Full Judgment Text
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 7
PETITIONER:
A. SREENIVASA PAI AND ANR.
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
SARASWATHI AMMAL ALLAS G. KAMALA BAI
DATE OF JUDGMENT12/07/1985
BENCH:
VENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J)
BENCH:
VENKATARAMIAH, E.S. (J)
KHALID, V. (J)
CITATION:
1985 AIR 1359 1985 SCR Supl. (2) 122
1985 SCC (4) 85 1985 SCALE (2)78
ACT:
Interpretation:
Construction of documents - Intention of parties in
construing a "Will" - Intention, how to be ascertained.
HEADNOTE:
The appellant No. 1, A Sreenivasa Pai, executed a
Settlement Deed in Malayalam language on 12th December, 1932
transferring two plots of land with some buildings and out
houses at Quilon in favour of his mother-in-law Padmavathi
Ammal. The 1st appellant’s father-in-law died in the year
1932. His brother-in-law, V. Sreenivasa Pai died in the year
1935. After the death of mother-in-law in 1951, her
daughter-in-law/respondent (wife of V. Sreenivasa Pai) filed
a suit for possession of the aforesaid properties on the
ground that under the Settlement Deed, her mother-in-law,
Padmavathi Ammal had been conferred only a life estate and
the properties had been given absolutely to V. Sreenivasa
Pai to enjoy them after the life time of Padmavathi Ammal.
It was further pleaded that on the death of Padmavathi Ammal
who was only a life estate holder, the properties devolved
on the respondent who was the sole heir of V. Sreenivasa
Pai. On the other hand, the appellant pleaded that
Padmavathi Ammal had been conferred absolute title in
respect of the aforesaid properties and on her death the
said properties being Streedhana properties of Padmavathi
Ammal had devolved on her daughter Lakshmi Ammal, the wife
of the 1st appellant i.e. appellant No.2.
The trial court dismissed the suit. But, on appeal the
High Court reversed the judgment of the trial court holding
that the respondent was entitled to the properties on the
ground that under the Settlement Deed Padmavathi Ammal had
been conferred a life estate only in the properties settled
under the document in question and that V. Sreenivasa Pai,
the husband of the respondent - Saraswathi Ammal alias
G.Kamala Bai had been conferred an absolute estate in those
properties to be enjoyed by him after the death of
Padmavathi Ammal.
123
Dismissing the appeal,
^
HELD: 1. In construing a document, whether in English
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 7
or in any Indian Language, the fundamental rule to be
adopted is to ascertain the intention from the words
employed in it. The surrounding circumstances may be
considered for the purpose of ascertaining the intended
meaning of those words, specially when there is some
ambiguity in the words used in the document. [128 B-C]
2. In the instant case, it is clear from the portions
of the Settlement Deed that A. Sreenivasa Pai desired to
give the properties mentioned in the said deed to V.
Sreenivasa Pai absolutely subject to the life interest
conferred on Padmavathi Ammal. It may also be noted that V.
Sreenivasa Pai admittedly was not an apparent heir to the
properties of Padmavathi Ammal on the date of the document
as her daughter Lakshmi Ammal was alive on that date. If A.
Sreenivasa Pai intended that his wife S. Lakshmi Ammal
should succeed to the properties transferred under the
settlement deed after the death of Padmavathi Ammal, he
would have stated in the document that the properties
should, on her death, go to her heirs but on the other hand
he stated "I hereby agree that you, and after you, your son,
and his descendants from generation to generation for all
time may hold the properties and enjoy the same from this
day onwards." These words clearly point out that A.
