THAYALAI ACHI Vs. KANNAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal raises two questions; (1) whether one Ponnammal Achi was married in the Asura form so that her stridhanam property goes to her brother Nataraja Pillai; (2) whether she took an absolute estate without any executory or other gift over in favour of Nataraja Pillai, under the will of her husband Samia Pillai.

(2.) The first question is primarily one of fact. The burden is upon the appellant to displace the presumption that the marriage is in the ordinary form. The learned trial Judge has considered the evidence and the credibility of the witnesses. He has seen the witnesses and we have not. We see nothing in the record to show that his conclusions as to the credibility or weight of testimony or evidence is wrong and we see, therefore, no reason for differing from his conclusion of fact. That conclusion was that it is not proved that Ponnammal Achi was married in the Asura form.

(3.) The second question raises a point on the construction of a will. Points of great complexity can arise when the will to be construed is written in a precise language possessing many terms of art the content of which has been defined by Courts. Matters are made much more difficult where the will is in a language as uncertain and so lacking in precision as Tamil and terms are used which one side alleges have a technical meaning and the other side alleges have something less than a technical meaning and which if found in an English will would be construed as cutting down rather than as extending the bequest in question but which when found in this will admittedly have not that effect.