{"id":138112,"date":"2002-10-04T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2002-10-03T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-n-krishna-pillai-vs-k-nallaperumal-on-4-october-2002"},"modified":"2015-11-14T23:44:08","modified_gmt":"2015-11-14T18:14:08","slug":"t-n-krishna-pillai-vs-k-nallaperumal-on-4-october-2002","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-n-krishna-pillai-vs-k-nallaperumal-on-4-october-2002","title":{"rendered":"T.N. Krishna Pillai vs K. Nallaperumal on 4 October, 2002"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court<\/div>\n
T.N. Krishna Pillai vs K. Nallaperumal on 4 October, 2002<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS\n\nDATED: 04\/10\/2002\n\nCORAM\n\nTHE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. SAMPATH\n\nS.A.No.968 of 1990\n\n1. T.N. Krishna Pillai\n   S\/o Nallaperumal,\n   88-B, Vinaitheertha Vinayagar\n   Koil Street,\n   Tirunelveli.\n\n2. K. Shanmugathammal\n   S\/o Ganapathi Pillai,\n   88, Vinaitheertha Vinayagar\n   Koil Street,\n   Tirunelveli.\n\n3. Peramu Ammal (Died)\n   W\/o Annamalai Pillai,\n   90, Vinaitheertha Vinayagar\n   Koil Street,\n   Tirunelveli.\n\n4. A. Ramalakshmi Ammal\n   S\/o Arunachalam Pillai,\n   Narasinganallur,\n   Tirunelveli Taluk & District.\n\n5. Annamalai Pillai\n6. Thamburatti\n7. Shanmughasundari\n\n   Appellants 5 to 7 have been\n   brought on record as the\n   legal representatives of the\n   deceased 3rd appellant \u2013 Vide\n   order dated 14-6-1997 in\n   C.M.P.Nos.7235 to 7237\/96.           ...             Appellants\n\n-Vs-\n\n1. K. Nallaperumal\n   S\/o T.N. Krishnapillai\n   172, Vinaitheertha Vinayagar\n                          Koil Street,\n   Tirunelveli.\n\n2. K. Balasubramanian\n   S\/o T.N. Krishnapillai,\n   98, Vinaitheertha Vinayagar\n                           Koil Street,\n   Tirunelveli.\n\n3. Parvathi Ammal W\/o K. Ponniah,\n   60, Sivan Koil Street,\n   Valliyoor, Tirunelveli District.\n\n4. P. Natarajan S\/o P. Pattan,\n   Narasinganallur,\n   Tirunelveli Taluk & District.        ...             Respondents\n\n\nFor Appellants:  ...   Mr.T.M. Hariharan\n\nFor Respondents: ...   Mr.S. Sampathkumar\n                   for Mr.P. Peppin Fernando.\n\n\n                This second file is filed  against  the  judgment  and  decree\ndated  19-4-1989  made  in  A.S.No.49\/87 on the file of the Subordinate Judge,\nTirunelveli.\n\n:JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
                The substantial question of law raised in the second appeal is
\n” whether the appellate Court is correct in its construction of Ex.A-1 Will?”\n<\/p>\n
                2.  We will straight away look into the document  and  try  to
\ninterpret  it in the light of the established principles relating to documents
\ninterpretation and see which of the Courts below has understood  the  document
\ncorrectly.\n<\/p>\n
                Ex.A-1  is the document; it is a Will dated 18.4.1943 executed
\nby one Nallaperumal Pillai; under the said Will, the testator  gives  all  the
\nproperties  in  the Schedule to the Will to his wife Adhilakshmi Ammal subject
\nto certain conditions; she is not to alienate Schedules 1  and  2  properties;
\nshe  is  to  take  the  Schedule  3  properties  after the testator’s lifetime
\nabsolutely with full powers of alienation; after her  lifetime,  their  foster
\nson  Krishnan  is  to take the properties and enjoy them; neither Krishnan nor
\nhis heirs can alienate the property at any  time;  the  said  Krishnan  is  to
\nperform the obsequies of both the testator and his wife Adhilakshmi Ammal.\n<\/p>\n
                3.  From the Will it is seen that the said Krishnan was only a
\nminor aged 16  years at that time.  The testator died in 1945 or 1946.  From a
\nreading of the document it is seen that Schedules 1  and  2  are  to  be  kept
\nintact  by  Adhilakshmi  Ammal  and  taken  by Krishnan after her lifetime and
\nneither Krishnan nor his heirs would have right to alienate.  That is to  say,
\nthe properties are to be in the family in perpetuity.\n<\/p>\n
                4.  Let  us  now  have  a  look at the facts of the case.  The
\nplaintiffs are the sons and daughter of the first  defendant  Krishna  Pillai,
\none  of  the  legatees  under the Will Ex.A-1 executed by Nallaperumal Pillai.