Sreenivasa Pai never intended that the properties
transferred under the deed of settlement should, on the
death of Padmavathi Ammal, go to her heir at law. Having
regard to the recitals in the document and the circumstances
in which it came to be executed, there is no doubt that the
above words of disposition conferring title on V. Sreenivasa
Pai do not constitute a subordinate clause in the deed. It
is difficult to agree that these words have been used in the
document merely as a defeasance clause attached to the
absolute estate conveyed in favour of Padmavathi Ammal. Nor
do these words appear to create a different mode of
succession to the absolute estate of Padmavathi Ammal after
her death. They treat V. Sreenivasa Pai as a direct
beneficiary under the deed itself. [128 F-H, 129 A-D]
3. The document read as a whole leaves no doubt that V.
Sreenivasa Pai was given under it the absolute estate in the
properties subject to the life estate created in favour of
Padmavathi Ammal. The object of executing the settlement
deed was obviously to confer the benefit on the family of V.
Sreenivasa Pai which was in distress and not that Padmavathi
Ammal should alone be benefited. The document conferred, as
observed by the
124
High Court, a vested interest in favour of V. Sreenivasa Pai
but his right to enjoy the property only was however
postponed to the death of Padmavathi Ammal. Since V.
Sreenivasa Pai had acquired a vested right in the properties
on December 12, 1932 i.e., the date of the settlement deed
it could not be defeated by his death before he obtained
possession. His widow Saraswathi Ammal alias G.Kamala Bai
being his sole heir was, therefore, entitled to the said
properties on the termination of the life estate of
Padmavathi Ammal. [129 D-F]
Ramachandra Shenoy & Anr. v. Mrs. Hilda Brite & Ors.
[1964] 2 S.C.R. 722, relied upon.
JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 410 of
1971.
From the Judgment and Order dated 28.1.1970 of the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 7
Kerala High Court in Appeal Suit No. 327 of 1964.
T.S. Krishnamurthy Iyer, N. Sudhakaran and M.R.K.
Pillai for the Appellants.
P.S. Poti, Sardar Bahadur Saharya and V.B. Saharya for
the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
VENKATARAMIAH, J. There was one K.Vasudeva Pai who was
carrying on business at Quilon, which is now in the State of
Kerala. Padmavathi Ammal was his wife. They had a son by
name V.Sreenivasa Pai and a daughter by name S.Lakshmi Ammal
(Defendant No. 2). Saraswathi Ammal alias G.Kamala Bai
(Plaintiff) was the wife of V.Sreenivasa Pai. S.Lakshmi
Ammal had been given in marriage to A.Sreenivasa Pai
(Defendant No.1). K.Vasudeva Pai was adjudged insolvent in
the year 1923 by the District Court at Quilon and
consequently the properties belonging to him vested in the
Official Receiver. The Official Receiver conveyed some of
the said properties under a sale deed in favour of one
S.A.S. Ayyavu Iyer in or about the year 1926. These
properties were two plots of land with some buildings and
out-houses at Quilon. Later on, in the year 1930 Ayyavu Iyer
conveyed the properties purchased by him in favour of A.
Sreenivasa Pai, the son-in-law of K.Vasudeva Pai, under whom
A.Sreenivasa Pai was working all along. Subsequently, on
December 12, 1932 A.Sreenivasa Pai executed a settlement
deed transferring the said properties in favour of his
mother-in-law
125
Padmavathi Ammal. This deed is in Malayalam language. An
English translation of this deed is produced before us. The
relevant portion of the settlement deed translated into
English reads as follows :
"..........................................
