VASUDEVAN NEDUNGADI Vs. SANTHA KOVILAMMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The aspects on which the opinion of the third Judge is sought under S.98(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure are the following:

(2.) The question is whether clauses (9) and (10) of Ext. A3 will are repugnant to each other and as to the ultimate effect of the conflict between the two clauses. For brevity, I do not propose to reproduce the relevant Clauses of the Will, the English version of which is available in para 8 at page 5 of the dissenting judgment.

(3.) After stating in clause (9) that the portions of the building, that is to say 4 rooms, hall and kitchen in the 2nd floor and the pathway specified in clause (9) will go to all the 7 children of the testator equally with the power of alienation, what is mentioned in clause (10) is that in case the testators brother inlaw, who already holds the remaining parts of the building, demands a sale of the third portions after paying off Rs. 3,50,000/- with interest as detailed in para 3 of Ext. A1 dissolution deed and within five years of the testators death, the said legatees should execute a sale deed for the said property after receiving a sum of Rs. 1,05,000/- from Vasudevan Nedungadi, who is the testators said brother inlaw.