\nDefendants 2 to 5 are alienees of  Schedules  1  and  2  by  way  of  sale  or
\nmortgage.   The  suit  is  for  declaration that the sale of Schedules 1 and 2
\nitems in favour of defendants 2 and 3 and  the  othi  created  in  respect  of
\nSchedules  3  and 4 items in favour of defendants 4 and 5 are invalid and that
\nthe properties belonged to the plaintiffs’ after the  lifetime  of  the  first
\ndefendant, their father.\n<\/p>\n
                5.  The case as set out in the plaint is as follows:\n<\/p>\n
                The  first defendant was taken as a foster son by Nallaperumal
\nPillai when he was 14 years old.  On 18-4-1943  Nallaperumal  Pillai  executed
\nEx.A-1 Will in respect of Schedules 1 and 2 items in the Will.  The testator’s
\nwife  Adhilakshmi Ammal is to take them without powers of alienation and to be
\ntaken  by  the  first  defendant  for  being  enjoyed  after   her   lifetime.
\nAdhilakshmi Ammal  is  to  take  Schedule 3 property absolutely.  Nallaperumal
\nPillai died in 1945 or 1946.  Adhilakshmi Ammal  died  in  1966.    the  first
\ndefendant  on  25-5-1968  sold  the  suit  Schedule  1  property to the second
\ndefendant under a registered sale deed for Rs.800\/-.  The sale is not  binding
\non the  plaintiffs.  The plaintiffs did not derive any benefit under the sale.
\nThe second defendant is not a bona  fide  purchaser  for  value.    The  first
\ndefendant,  the second defendant and her husband had been living in Door No.90
\nfrom 1 967 till 1977 and thereafter, in Door No.88.  The roof of suit  item  1
\nwas put  up  by  the  first  defendant.   Neither the second defendant nor her
\nhusband was moneyed.  On 22-7-1977 the second Schedule property  was  sold  by
\nthe first defendant to the third defendant.  This sale was also not binding on
\nthe plaintiffs.    On  10-11-1974  the  plaintiffs  othied  the third Schedule
\nproperty to the fourth defendant.  The othi was not binding on the plaintiffs.
\nIt was without consideration.  On 11-5-1969 the  first  defendant  created  an
\nothi  in  respect  of  the  fourth  Schedule  property  in favour of the fifth
\ndefendant.  On 10-5-1975  he  created  a  mel-othi  in  favour  of  the  fifth
\ndefendant.  The othies were not valid and binding on the plaintiffs.  In these
\ncircumstances, the suit had been filed.\n<\/p>\n
                6.   The first defendant and the other defendants resisted the
\nsuit contending inter alia as follows:\n<\/p>\n
                The will was executed by Nallaperumal Pillai  when  the  first
\ndefendant was  just  16  years old and was unmarried.  As per the terms of the
\nWill, the first defendant was to take the suit properties covered in the  Will
\nabsolutely.   On  the  death  of Adhilakshmi Ammal, the first defendant became
\nentitled to all the properties.  It is not correct to say that he had no right
\nto create encumbrance or to deal with the  properties.    Whatever  the  first
\ndefendant  did  was  only  for  the  benefit  of  all the plaintiffs for their
\neducation and maintenance.   The  plaintiffs  had  fully  benefited  from  the
\ntransactions.   The  sales and mortgages in favour of all the other defendants
\nhad been created for valid purposes and they were all binding.\n<\/p>\n
                7.  On  the  above  pleadings,  the  trial  Court  framed  the
\nnecessary  issues  and  on  the  oral  and the documentary evidence, held that
\nEx.A-1 created absolute rights in favour of the first defendant and  that  the
\nplaintiffs could not question the encumbrances created by the first defendant.
