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