MAHALINGAM Vs. A S NARAYANASWAMY IYER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE first defendant in O.S.No.298 of 1975, having failed in the courts below, has preferred this second appeal challenging the concurrent findings of the two courts. THE question turns upon the construction of Ex.A-1, the Will executed by one Rajalakshmi Ammal on 10.7.1972. THE plaintiff is the adopted son of Srinivasa Iyer, husband of Rajalakshmi Ammal. THE first defendant is the son of Gopala Iyer, brother of Srinivasa Iyer. Though it is not really relevant, it may be mentioned that the plaintiff was the natural son of Gopala Iyer and he was taken in adoption by Gopala Iyer's brother Srinivasa Iyer. Rajalakshmi Ammal died on 15.11.1974 and the present suit was filed on 14.8.1975 Though the plaint schedule originally described one item of property in Survey No. 145/2C, later, it was amended by introducing a second item in Survey No. 145/4. As regards the second item there is no dispute between the parties as the first defendant conceded the title of the plaintiff to the said item. It is only the first item which is in dispute.

(2.) IN the Will, two items of properties were bequeathed in favour of the appellant herein. The first item bequeathed under the Will is not the subject-matter of dispute. It is only the second item, which is subject-matter of bequest that is in dispute in this appeal. The description of the said item in the Will is as follows:

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellant contents that the principle of false demonstratio non nocet" will apply in this case. According to him, the property is clearly described by survey number and the extent thereof and the intention of the testatrix is very clear that she bequeathed the entire survey number of the said extent. It is contended that there is a mistake in the description of the boundaries and such mistake cannot be given any importance and it has to be ignored by applying the aforesaid doctrine. Reliance is also placed on the words. It is contended that the total extent of 68 cents in the said survey number has been bequeathed as evident on applying the aforesaid doctrine.