SUSILA AMMAL Vs. INDIRANIAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE defendant is the appellant. THE respondent filed a suit in O.S. No. 329 of 1994 before the District Munsif Court, Nagapattinam, for recovery of possession of the suit properties on the following averments.

(2.) THE suit properties along with other properties belonged to one Krishnammal. She executed a will under Ex.A.1 on 9.5.1952 bequeathing her properties to her sister Govindammal till her life time and after her life time the A, B and C schedule properties would respectively devolve on Rajamanickam Naidu, Packirisamy Naidu and Rajamani Ammal and their heirs. THEre was a further clause that the properties should not be alienated. In case Packirisamy Naidu died issueless, the properties bequeathed to him would revert to the heirs of the other two legatees. THE appellant was the wife of Packirisamy and the respondent was the daughter of Rajamanickam, Packirisamy having died issueless on 16.10.1993, the appellant had not surrendered possession of the property bequeathed to Packirisamy to the respondent and other heirs. THE suit was therefore necessitated.

(3.) LEARNED counsel also relied on the provisions of Sections 87, 88 and 113 of the Indian Succession Act and also the decision of the Supreme Court in N.Krishnaammal v. R.Ekambaram, AIR 1979 S.C12987. The duty of the court is only to ascertain the intentions of the testator. The guide to interpret the Will is the Will itself and his intentions have to be" gathered from the language of the Will. Bower v. Louis, 1884 (9) AC 890.