(1.) THE plaintiff is the appellant in the above second appeal. The question involved in the appeal is one of construction of the will, Ex. P -1, in the case. It was executed by one Vithilingam Pillai on 5th May, 1915. The donee under the will was his daughter, Kathayi, and the plaintiff is the grandson of the said Kathayi. The will, after setting out the properties he had and the debts, proceeds to state as follows:
(2.) IN appeal it was contended by Mr. M.S. Venkatarama Aiyar for the appellant that the recital which was subsequently added on the first page prohibiting the donee from selling the land except for the discharge of the debt clearly indicates that the testator intended to give only a life estate. He further contends that the gift over to the grandson, Ratnaswami Pillai, the plaintiff herein, is another indication that the testator wanted that the properties should pass on to him and that he should perform the obsequies. His contention is that if there be two conflicting clauses, viz., granting of an absolute estate earlier and restriction as to alienation later, the latter clause must prevail and therefore the estate that was conferred in this case was only a life estate. The contention of learned Counsel for the respondent is that the dispositive words used by the testator are clearly indicating an absolute estate and any other clause must be construed to be repugnant and therefore the clause restricting alienation is invalid. In any event, it should not be taken more than as a mere direction to the donee. The question now is which of the two constructions is correct.
(3.) AS pointed out by Venkataramana Rao, J., in Ananthasayanam Naidu v. Kondappa Naidu : AIR 1940 Mad 479 .