S.RAJAGOPAL CHETTIAR versus HAMASAVENI AMMAL AND ORS.

Citation: [1991] 3 S.C.R. 714 · Decided: 23-08-1991 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: N.M. KASLIWAL · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
c 
D 
S. RAJAGOPAL CHETIIAR 
v. 
HAMASA VENI AMMAL AND ORS. 
AUGUST 23, 1991. 
[N.M. KASLIWAL AND K. RAMASWAMY, JJ.] 
Hindu Succession Act, 1956: Section 14( 1) Hindu Law-Will~ 
Scope and construction of-Testator bequething properties to daug/1ter 
and after her to her male children-Daughter whether acquiring abso. 
lute Estate. 
Constitution of India, 1950: Article 136--Appeal by Special 
Leave-Contention neither raised in Courts below nor in Special Lepve 
Petition:_Cannot be raised for first time during the course of arguments 
in appeal. 
'P' executed a will on 22.6.1924. The terms of the will provided 
that after the death of testator his wife shall enjoy the properties till her 
lifetime; after her wife's lifetime the properties shall be enjoyed abso-
lutely by his daughter and after her daughter the properties should go 
to her male children. 
E 
A question arose as to whether on the basis of the will the daugh-
ter acquired a life estate or an absolute estate. The High Court held that 
the fact that the testator directed that after her daughter the properties 
shall go to her male children clearly showed an intention that daugh-
.._. 
ter's interest in the properties was not absolute. Accordingly, the High 
' 
Court held that the daughter acquired only a life estate in the proper-
F 
ties. Hence this appeal against the judgment of the HighSourt. 
Dismissing the apjital, this Court, 
HELD: 1. It cannot be held that the testator of the will wanted to 
give absolute right in the property to bis daughter. The intention of the 
G 
testator to give absolute right in the property to bis daughter is 
negatived by a clear mention in the will that after bis daughter the 
property shall ultimately go to her male children. In case the intention 
of the testator was to give the properties absolutely in favour of bis 
daughter and not merely life interest then there was no question of 
mentioning that after her it should go to her male children. Accord-
H ingly, the view taken by the High Court was correct. [7I6C-E] 
714 
RAJAGOPAL v. HAMASAVENI AMMAL [KASLIWAL, l. ] 
715 
2. A contention :neither raised in any of the courts below nor 
A 
before the High Conrt_ nor in the petition fer special leave cannot be 
permitted to be raised for the first time before this Court during the 
••> 
course of arguments. [716F] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 902 
cl~. 
B 
From the Judgment and Order dated 13.7.1976 of the Madras 
High Court in S.A. No. 1575 of 1973. 
K. Ram Kumar and Ms. Janki Ramachandran for the Appellant. 
M. Raghuraman for the Respondents. 
The Judgm~nt of the Court was delivered by 
KASLIW AL, J. This appeal by Special Leave is directed against 
c 
the Judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Madras dated 
D 
29. 7 .1976. The short controversy in the case is regarding the ambit and 
scope of a will dated 22.6.1924 executed by one Padmanabha Chettlllf. 
The construction of the will is in question in the present case. A trans-
lation of the will as supplied by the appellant in this Court reads as 
under: 
E 
"On the 2nd day of June, 1924, i.e. Tamil 9th day of 
Ani of Raktakshi year, this will executed by me, 
Padmanabba Chettiar, son of Sarni Chettiar, Vysya caste, 
cultivation, resident of New Street, Sultanpettai, Koppam, 
Palakkadu Taluq, Kallikottai District, presently at Aniai-
malai, is to the effect. As I do not have male progeny and I 
F 
have attained old age, the movable and immovable proper-
ties mentioned hereunder in my possession and enjoyment, 
both ancestral and also self acquired, shall be enjoyed by 
me absolutely till my life time, after my lifetime my wife 
Dhanalakshrrii Ammal shall en joy likewise till her lifetime; 
after her lifetime as described hereunder A Schedule pro-
G . 
perties shall be enjoyed absolutely by my daughter and 
wife of Anaimalai Subramania Chettiar, Rajalakshmi 
Ammal, and after her it should go to her male children". 
. 
The question which arises on the basis of the contents of the 
above will is whether Ra jalakshmi Ammal had acquired a life estate 
H 
A 
B 
716 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1991] 3 S.C.R. 
under the will or an absolute estate. The High Court took the view that 
it was one of the cardinal principles of construction of wills that so far 
as legally possible effect should be given to every disposition contained 
in the will unless the law prevents such effect being given to it. The 
High Court held that the fact that the testator direct

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.