\nBy  judgment  and  decree dated 13-11-1986 the trial Court dismissed the suit.
\nHowever, on appeal  by  the  plaintiffs  in  A.S.No.49\/87  the  learned  first
\nAdditional District Judge, Tirunelveli, by judgment and decree dated 19-4-1989
\nreversed  the  decision of the trial Court, allowed the appeal and decreed the
\nsuit.\n<\/p>\n
                8.  It is as against that, the present second appeal has  been
\nfiled.  Defendants  1  to  4  filed  the  appeal.    Pending  appeal the third
\ndefendant\/third appellant died and her legal representatives have been brought
\non record as appellants 5 to 7.\n<\/p>\n
                9.  Mr.T.M.    Hariharan,  learned  Counsel  for   the   first
\nappellant\/ first defendant, made the following submissions:\n<\/p>\n
                The  lower  Appellate Court had wrongly assumed that the chief
\naim of Ex.A-1 Will was to prevent the properties  bequeathed  thereunder  from
\nbeing dealt  with  freely.    This assumption was contrary to the tenor of the
\ndocument and the provisions of the statute.  The Appellate Court failed to see
\nthat life interest alone was given to the wife of the testator in Schedules  1
\nand  2 of Ex.A-1 Will with a view to protect those items and preserve them for
\nthe benefit of the first defendant, who was then a minor.  The same terms used
\nfor bequest of Schedule 3 had not been used  for  the  bequest  of  the  first
\ndefendant  in  respect  of the properties in Schedules 1 and 2 of Ex.A-1 Will.
\nThe lower Appellate Court ought to have held that the first defendant was  the
\nultimate beneficiary.      The  later  part  of  Ex.A-1  restricting  absolute
\ndisposition regarding Schedules 1 and 2 was repugnant, void  and  inoperative.
\nThere  was also no provision in the Will reserving the properties to the heirs
\nof the first defendant and in the absence of such a clause, the assumption  of
\nthe  lower  Appellate  Court  that  only  a  life interest was created for the
\nbenefit of the first defendant was illegal and improper.\n<\/p>\n
                10.  Mr.S.  Sampathkumar, earned Counsel  for  the  contesting
\nrespondents\/plaintiffs,  submitted  that the interpretation given by the lower
\nAppellate Court was perfectly correct and no exception could be taken  to  the
\nsame.   The  learned  Counsel also relied on the decision in LAKSHMI AMMAL AND
\nANOTHER VS.  ALLAUDDIN SAHIB (AIR 1962 Madras 247).\n<\/p>\n
                11.  Section 84 of the Indian Succession Act provides that,<\/p>\n
“where a clause is susceptible of two meanings according to one of which it<\/p>\n
has some effect, and according to the other of which it  can  have  none,  the
\nformer shall be preferred.”\n<\/p>\n
                Section 87 provides that,<\/p>\n
“the  testator’s intention shallnot be set aside because it cannot take effect
\nto the full extent, but effect is to be given to it as far as possible.”\n<\/p>\n
                Section 88 states that,<\/p>\n
“where two clauses of gifts in a will are irreconcilable, so that they  cannot
\npossibly stand together, the last shall prevail.”\n<\/p>\n
                Section 97 runs as follows:\n<\/p>\n
“Where  property is bequeathed to a person, and words are added which describe
\na class of person but do not denote them as direct objects of a  distinct  and
\nindependent  gift,  such  person  is  entitled  to  the  whole interest of the
\ntestator therein,unless the contrary intention appears by the will.”\n<\/p>\n
                Under Section 113:\n<\/p>\n
“where a bequest is made to a person not in  existence  at  the  time  of  the
\ntestator’s  death, subject to a prior bequest contained in the Will, the later
