Kamalam And Others Vs. Sivaprakasam Pillai And Others
EmailAppeal: Civil Appeal No. 369 of 1997
Petitioner: Kamalam And Others
Respondent: Sivaprakasam Pillai And Others
Apeal: Civil Appeal No. 369 of 1997
Judges: SHIVARAJ V. PATIL & D.M. DHARMADHIKARI, JJ.
Date of Judgment: Jul 24, 2003
Head Note:
SUCCESSION
Will executed by one ‘A’ for charitable purposes and those charitable functions to be performed by ‘V’ and ‘S’ – After their death ‘Santhathis’ were to perform those charities – Interpretation of the word ‘Santhathi’ as given in the Will – Whether it includes the heirs of ‘V’ and ‘S’ alone – Widow of ‘S’ perfecting her title by adverse possession – Trial court accepting the plea of adverse possession – First appellate court on appeal accepting both pleas of plaintiff – (i) widow of ‘S’ had not perfected her title by adverse possession and (ii) word Santhathi does not include widow of ‘S’ – High Court taking into consideration entire circumstances and fact holding that the word ‘Santhathi’ not only includes heirs of ‘V’ and ‘S’ but also widow of ‘S’. Held what meaning should be given to the expression “Santhathi” depends upon several factors namely. Will, as a whole, the relationship between the parties, surrounding circumstances and the decisions rendered in interpreting the expression ‘Santhathi” in the area from which this case arose. Under the circumstances, no interference called for. (Para 6)
Will executed by one ‘A’ for charitable purposes and those charitable functions to be performed by ‘V’ and ‘S’ – After their death ‘Santhathis’ were to perform those charities – Interpretation of the word ‘Santhathi’ as given in the Will – Whether it includes the heirs of ‘V’ and ‘S’ alone – Widow of ‘S’ perfecting her title by adverse possession – Trial court accepting the plea of adverse possession – First appellate court on appeal accepting both pleas of plaintiff – (i) widow of ‘S’ had not perfected her title by adverse possession and (ii) word Santhathi does not include widow of ‘S’ – High Court taking into consideration entire circumstances and fact holding that the word ‘Santhathi’ not only includes heirs of ‘V’ and ‘S’ but also widow of ‘S’. Held what meaning should be given to the expression “Santhathi” depends upon several factors namely. Will, as a whole, the relationship between the parties, surrounding circumstances and the decisions rendered in interpreting the expression ‘Santhathi” in the area from which this case arose. Under the circumstances, no interference called for. (Para 6)
JUDGEMENT:
ORDER
1. The legal representatives of the original plaintiffs are in appeal before us challenging the validity and correctness of the judgment and decree passed by the High Court dismissing the suit by reversing the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate court.
2. One Arunachalam Pillai executed a Will in respect of the properties in question, inter alia, providing that the income from those properties should be spent for the purpose of religious charities and the legatees under the Will, Vadivel Pillai and Sivagurunathan, were to perform the charities and after their lifetime, their “santhathis” were to perform the charities. The original plaintiffs, namely, Sadasivam and Thyagarajan, are the sons of Vadivel Pillai and the appellants herein are their legal representatives. The first defendant in the suit, Pattu Achi, is the widow of Sivagurunathan, who had executed a Will in favour of the second defendant (the first respondent herein) bequeathing the second schedule properties absolutely to him, pursuant to which the second defendant is in possession of the properties.
