C S NAGARAJA IYER Vs. SEETHALAKSHMI AMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ONE Lakshmi Ammal, who was absolutely entitled to the property which is the subject matter of the appeal being childless, brought up her brother's daughter sivakami Ammal. The respondent to this appeal, Sitalakshmi Ammal, is Sivakami's mother. On 15-4-1929, Lakshmi Ammal executed a deed of settlement in favour of Sivakami, the material portion of which is as follows.

(2.) MR. M. S. Venkatarama Aiyar, who appeared for the appellants in this appeal pressed, before us only two contentions, namely, (1) that under the settlement deed, Sivakami obtained an absolute estate in the property settled, and, that on her death, the first appellant, as her heir, would be entitled to it; and (2) that even if it were to, be held that Sivakami had only a life estate in the property, the disposition in favour of Sitalakshmi, her mother, was void, being intended to take effect on an indefinite failure of issue to Sivakami, and that therefore there was intestacy in regard to the remainder. It was further stated that the first appellant who was also the stridhanam heir of Lakshmi Ammal, would he entitled to the property, or, at any rate the respondent, being a remoter heir of Lakshmi Ammal would not he entitled to maintain the suit for eviction.

(3.) THE first point presents little difficulty. A reading of the will shows that only a limited life estate was intended to be created in favour of Sivakami. Her powers of alienation were restricted. There is a gift over of the remainder after her death. Mr. Venkatarama Aiyar contended that the restriction in regard to the power of alienation could only be regarded as a repugnant clause. It is a settled rule of construction that a will or deed of settlement will have to be read as a, whole before finding out the nature of the estate conferred on the legatee or settle. Taking the document as a whole, there can he no doubt that what was intended to be given to Sivakami was only an estate for life. This was the view taken by the learned Subordinate Judge, and we are of opinion that it is correct.