\nbequest shall be void, unless it comprises the whole of the remaining interest
\nof testator in the thing bequeathed.”\n<\/p>\n
                Under Section 114:\n<\/p>\n
“No bequest is valid where by the vesting  of  the  thing  bequeathed  may  be
\ndelayed  beyond  the  lifetime of one or more persons living at the testator’s
\ndeath and the minority of some  person  who  shall  be  in  existence  at  the
\nexpiration  of  that  period,  and  to whom, if he attains full age, the thing
\nbequeathed is to belong.”\n<\/p>\n
                Under Section 138:\n<\/p>\n
“Where a fund is bequeathed absolutely to or for the benefit  of  any  person,
\nbut  the  will  contains  a direction that it shall be applied or enjoyed in a
\nparticular manner, the legatee shall be entitled to receive the fund as if the
\nWill had contained no such direction.”\n<\/p>\n
                12.  In BHAIDAS SHIVDAS VS.  BAI GHULAB AND ANOTHER (AIR  1922
\nPrivy Council 193) it has been held as follows:\n<\/p>\n
“If  words  are  used  conferring  absolute  ownership upon the wife, the wife
\nenjoys the rights of ownership, without their being conferred by  express  and
\nadditional  terms,  unless  the circumstances or the context are sufficient to
\nshow that such absolute ownership is not intended.  Where a Will gave  certain
\nproperty  to the testator’s wife and stated “as to whatever property there may
\nremain after her death, my wife shall  leave  the  said  property  to  my  two
\ndaughters.”\n<\/p>\n
The Privy Council held that,<\/p>\n
“the  Will created no trust in favour of the daughters for, to create a trust,
\nthe subject matter on which the trust is to operate must be certain to  enable
\nthe Court to give it administration.”\n<\/p>\n
13.  In   RAGHUNATH  PRASAD  SINGH  AND  ANOTHER  VS.    DEPUTY  COMMISSIONER,
\nPARTABGARH AND OTHERS (AIR 1929 Privy Council 283), the facts were as follows:\n<\/p>\n
                One A died leaving a will bequeathing his property to P.   The
\nWill  provided  that  after the death of A, his entire estate shall vest in P.
\nIt also further provided that P shall be “my heir and  successor.”  “The  said
\nheir  shall,  after  he  has  inherited me, be bound to abide by the following
\nterms.” Then subsequently the will further provided the conditions.  In a suit
\nsubsequently by the heirs of A after the death of P it was  contended  that  P
\ntook a life estate and not an absolute estate.\n<\/p>\n
                It was held by the Privy Council that,<\/p>\n
“the  words in the Will “that the estate shall vest in P” and that he shall be
\nthe testator’s “heir and successor”, were clear dispositive words creating  an
\nabsolute  estate of inheritance in P and the various clauses that followed the
\nmain provisions were to come into operation after P  had  so  inherited;  they
\nmust, therefore, be regarded as an attempt to impose repugnant conditions upon
\nthe estate so created and were, therefore, void.”\n<\/p>\n
                14.  In N.  KASTURI VS.  D.  PONNAMMAL AND OTHERS (AIR 1961 SC
\n1302 = 1 961(3) SCR 955 = 1962(1) MLJ 174) it has been held as follows:\n<\/p>\n
“The  rule  of  construction  of  Wills  that so far as is reasonably possible
\nCourts should adopt that construction of the Will which would avoid  intestacy
\ncannot  be treated as an absolute rule which should have overriding importance
\nin construing a will.  If two constructions are reasonably possible,  and  one
\nof  them  avoids intestacy while the other involves intestacy, the Court would
\ncertainly be justified in preferring that construction which avoids intestacy.