3. The original plaintiffs filed a suit for recovery of possession of the suit properties contending that after the death of Sivagurunathan, they alone were entitled to the possession as the sons of the other legatee and the widow of Sivagurunathan could not be considered as ‘santhathi”; that the testator intended that the management of the Trust should be with the issues of Vadivel Pillai and Sivagurunathan alone as he never intended the widow to assume management of the trust properties; and that it was not open to her to create a new line of succession. The second defendant filed written statement contesting the suit on the ground that the clause in the Will that after the lifetime of Vadivel Pillai and Sivagurunathan, their “santhathis” are to perform the charities is a repugnant one and even if that clause is not repugnant, the expression “santhathi” used in the Will includes their heirs, and that after the demise of Sivagurunathan, his wife was in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties and she had perfected her title by adverse possession against the plaintiffs. The trial court dismissed the suit accepting the plea of adverse possession and held that the plaintiffs could not seek recovery of possession. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial court, the plaintiffs filed first appeal. The first appellate court accepted the plea of the plaintiffs on both counts, namely, that the expression “santhathi” did not include Pattu Achi and the first defendant had not perfected her title by adverse possession. In that view of the matter, the appeal was allowed and the suit filed by the plaintiffs was decreed. The second defendant challenged the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate court by filing a second appeal in the High Court. The learned single Judge of the High Court allowed the second appeal and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate court by a considered judgement. The learned Judge held that the expression “santhathi” in given circumstances of the case included Pattu Achi, wife of Sivagurunathan.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that the High Court was not right and justified in reversing the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate court; looking to the meaning of the expression “santhathi” as given in law lexicon and dictionary. In the ordinary parlance also, the expression “santhathi” would not include the widow Pattu Achi; and the first appellate court was right in taking the view accordingly. He also contended that the High Court did not go into the question whether the first defendant perfected her title by adverse possession over the suit properties, although the trial court had held that the first defendant had perfected her title by adverse possession; even otherwise, looking to the very terms and contents of the Will also, Pattu Achi cannot be considered to be included in the expression “santhathi”.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel representing the first respondent (second defendant) made submissions supporting the impugned judgment.
6. As is evident from the impugned judgment, the learned Judge took up for consideration the question whether the expression “santhathi” used in the Will (Exhibit A-1) would mean the issues or children or heirs of Vadivel Pillai and Sivagurunathan. The learned Judge looking to the document, namely, Will as a whole and keeping in view the surrounding circumstances and relationship between the parties took the view that the expression “santhathi” included Pattu Achi also. In doing so, the learned Judge kept in mind the principles of construction of a Will. The learned Judge observed:
“It has been repeatedly held that for construction of documents, rulings in earlier cases will not be of such help and in each case the facts and circumstances shall be considered. It is a rule of construction that the entire documents should be read and the expression used therein should be construed primarily on the basis of the language contained in the documents and if necessary, on the basis of the facts and circumstances of the cases.”
And also referred to the various decisions rendered touching the point in controversy, particularly in interpreting the word “santhathi” and giving meaning to that expression. The learned Judge also noticed that on the date of the Will, Sivagurunathan was minor and the age of the other legatee Vadivel Pillai did not appear from the Will. Hence, it could not be said that the testator intended the properties to be taken only by the issues of Vadivel Pillai and Sivagurunathan after their death for the purpose of performing charities. Looking to this aspect and in the context, the learned Judge took the view that the expression “santhathi” was used in the Will (Exhibit A-1) in a broad sense and there was no justification in confining the expression “santhathi” in the etymological sense. Under the circumstances, the learned Judge did not accept the contentions advanced on behalf of the plaintiffs so as to give a restricted meaning to the expression “santhathi”. What meaning should be given to the expression “santhathi” depends upon several factors. In the case on hand, the learned Judge, as already stated above, kept in view all the relevant factors, such as reading the document, Will, as a whole, the relationship between the parties, surrounding circumstances and the decisions rendered in interpreting the expression ‘santhathi” in the area from which this case arose. Under the circumstances, it is not possible for us to take a view different from the one taken by the learned Judge of the High Court.
7. The learned counsel for the appellants advanced one more contention that Pattu Achi was not entitled and competent to bequeath the properties in favour of the her brother. We need not consider this aspect as it does not arise for out consideration in this appeal inasmuch as the High Court confined its consideration to only one question, which is referred to above.
8. We, therefore, find no merit in the appeal. Consequently, it is dismissed but with no order as to costs.
1. The legal representatives of the original plaintiffs are in appeal before us challenging the validity and correctness of the judgment and decree passed by the High Court dismissing the suit by reversing the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate court.
2. One Arunachalam Pillai executed a Will in respect of the properties in question, inter alia, providing that the income from those properties should be spent for the purpose of religious charities and the legatees under the Will, Vadivel Pillai and Sivagurunathan, were to perform the charities and after their lifetime, their “santhathis” were to perform the charities. The original plaintiffs, namely, Sadasivam and Thyagarajan, are the sons of Vadivel Pillai and the appellants herein are their legal representatives. The first defendant in the suit, Pattu Achi, is the widow of Sivagurunathan, who had executed a Will in favour of the second defendant (the first respondent herein) bequeathing the second schedule properties absolutely to him, pursuant to which the second defendant is in possession of the properties.