On seeing that you are now in distress after
selling in auction of all the properties belonging
to your family by the Receiver in I.P. 48 of 1099
of the District Court. Quilon towards the debts
recently incurred by your husband Krishna Pai,
Vasudeva Pai and due to my worry over it and in
view of my desire to give certain properties to be
enjoyed by you and after your life time, by
Sreenivasa Pai, from generation to generation,
paramparaya, for all time on the bona fide belief
that the income etc. of the properties proposed to
be given would be sufficient for your family life,
the properties described in the schedule below
purchased by me with myself acquired funds from
Subbayyavayyan Ayyavayyer, the general power of
attorney holder S/o Sankaranarayan Iyer
Subbayyavayyan, doing Hundi business in Quilon
Bazar, as per sale deed No. 4026 of 1105 and held
by me on absolute right, constructing additional
buildings therein and holding possession of the
same, and paying land tax and municipal tax and
collecting rent of some of the buildings leased on
rent, are surrendered to you as per this deed,
relinquishing all my rights and liabilities,
making my love and affection towards you and your
family as consideration and as you are dependent
on me subject to the condition that you and your
descendants shall not execute any documents or
mortgage or Otti charging these properties and
charging other debts on these properties and in
case of violation of the above provisions, they
will not be valid and I and my descendants shall
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 7
have the full power only to object and set aside
the same. I hereby agree that you, and after you,
your son, and his descendants from generation to
generation for all time may hold the properties
and enjoy the same from this day onwards effecting
mutation in your name, paying government
assessment and municipal tax and since the rent
deeds of the buildings given on rent have been
given along with this, collecting the rent etc. of
the above
126
buildings by you from today onwards and by
recovering possession of the shops along with key
after eviction."..........
(Underlining by us)
K.Vasudeva Pai died in the year 1932 and his son
V.Sreenivasa Pai died in the year 1935. Padmavathi Ammal,
the widow of K.Vasudeva Pai, in whose favour the settlement
deed had been executed, died on June 27, 1951. After her
death Saraswathi Ammal alias G.Kamala Bai, the widow of
V.Sreenivasa Pai filed a suit in the year 1952 in O.S. No.
153 of 1952 on the file of the District Judge, Quilon for
possession of the properties described in plaint A and
Schedules, the Plaint ’A’ Schedule properties being the
properties which had been settled in favour of Padmavathi
Ammal under the settlement deed referred to above and plaint
’B’ Schedule properties being certain other properties said
to have been purchased from out of the rents and other
incomes realised from the plaint ’A’ Schedule properties as
A.Sreenivasa Pai and his wife S.Lakshmi Ammal had denied the
right of Saraswathi Ammal alias G.Kamala Bai. The case put
forward by her in the plaint was that the plaint ’A’
Schedule properties had been purchased in the name of
A.Sreenivasa Pai for the benefit of Padmavathi Ammal and her
family and they stood only nominally in the name of
A.Sreenivasa Pai. The said suit was dismissed by the
District Judge, Quilon on September 16, 1957 holding that
the benami nature of the purchase of the plaint ’A’ Schedule
properties in the name of A.Sreenivasa Pai had not been
established. Saraswathi Ammal alias G.Kamala Bai filed an
appeal against the judgment of the District Court before the
High Court of Kerala in A.S. No. 297 of 1959. The High Court
was of the opinion that on the evidence on record there was
no reason to interfere with the decree of the Trial Court
dismissing the suit holding that the benami nature of the
transaction had not been established but it was, however, of
the view that since the true effect of the settlement deed
had not been considered by the Trial Court an opportunity
should be given to the plaintiff to amend the plaint
suitably and the issues arising out of such amendments
should be tried again by the Trial Court. Accordingly, the
High Court by its judgment dated January 18, 1961 remanded
the case to the District Court. After remand, the plaint was
amended raising an alternative plea stating that under the
settlement deed Padmavathi Ammal had been conferred only a
life estate and the properties had been given absolutely to
V.Sreenivasa Pai to enjoy them after the life time of
Padmavathi Ammal. It was further pleaded that on the death
of Padmavathi
127
Ammal who was only a life estate holder, the properties
devolved on Saraswathi Ammal alias G.Kamala Bai who was the
sole heir of V.Sreenivasa Pai. A.Sreenivasa Pai and Lakshmi
Ammal pleaded that Padmavathi Ammal had been conferred
absolute title in respect of the plaint ’A’ Schedule
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 7
properties and on her death the said properties being
Streedhana properties of Padmavathi Ammal had devolved on
her daughter Lakshmi Ammal. On the basis of the fresh
pleadings filed by the parties, three additional issues were
framed by the Trial Court and of them we are concerned with
the following two issues:
(i) What is the nature of the estate obtained by
the deceased Padmavathi Ammal as per the
settlement deed executed by the 1st defendant in
her favour?