\nIt may be permissible to invoke this rule even in cases where the  words  used
\nare ambiguous and an attempt may be made to remove the ambiguity by
\nadopting a construction which avoids intestacy.\n<\/p>\n
                Similarly  in  regard  to one other rule that the construction
\nwhich postpones the vesting of the estate after  the  death  of  the  testator
\nshould be  avoided,  the  position  is exactly the same.  It is obvious that a
\nCourt cannot embark on the task of  construing  a  Will  with  a  preconceived
\nnotion that  intestacy  must be avoided or vesting must not be postponed.  The
\nintention of the testator and the effect of the dispositions contained in  the
\nWill must be decided by construing the Will as a whole and giving the relevant
\nclauses in  the  Will their plain grammatical meaning considered together.  In
\nconstruing a Will it is generally not profitable or useful  to  refer  to  the
\nconstruction  of  other  Wills  because  the  construction  of  each Will must
\nnecessarily depend upon the terms used by the Will considered as a whole,  and
\nthe  result  which  follows  on a fair and reasonable construction of the said
\nwords must vary from Will to Will.”\n<\/p>\n
                15.  LAKSHMI AMMAL AND ANOTHER VS.  ALLAUDDIN SAHIB (AIR  1962
\nMadras 247)  is  the  decision relied on by Mr.  Sampathkumar, learned Counsel
\nfor the respondents.  That is a case where the testator gave the  property  to
\nhis wife  absolutely.    Interest  of  daughters  was  expressed in subsequent
\nclauses.  It was held that the wife  took  only  a  life  estate  and  not  an
\nabsolute estate.    The testator in that case provided that after his lifetime
\nhis wife L should possess and enjoy the properties,  which  consisted  of  two
\nitems  of  land,  with full powers of alienation, gift, sale and with absolute
\nrights.  The Will further provided that during the testator’s  life  time  his
\nsecond daughter  V  should be got married.  If she had got to be married after
\nhis lifetime, L should choose a bridegroom for her and get her married.    The
\nWill  also contained a clause that after L’s death, his daughter A should take
\nthe first item and V should take the second item with absolute rights.\n<\/p>\n
                It was held by a learned single Judge of this Court that,<\/p>\n
“the testator was having  in  his  mind  the  interest  of  his  daughters  as
\nprominently as the interest of his wife, all three<\/p>\n
of them  being  his  heirs.  The fact that the marriage of the second daughter
\nwas that to be performed was also in his mind.  When the testator took care to
\nindicate that the properties without any  diminution  even  after  his  wife’s
\nlifetime should go to each of the daughters, it should be presumed that it was
\nclearly  in his mind that the wife’s estate was only to be a limited estate or
\nlife estate and not an absolute estate.”\n<\/p>\n
                16.   This  case  instead  of  supporting  the  case  of   the
\nrespondents, supports the case of the appellants.\n<\/p>\n
                17.  The  next  decision  is  CHINNAMMAL  AND  OTHERS VS.  SRI
\nKANNIKAPARAMESWARI DEITY (1964(1) MLJ 352).  In that case, it  has  been  held
\nthat,<\/p>\n
“Section  97  of  the  Indian  Succession Act lays down a general principle of
\ninterpretation of Wills which could equally be applied to a Will  by  a  Hindu
\nunless there was some clear indication of a contrary intention.”\n<\/p>\n
The principle is one which relates to the Law of Real Property in general.\n<\/p>\n
                18.  In KAIVELIKKAL  AMBUNHI VS.  H.  GANESH BHANDARY (1995(5)
\nSCC 444) in paragraphs 3, 4, 5 and 6 the Supreme Court has held as follows:\n<\/p>\n
        “3.  The rules of interpretation of the Will are  different  from  the
