MARY HARRIETT ANNIE WILSON Vs. GEORGE OAKES

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case the plaintiff sues as administratrix of the estate of one William Graham Mclvor. The defendants are the executors of the will of Anne Mclvor, his wife. William Mclvor made a will on May 24, 1876, and died on June 8, 1876. Anne Mclvor took out probate of this will on August 3, 1876, and took possession of the testator's estate and remained in possession until her death. Anne Mclvor made her will on March 27th, 1900, and died on November 23, 1903. The plaintiff, as representing the estate of Wiliam Graham Mclvor, claims relief against the defendants, as representing the estate of Anne Mclvor. The hearing of the suit before the Subordinate Judge of the Nilgiris was very protracted, and a great number of questions of law and fact were raised before him and disposed of by him.

(2.) The learned Judge held, amongst other things, that, under the will, Mrs. Mclvor took an ordinary life estate, and that the will did not operate so as to create a trust for the benefit o f the residuary legatees. He also held that the defendants were not liable for waste in respect of a portion of the property known as the Hulikal coffee estate. The appeal is against the decree of the Subordinate Judge with reference to these questions. There is also a cross-appeal by the respondents. The question raised by the cross-appeal mainly turns on the construction of a particular clause in the will.

(3.) In construing the will in question the test we have to apply is : What did the testator mean having regard to the words he used? and in applying this test we must give effect to the principle that "technical words of known legal import must have their legal effect even though the testator uses inconsistent words, unless those inconsistent words are of such a nature as to make it perfectly clear that the testator did not mean to use the technical terms in their proper sense" per Lord Davey in Lalit Mohun Roy V/s. Chukkum Lal Roy (1897) I.L.R. 24 C. 834 at p. 846 (P.C.).