(ii) Is it a document creating only a limited
interest in her favour with a vested remainder in
favour of plaintiff’s husband which on latter’s
death devolved on plaintiff as his heir?
The Trial Court after hearing the parties again dismissed
the suit on July 30, 1962 holding that Padmavathi Ammal had
been conferred an absolute estate under the settlement deed
and on her death her daughter Lakshmi Ammal had inherited
them. Aggrieved by the judgment of the Trial Court
Saraswathi Ammal alias G.Kamala Bai again filed an appeal in
A.S. No. 327 of 1964 on the file of the High Court of
Kerala. On appeal the High Court reversing the judgment of
the Trial Court held by its judgment dated January 28, 1970
that under the settlement deed Padmavathi Ammal had been
conferred a life estate only in the properties settled under
the document in question and that V.Sreenivasa Pai, the
husband of Saraswathi Ammal alias G.Kamala Bai had been
conferred an absolute estate in those properties to be
enjoyed by him after the death of Padmavathi Ammal. It
accordingly held that Saraswathi Ammal alias G.Kamala Bai
was entitled to the properties described in plaint ’A’
Schedule which were the subject matter of the settlement
deed, she being the sole heir of V.Sreenivasa Pai on the
termination of the life estate on the death of Padmavathi
Ammal. Her claim as regards the plaint ’B’ Schedule
properties was however negatived by the High Court. In this
appeal by certificate A.Sreenivasa Pai and S.Lakshmi Ammal
have questioned the correctness of the decision of the High
Court in so far as the plaint ’A’ Schedule properties are
concerned.
The only contention urged before us in this appeal by
the appellants is that under the settlement deed Padmavathi
Ammal
128
became the absolute owner of the properties described in the
plaint ’A’ Schedule and that on her death her daughter
S.Lakshmi Ammal acquired title to the said properties under
the law of inheritance applicable to Streedhan properties,
she being the sole heir to the properties owned by
Padmavathi Ammal. The decision in this case depends upon the
true construction of the recitals in the settlement deed. In
construing a document, whether in English or in any Indian
language, the fundamental rule to be adopted is to ascertain
the intention from the words employed in it. The surrounding
circumstances may be considered for the purpose of
ascertaining the intended meaning of those words, specially
when there is some ambiguity in the words used in the
document. There is no doubt that if the properties
transferred under the settlement deed had become the
absolute properties of Padmavathi Ammal, S.Lakshmi Ammal
alone would be entitled to the said properties. The
question, however, for determination is whether Padmavathi
Ammal acquired an absolute estate in the properties covered
by the settlement deed or whether she had only a life estate
in them. The crucial words in the settlement deed which have
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 7
a bearing on the question before us are : "in view of my
desire to give certain properties to be enjoyed by you and
after your life time, by Sreenivasa Pai, the son born of you
to Vasudeva Pai, from generation to generation, paramparaya,
for all time .......................... I hereby agree that
you, and after you, your son and his descendants from
generation to generation for all time may hold the
properties and enjoy the same from this day
onwards................."