\nrules  which  govern the interpretation of other documents say, for example, a
\nsale deed
\nor a gift deed or a mortgage deed or, for that matter, any other instrument by
\nwhich interest in immovable property is created.  While in these documents  if
\nthere  is  any  inconsistency  between  the  earlier or the subsequent part of
\nspecific clauses inter se contained therein, the  earlier  part  will  prevail
\nover  the  latter  as  against the rule of interpretation applicable to a Will
\nunder which the subsequent part, clause or portion prevails over  the  earlier
\npart  on  the  principle that in the matter of ‘Will’, the testator can always
\nchange his mind and create another interest in place of  the  bequest  already
\nmade in  the  earlier  part or on an earlier occasion.  Undoubtedly, it is the
\nlast Will which prevails.\n<\/p>\n
        4.  A Will may contain several clauses and the latter  clause  may  be
\ninconsistent with the earlier clause.  In such a situation, the last intention
\nof  the  testator  is  given effect to and it is on this basis that the latter
\nclause is held to prevail over the earlier clause.  This is regulated  by  the
\nwell known maxim “cum duo inter se pugnantia reperiuntur in testamento ultimum
\nratum  est”  which  means  that  if  in  a  Will  there  are  two inconsistent
\nprovisions, the latter shall prevail over the earlier.  (See:    HAMMOND,  Re,
\nHAMMOND VS.  TREHARNE (1938(3) All.ER 308 = 54 TLR 903).\n<\/p>\n
        5.   This  principle  is  also  contained  in Section 88 of the Indian
\nSuccession Act, 1925 which,  together  with  its  illustrations,  provides  as
\nunder:\n<\/p>\n
        “The  last of two inconsistent clauses prevails:- Where two clauses or
\ngifts in a Will  are  irreconcilable,  so  that  they  cannot  possibly  stand
\ntogether, the last shall prevail.\n<\/p>\n
Illustrations:\n<\/p>\n
(i) The testator by the first clause of his Will leaves his estate of Ramnagar
\nto  ‘A’  and  by  the last clause to his Will leaves it to ‘B’ and not to ‘A’.
\n‘B’ will have it.\n<\/p>\n
(ii) If a man at the commencement of his Will gives his house to A, and at the
\nclose of it directs that his house shall be sold and the proceeds invested for<\/p>\n
benefit of B, the latter disposition will prevail.\n<\/p>\n
        6.  It may, however, be pointed out that this rule  of  interpretation
\ncan be  invoked  only  if  different  clauses  cannot  be  reconciled.   (See:
\nRAMESHWAR BAKHSH SINGH VS.  BALRAJ KUAR (AIR 1935 Privy  Council  187  =  1935
\nAll.  LJ 1133).”\n<\/p>\n
                19.  In TAGORE VS.  TAGORE (1874(1) IA 307 18 WR 359 (PC)) the
\ndevise  was  to  A for life, remainder to his eldest son for life, then to the
\neldest son of the eldest son for life and so on.  It was held  that  it  could
\nnot be given effect in full, as the remaining provisions were unknown to Hindu
\nLaw and were bad.  The life interest to A was upheld.\n<\/p>\n
                20.  In G.   NARAYANAN VS.  R.N.  RAJAGOPALAN (AIR 1987 Madras
\n75 = 100 LW 25) the testator bequeathed the property  which  was  the  subject
\nmatter  of  the dispute, in favour of his grandson, one G, the legatee and his
\nheirs, to be enjoyed by them from generation to generation without  any  power
\nof  alienation with a direction that they should feed brahmins on a particular
\nday.  Two sons were born in 1945 and 1947.  There was alienation and partition
\nof suit properties in 1950.  Sons of G filed a suit for declaration that their
\nfather G was entitled to a life estate and the various alienations  would  not
\nhold good  beyond the lifetime of G.  It was held by the learned Judge that G,
\nwho was alive at the testator’s death in 1928 was conferred only life  estate,
\nwhich  was  valid  and the subsequent life estates in favour of his sons void.
