VEERATIALINGAM AND OTHERS versus RAMESH AND OTHERS

Citation: [1990] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 507 · Decided: 18-09-1990 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: L.M. SHARMA

cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
VEERATIALINGAM AND OTIIERS 
v. 
A 
RAMESH ANQ OTIIERS 
SEPTEMBER 18, 1990 
[LAUT MOHAN SHARMA AND K. RAMASWAMY, JJ.] 
Indian Succession Act, 1925: Section 174-Wi/l-Interpretation of-Factors to 
B 
be considered apart from language of the document-Recourse to precedent~ 
Perrnissibility of. 
Transfer of Property Act 1882: Section 14-Rule against perpetuity-
Rejection of plea-When arises. 
The property in the suit belonged to the great grand-mother of the 
plaintiffs and defendant Nos. 5 to 14 who executed a registered will. According 
to the terms of the·will, her two soru:, defendant No. 1 and plaintiffs' witness 
No. 2 were to remain in possession of the properties without any power of 
alienation, to p~y the taxes and conduct regularly certain religious festivals, 
and their male issues on attaining majority were to get the property in equal 
portions and enjoy it absolutely. 
The main dispute in the suit was about the share which the plaintiffs are 
entitled to under the terms of the aforesaid will. The plaintiff' claimed that they 
being the only grand-sons of the younger son of the testatrix were entitled to 
half-share in the properties, the remaining- half going to the grand-sons of 
defendant No. 1 namely, defendant Nos. 5 to 14. The suit was contested on 
behalf of the defendants, who pleaded that the suit properties have to be divided 
amongst all the 13 great grand-sons of the testatrix in equal shares, and that the 
suit was fit to be dismissed as defendant No. I defendent No. 15 had finally 
partitioned the _properties in 1975, and no question of further partition arises. 
T·he maintainability of the suit was also challenged on the ground of minOrity of 
the plaintiffs as also on the basis of the rule against perpetuity. 
·The trial Court rejected the plea based on the rule against perpetuity but 
having regard to the interest of defendant No. 1, his brother, and deferidant.No. 
15, it held that the alleged partition of 1975 was illegal and not binding on the 
plaintiffs and that so far as the shares of the plaintiffs and defendant Nos. S to 14 
are concerned held that the parties would take the properties as per capita~ The 
suit was however dismissed on the ground that the plaintiffs were still minor. 
c 
D 
E 
F 
• 
In the appeal to the High Court by the plaintiffs, the High Court con-
firmed the rmdings of the trial court that the 1975 partition was illegal, but held 
G 
that the division would take place as per stirpes; and taking into account the fact 
that during the pendency of the appeal, two of the plaintiffs had attained major-
~ty, the High Court passed a decree in their favour for one-sixth' "'ihare each. So 
far as the thi!"d plaintiff was concerned, it declared his right without pas.iing a 
iiecree .for partition. 
The appellants-defendants challenged the decision of the High Court in 
H 
507 
• 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
508 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[ 1990] Supp. I S.C.R. 
this Court by special leave, contending that as per the terms of the will the great 
grand-sons of the testatrix have inherited the suit properties as ~r capita and 
that the conclusion -of the High Court on this aspects was illegal, and that 
reliance by the High Court, on Boddu-Venkatakrishna Rao & Ors. v. 
Shrimati Boddu Satyavathi & Ors., [1968] 2 SCR 395 was inapplicable to the 
facts of this case. 
Allowing the appeal in part, and decreeing the suit in favour of all the 
plaintiffs, that the share of the three plaintiffs and defendant Nos. 5 to 14 shall 
be one-thirteen each in the suit properties this Court, 
HELD: I. A Court while construing a will should try to ascertain the 
intention of the testator to be gathered primarily from the language of the 
document; but while so doing the surrounding circumstances the position of the 
testator, his family relationship and the probability that he used the words in a 
particular sense also must be taken into account. They lend a valuable aid in 
arriving at the correct construction of the will. Since these considerations are 
changing from person to person it is seldom profitable to compare the words of 
one will with those of another or to try to discover which of the wills upon which 
the decisions have been given in reported cases, the disputed will approximates 
closely. Rfcourse to precedents, therefore, should be confined for the purpose 
of general principles of construction only. 
2. There is still another reason as to why the construction put on certain 
express

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