3. The original plaintiffs filed a suit for recovery of possession of the suit properties contending that after the death of Sivagurunathan, they alone were entitled to the possession as the sons of the other legatee and the widow of Sivagurunathan could not be considered as ‘santhathi”; that the testator intended that the management of the Trust should be with the issues of Vadivel Pillai and Sivagurunathan alone as he never intended the widow to assume management of the trust properties; and that it was not open to her to create a new line of succession. The second defendant filed written statement contesting the suit on the ground that the clause in the Will that after the lifetime of Vadivel Pillai and Sivagurunathan, their “santhathis” are to perform the charities is a repugnant one and even if that clause is not repugnant, the expression “santhathi” used in the Will includes their heirs, and that after the demise of Sivagurunathan, his wife was in possession and enjoyment of the suit properties and she had perfected her title by adverse possession against the plaintiffs. The trial court dismissed the suit accepting the plea of adverse possession and held that the plaintiffs could not seek recovery of possession. Aggrieved by the judgment and decree of the trial court, the plaintiffs filed first appeal. The first appellate court accepted the plea of the plaintiffs on both counts, namely, that the expression “santhathi” did not include Pattu Achi and the first defendant had not perfected her title by adverse possession. In that view of the matter, the appeal was allowed and the suit filed by the plaintiffs was decreed. The second defendant challenged the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate court by filing a second appeal in the High Court. The learned single Judge of the High Court allowed the second appeal and set aside the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate court by a considered judgement. The learned Judge held that the expression “santhathi” in given circumstances of the case included Pattu Achi, wife of Sivagurunathan.
4. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants contended that the High Court was not right and justified in reversing the judgment and decree passed by the first appellate court; looking to the meaning of the expression “santhathi” as given in law lexicon and dictionary. In the ordinary parlance also, the expression “santhathi” would not include the widow Pattu Achi; and the first appellate court was right in taking the view accordingly. He also contended that the High Court did not go into the question whether the first defendant perfected her title by adverse possession over the suit properties, although the trial court had held that the first defendant had perfected her title by adverse possession; even otherwise, looking to the very terms and contents of the Will also, Pattu Achi cannot be considered to be included in the expression “santhathi”.
5. Per contra, the learned counsel representing the first respondent (second defendant) made submissions supporting the impugned judgment.
6. As is evident from the impugned judgment, the learned Judge took up for consideration the question whether the expression “santhathi” used in the Will (Exhibit A-1) would mean the issues or children or heirs of Vadivel Pillai and Sivagurunathan. The learned Judge looking to the document, namely, Will as a whole and keeping in view the surrounding circumstances and relationship between the parties took the view that the expression “santhathi” included Pattu Achi also. In doing so, the learned Judge kept in mind the principles of construction of a Will. The learned Judge observed:
“It has been repeatedly held that for construction of documents, rulings in earlier cases will not be of such help and in each case the facts and circumstances shall be considered. It is a rule of construction that the entire documents should be read and the expression used therein should be construed primarily on the basis of the language contained in the documents and if necessary, on the basis of the facts and circumstances of the cases.”
And also referred to the various decisions rendered touching the point in controversy, particularly in interpreting the word “santhathi” and giving meaning to that expression. The learned Judge also noticed that on the date of the Will, Sivagurunathan was minor and the age of the other legatee Vadivel Pillai did not appear from the Will. Hence, it could not be said that the testator intended the properties to be taken only by the issues of Vadivel Pillai and Sivagurunathan after their death for the purpose of performing charities. Looking to this aspect and in the context, the learned Judge took the view that the expression “santhathi” was used in the Will (Exhibit A-1) in a broad sense and there was no justification in confining the expression “santhathi” in the etymological sense. Under the circumstances, the learned Judge did not accept the contentions advanced on behalf of the plaintiffs so as to give a restricted meaning to the expression “santhathi”. What meaning should be given to the expression “santhathi” depends upon several factors. In the case on hand, the learned Judge, as already stated above, kept in view all the relevant factors, such as reading the document, Will, as a whole, the relationship between the parties, surrounding circumstances and the decisions rendered in interpreting the expression ‘santhathi” in the area from which this case arose. Under the circumstances, it is not possible for us to take a view different from the one taken by the learned Judge of the High Court.
7. The learned counsel for the appellants advanced one more contention that Pattu Achi was not entitled and competent to bequeath the properties in favour of the her brother. We need not consider this aspect as it does not arise for out consideration in this appeal inasmuch as the High Court confined its consideration to only one question, which is referred to above.
8. We, therefore, find no merit in the appeal. Consequently, it is dismissed but with no order as to costs.