\nCreation of successive life interests is not permissible in law and therefore,
\nthe sons of G took the remainder absolutely free from the restrictions imposed
\non the nature of the estate.  Having regard to the specific recitals contained
\nin the Will under scrutiny before him the learned Judge held that these  could
\nnot  be  successive  life  interests and what the remainder people took was an
\nabsolute estate.\n<\/p>\n
                21.  In ADMINISTRATOR OF MADRAS VS.  MONEY (15 Madras  448)  a
\ntestator executed a Will bequeathing some properties to the legatees and added
\nthat the  same  shall be inherited by any child or children.  It was held that
\nthis was in effect a gift to the legatees and their children as heirs.  It was
\na bequest to a person with the addition of words which  describe  a  class  of
\npersons but do not denote them as direct objects of a distinct and independent
\ngift  and by operation of the principle of Section 97 of the Indian succession
\nAct, 1925 the legatee took the entire interest of the testator therein.\n<\/p>\n
                22.  In AGNES HARRIET VS.   MURRAY  (AIR  1925  Oudh  24)  and
\nDADABHAI VS.    COWASJI  (AIR  1923  Bombay 177) it was held that a bequest to
\ncertain legatees and their children from generation  to  generation  conferred
\nabsolute interest on the legatees.\n<\/p>\n
                23.   The  guide  to interpret the Will is the will itself and
\nthe intentions of the testator\/testatrix have to be gathered from the language
\nof the will by construing the Will as a whole and giving the relevant  clauses
\ntheir plain  grammatical  meaning  considered  together.   The language of one
\ninstrument does not afford much assistance in  the  construction  of  another.
\nOne  must  form  an  opinion about the construction of the Will apart from the
\ndecided cases and then to see whether those decisions require any modification
\nof that opinion; not by considering how far the  will  in  question  resembles
\nother Wills  upon  which  decisions have been given.  The rule of construction
\nagainst avoidance of intestacy is not an absolute rule.  The Court should  not
\nembark  on  the  task  of  construing  a  will with a preconceived notion that
\nintestacy must be avoided  or  vesting  must  not  be  postponed.    Rules  of
\nconstruction  are  rules designed to assist in ascertaining intention, and the
\napplicability of any such rules depends upon the habits of thought and mode of
\nexpression prevalent among those to whose language  they  are  applied.    The
\nprinciples  laid  down  in  the Indian Succession Act are all of them based on
\ncommon sense, logic and a spirit of beneficient construction.\n<\/p>\n
                24.  With the above principles in mind, on a proper reading of
\nthe Will in the present case there can be absolutely no doubt that  the  first
\ndefendant  took  the  properties  absolutely after the lifetime of Adhilakshmi
\nAmmal, wife of the testator.  We should not forget that at the time  the  will
\nwas executed, he was a minor aged 16 years and unmarried and the testator died
\nwithin two  or  three years thereafter.  As rightly pointed out by the learned
\nCounsel for the appellant, the  intention  of  the  testator  was  to  protect
\nSchedules  1  and  2  items  and  preserve  them  for  the benefit of the then
\nunmarried minor the present first defendant.  In  short,  he  was  to  be  the
\nultimate beneficiary taking the properties absolutely.  We have to give effect
\nto the intention of the testator.  The children of the first defendant are not
\ndenoted as  direct  objects  of a distinct and independent gift in Ex.A-1.  By
\nvirtue of Section 97 of the Indian Succession Act, the first defendant must be
\nheld entitled to the whole interest.  The circumstances in the present case do
\nnot show that such absolute ownership  was  not  intended.    The  embargo  on
\nalienation  by  the  first defendant and his heirs in the later portion of the
\nwill is wholly void.\n<\/p>\n
                25.  The interpretation given by the lower Appellate Court  is
\nclearly erroneous  and  cannot  at all be sustained.  When once the properties
\nare taken absolutely by the first defendant under the terms of the Will, there
\nis no question of there being any right in favour of the plaintiffs.\n<\/p>\n
                26.  Consequently, the second appeal succeeds.   The  judgment
\nand  the  decree  of  the lower Appellate Court are set aside and those of the
\ntrial Court restored.  There will, however, be no order as to costs.\n<\/p>\n
                                                                4-10-2002
\nIndex:  Yes
\nInternet:  Yes<\/p>\n
IGP<\/p>\n
To<\/p>\n
1.  The First Additional District Judge,
\nTirunelveli (with records).\n<\/p>\n
2.  The Principal Subordinate Judge,
\nTirunelveli.\n<\/p>\n
3.  The Record Keeper,
\nV.R.  Records,
\nHigh court,