It is seen from the portions of the settlement deed,
extracted above, that A.Sreenivasa Pai desired to give the
properties mentioned in the said deed to V.Sreenivasa Pai
absolutely subject to the life interest conferred on
Padmavathi Ammal. It is difficult to agree with the
submission made on behalf of the appellants that the said
document conferred an absolute title on Padmavathi Ammal
because the document does not show that the properties were
being given to her to be enjoyed by her and by her heirs
from generation to generation. It may be noted that
V.Sreenivasa Pai admittedly was not an apparent heir to the
properties of Padmavathi Ammal on the date of the document
as her daughter Lakshmi Ammal was alive on that date. If
A.Sreenivasa Pai intended that his wife S.Lakshmi Ammal
should succeed to the properties transferred under the
settlement deed after the death of Padmavathi Ammal he would
have stated in the document that the properties should on
her death go to her heirs but on the other hand he stated "I
hereby agree that you, and
129
after you, your son, and his descendants from generation to
generation for all time may hold the properties and enjoy
the same from this day onwards." These words clearly point
out that A.Sreenivasa Pai never intended that the properties
transferred under the deed of settlement should on the death
of Padmavathi Ammal go to her heir at law. Acceptance of the
contention of the appellants in the circumstances would
render ’and after you, yours son and his descendants from
generation to generation’ meaningless. Any such construction
should ordinarily be avoided. Having regard to the recitals
in the document and the circumstances in which it came to be
executed, we are of the view that the above words of
disposition conferring title on V. Sreenivasa Pai do not
constitute a subordinate clause in the deed. We do not agree
hat these words have been used in the document merely as a
defeasance clause attached to the absolute estate conveyed
in favour of Padmavathi Ammal. Nor do these words appear to
our mind to create a different mode of succession to the
absolute estate of Padmavathi Ammal after her death. They
treat V.Sreenivasa Pai as a direct beneficiary under the
deed itself. The document read as a whole leaves no doubt in
our mind that V.Sreenivasa Pai was given under it the
absolute estate in the properties subject to the life estate
created in favour of Padmavathi Ammal. The object of
executing the settlement deed was obviously to confer the
benefit on the family of V.Sreenivasa Pai which was in
distress and not that Padmavathi Ammal should alone be
benefited. The document conferred, as observed by the High
Court, a vested interest in favour of V.Sreenivasa Pai but
his right to enjoy the property only was however postponed
to the death of Padmavathi Ammal. Since V.Sreenivasa Pai had
acquired a vested right in the properties on December 12,
1932, i.e., the date of the settlement deed it could not be
defeated by his death before he obtained possession. His
widow Saraswathi Ammal alias G.Kamala Bai being his sole
heir was, therefore, entitled to the said properties on the
http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 7
termination of the life estate of Padmavathi Ammal. Our view
is also in conformity with the rule of construction adopted
by this Court in Ramachandra Shenoy & Anr. v. Mrs. Hilda
Brite & Ors., [1964] 2 S.C.R. 722, at pages 735-736 where
this Court has observed thus :
"It is one of the cardinal principles of
construction of wills that to the extent that it
is legally possible effect should be given to
every disposition contained in the will unless the
law prevents effect being given to it. Of course,
if there are two repugnant provisions conferring
successive interests, if
130
the first interest created is valid the subsequent
interest cannot take effect but a Court of
construction will proceed to the farthest extent
to avoid repugnancy, so that effect could be given
as far as possible to every testamentary intention
contained in the will. It is for this reason that
where there is a bequest to A even though it be in
terms apparently absolute followed by a gift of
the same to B absolutely "on" or "after" or "at"
A’s death, A is prima facie held to take a life
interest and B an interest in remainder, the
apparently absolute interest of A being cut down
to accommodate the interest created in favour of
B."
The High Court was, therefore, right in decreeding the
suit in favour of Saraswathi Ammal alias G. Kamala Bai in
so far as the plaint ’A’ Schedule properties were concerned.
Before concluding the judgment, we should refer to one
other submission made by the learned counsel for the
appellants A.Sreenivasa Pai and S.Lakshmi Ammal regarding
claim made by them in respect of the improvements said to
have been made by A.Sreenivasa Pai on the properties
described in plaint ’A’ Schedule. We do not find any
substance in this submission because Padmavathi Ammal died
on June 27, 1952 and the plaintiff had instituted the suit
on September 10, 1952 and it is not shown that any
improvements had been made in good faith during the period
between the said two dates.
In the result this appeal fails and it is dismissed
with costs.
M.L.A Appeal dismissed.
131