ARUNCHALA UDAYAR Vs. PACHAYAMMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The main question in this appeal is as to the construction of a clause in a settlement deed, Ex. A, dated 6 August 1914. The literal translation of the clause is: My second daughter's son Swaminathan on his attaining majority shall enjoy with absolute rights enabling him to make gifts, sell, etc., the house, house-site etc., nanja, punja lands mentioned in Schedule B.

(2.) Swaminathan died before attaining majority and his father has brought this suit for the recovery of the property settled on him inasmuch as he had a vested interest in the property and that he being the heir of his son is entitled to it. The Subordinate Judge held that Swaminathan had acquired a vested interest in the property and decreed the plaintiff's suit. On appeal the learned District Judge held that Swaminathan had only a contingent interest and as he died before he came of age the settlement in his favour did not take effect and dismissed the plaintiff's suit.

(3.) In construing this clause the tenor of the whole document has to be taken into consideration. In the preamble of the document, the following clause occurs: I have no male heirs. I had two daughters, namely, Pachayammal and Puval. Of these Puval is dead. She has a minor son aged 13 years named Swaminathan. These two are entitled to get my properties according to law. In order that they may obtain them and live happily and for my benefit in the other world I have made the following arrangements.