayalam language on 12th December, 1932 transfer- ring two plots of land with some buildings and out houses at Quilon in favour of his mother-in-law Padmavathi Ammal. The lst appellant's father-in-law died in the year 1932. His brother-in- law, V.Sreenivasa Pai died in the year 1935. After the death of mother-in-law in 1951,her daughter-in-law/respondent (wife of v. Sreenivasa Pai) filed. a suit for possession of the aforesaid properties on the ground that under the Settlement Deed, her mother-in-law, Padmavathi Ammal had been conferred only a life estate and the properties had been given absolutely t·D V. Sreenivasa Pai to enjoy them after the life time of Padmavathi Ammal. It was further pleaded that on· the death of Padmavathi Ammal who was only a life estate holder, the properties devolved on the respondent who was the sole heir of v. Sreenivasa Pai. On the other hand, the appellant pleaded that Padmavathi Ammal had been conferred absolute title in respect of the aforesaid pro1per- tieo and on her death the said properties being Streedllana properties of Padmavathi Ammal had devolved on her daughter Lai\shmi Ammal, the wife of the lat appellant i.e. appellant Nc>.2. The trial court dismissed the suit. But, on appeal the High Court reversed the judgment of the trial court l)olding that the respondent was entitled to the properties on the ground that under the Settlement Deed Padmavathi Allllllil had been conferred a life estate only in the properties settled under the document in question and that V. Sreeni vasa Pai, the husband of the respondent - Saraswathi Ammal alias G.Kamala Bai had been conferred an absolute estate in those properties to be enjoyed by him after the death of Padmavathi AIJ¥lal. • A.S.PAI v. SARASWATHI AMMAL 123 Dismissing the appeal, A llEL!l: 1. In constndng a document, whether in English or in any Indian Language, the fundamental rule to be adopted is to ascertain the intention from the words employed in it. The surrounding circlllllStances may be considered for the purpose of ascertaining the intended meaning of those words, specially when B there is some ambiguity in the words used in the docWilllnt • [128 B-C] 2. In the instant case, it is clear from the portions of the Settlement Deed that A. Sreenivasa Pai desired to give. the properties mentioned ln the said deed to V. Sreeni vasa Pai C absolutely subject to the life interest conferred on Padmavathi Ammal. It may also be noted that V. Sreenivasa Pai admittedly was not an apparent heir to the properties of Padmavathi Ammal on the date of the document as her daughter Lakshmi Ammal was· alive on that date. If A. Sreenivasa Pai intended that his wife s. Lakshmi Ammal should succeed to the properties transferred under D the settlement deed after the death of Padmavathi Ammal, he would hsve stated in the document that the properties shoula; on her death, go to her heirs but on the other hand he stated " I hereby agree that you, and after you, your son, and his descendants fr.om generation to generation for all time may hold the properties a.-.d enjoy the same from this day onwards." These words clearly point out that A. Sreenivasa Pai never intended that the properties E tcansferred under the deed of settlement should, on the death of Padmavathi Ammal, go to her heir at law. Having regard to the recitals in the document and the circumstances in which it came to be executed, there is no doubt that the above words of disposition conferring title on v. Sreenivasa Pai do not consti- tute a subordinate clause in the deed. It is difficult to agree F that these words have been used in the document merely as a defeasance clause attached to the ·absolute estate conveyed in favour of Padmavathi Ammal. Nor do these words appear to create a different mode of succession to the absolute estate of Padma- vathi A:mnal after her death. They treat V. Sreenivasa Pai as a direct beneficiary under· the deed itself. [128 F-H, 129 A-D] G 3. The document read as a whole leaves no doubt that V. Sreenivasa Pai was given under
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.