\nMadras.\n<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madras High Court T.N. Krishna Pillai vs K. Nallaperumal on 4 October, 2002 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 04\/10\/2002 CORAM THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. SAMPATH S.A.No.968 of 1990 1. T.N. Krishna Pillai S\/o Nallaperumal, 88-B, Vinaitheertha Vinayagar Koil Street, Tirunelveli. 2. K. Shanmugathammal S\/o Ganapathi Pillai, 88, Vinaitheertha Vinayagar Koil […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,13],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-138112","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madras-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nT.N. Krishna Pillai vs K. Nallaperumal on 4 October, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-n-krishna-pillai-vs-k-nallaperumal-on-4-october-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"T.N. Krishna Pillai vs K. Nallaperumal on 4 October, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-n-krishna-pillai-vs-k-nallaperumal-on-4-october-2002\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2002-10-03T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2015-11-14T18:14:08+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"20 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-n-krishna-pillai-vs-k-nallaperumal-on-4-october-2002#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-n-krishna-pillai-vs-k-nallaperumal-on-4-october-2002\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"T.N. Krishna Pillai vs K. Nallaperumal on 4 October, 2002\",\"datePublished\":\"2002-10-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-11-14T18:14:08+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-n-krishna-pillai-vs-k-nallaperumal-on-4-october-2002\"},\"wordCount\":3867,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madras High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-n-krishna-pillai-vs-k-nallaperumal-on-4-october-2002#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-n-krishna-pillai-vs-k-nallaperumal-on-4-october-2002\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-n-krishna-pillai-vs-k-nallaperumal-on-4-october-2002\",\"name\":\"T.N. Krishna Pillai vs K. Nallaperumal on 4 October, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2002-10-03T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2015-11-14T18:14:08+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-n-krishna-pillai-vs-k-nallaperumal-on-4-october-2002#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-n-krishna-pillai-vs-k-nallaperumal-on-4-october-2002\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/t-n-krishna-pillai-vs-k-nallaperumal-on-4-october-2002#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"T.N. Krishna Pillai vs K. Nallaperumal on 4 October, 2002\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"T.N. Krishna Pillai vs K. Nallaperumal on 4 October, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-n-krishna-pillai-vs-k-nallaperumal-on-4-october-2002","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"T.N. Krishna Pillai vs K. Nallaperumal on 4 October, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-n-krishna-pillai-vs-k-nallaperumal-on-4-october-2002","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2002-10-03T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2015-11-14T18:14:08+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"20 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-n-krishna-pillai-vs-k-nallaperumal-on-4-october-2002#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-n-krishna-pillai-vs-k-nallaperumal-on-4-october-2002"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"T.N. Krishna Pillai vs K. Nallaperumal on 4 October, 2002","datePublished":"2002-10-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-11-14T18:14:08+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-n-krishna-pillai-vs-k-nallaperumal-on-4-october-2002"},"wordCount":3867,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madras High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-n-krishna-pillai-vs-k-nallaperumal-on-4-october-2002#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-n-krishna-pillai-vs-k-nallaperumal-on-4-october-2002","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-n-krishna-pillai-vs-k-nallaperumal-on-4-october-2002","name":"T.N. Krishna Pillai vs K. Nallaperumal on 4 October, 2002 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2002-10-03T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2015-11-14T18:14:08+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-n-krishna-pillai-vs-k-nallaperumal-on-4-october-2002#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-n-krishna-pillai-vs-k-nallaperumal-on-4-october-2002"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/t-n-krishna-pillai-vs-k-nallaperumal-on-4-october-2002#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"T.N. Krishna Pillai vs K. Nallaperumal on 4 October, 2002"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/138112","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=138112"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/138112\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=138112"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=138112"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=138112"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}