Holding

The settlement deed granted Padmavathi Ammal a life estate only and vested an absolute estate in V. Sreenivasa Pai, making his heir entitled to the properties upon Padmavathi’s death.

Summary

A. Sreenivasa Pai executed a settlement deed in 1932 transferring two plots in Quilon to his mother‑in‑law Padmavathi Ammal. The deed stipulated that Padmavathi could enjoy the properties during her lifetime and thereafter V. Sreenivasa Pai and his descendants could hold them. After Padmavathi's death, her daughter‑in‑law Saraswathi Ammal (wife of V. Sreenivasa Pai) sued for possession, claiming a vested right. The trial court dismissed the suit, the Kerala High Court reversed, holding Padmavathi had only a life estate. On appeal, the Supreme Court examined the deed's language and surrounding circumstances, concluding that the deed intended to give Padmavathi a life estate only and to vest an absolute estate in V. Sreenivasa Pai, whose heir Saraswathi succeeded after Padmavathi’s death. The appeal was dismissed.

Issues considered

What is the nature of the estate conferred on Padmavathi Ammal by the settlement deed?
Does the deed create only a life estate for Padmavathi with a vested remainder in favour of V. Sreenivasa Pai (and his heir), or an absolute estate in Padmavathi?
How should the intention of the parties be ascertained in construing the settlement deed?

Subjects

construction of documentsintention of partiessettlement deedlife estatevested remaindersuccessionproperty lawinheritance

Judgment

122

A
A. SREENIVASA PAI AND ANR.
v.
SARASWATHI AMMAL ALIAS G. KAMALA BAI

JULY 12, 1985
B

[ E. S. VENKATAAAMIAH AND V. KllALID, JJ. j

Interpretation:

Construction of documents ·- Intention of parties in cons t-
ruing a "Will" - Intention, how to be ascertained.
c
The appellant No. 1, A Sreenivasa Pai, executed a Settle-
ment Deed in Malayalam language on 12th December, 1932 transfer-
ring two plots of land with some buildings and out houses at
Quilon in favour of his mother-in-law Padmavathi Ammal. The lst
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
D 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 t·D V.
Sreenivasa Pai to enjoy them after the life time of Padmavathi
E 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 pro1per- •
tieo and on her death the said properties being Streedllana
F properties of Padmavathi Ammal had devolved on her daughter
Lai\shmi Ammal, the wife of the lat appellant i.e. appellant Nc>.2.
The trial court dismissed the suit. But, on appeal the High
Court reversed the judgment of the trial court l)olding that the
respondent was entitled to the properties on the ground that
G under the Settlement Deed Padmavathi Allllllil 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 AIJ¥lal.
H
A.S.PAI v. SARASWATHI AMMAL 123

Dismissing the appeal, A

llEL!l: 1. In constndng 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 circlllllStances may be considered for the purpose of
ascertaining the intended meaning of those words, specially when B
there is some ambiguity in the words used in the docWilllnt •
[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 ln the said deed to V. Sreenivasa Pai C
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 D
the settlement deed after the death of Padmavathi Ammal, he would
hsve stated in the document that the properties shoula; 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 fr.om
generation to generation for all time may hold the properties a.-.d
enjoy the same from this day onwards." These words clearly point
out that A. Sreenivasa Pai never intended that the properties E
tcansferred 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 consti-
tute a subordinate clause in the deed. It is difficult to agree F
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 Padma-
vathi A:mnal after her death. They treat V. Sreenivasa Pai as a
direct beneficiary under· the deed itself. [128 F-H, 129 A-D] G

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 H
Pai which was in distress and not that Padmavathi Ammal should
alone be benefited. The document conferred, as observed by the
124 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1985] SUFP.2 s.c.R.

A 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 -Amnal. S_ince V. Sreenivasa Pai had acquired a
vested right in the p;:coperties 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 Amnal alias
B 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]

J!mnachimdra Sheooy & Anr. v. Mrs. Hilda Brite & Ors. [1964]
2 s.c.R. 722, relied upon.

c CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 410 of 1971.

From the Judgment and Order dated 28.1.1970 of the Kerala
High Court in Appeal Suit No. 327 of 1964.

T.s. Krishnamurthy Iyer, N. Sudhakaran and M.R.K. P:Lllai '
for the Appellants.
D
P.S. Poti, Sardar Bahadur Saharya and V.B. Saharya for the
Responde~ts.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

E VENKATARAMIAH, J. There was one K.Vasudeva Pai who was
carrying ·on business at Quilon, which is now in the State of
Kerala. Padmavathi Amal was his wife. They had a son by name
V. Sreeni vasa Pai and a daughter by name S. Lakshmi lmnnal
(Defendant No. 2). Saraswathi Amal alias G.Kamala Bai
(Plaintiff) was the wife of V.Sreenivasa Pai. S.Lakshmi Ammal
F had been given in marriage to A.Sreenivasa Pai (Defendant
No.l). 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 so111e of the said properties under a sale deed
in favour of one S.A.S. Ayyavu Iyer in or about the year 1926.
G 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. Sree-
nivasa Pai, the son-in-law of K. Vasudeva Pai, under whom
A.Sreenivasa Pai was working all along. Subsequently, on Decem-
ber 12, 1932 A.Sreenivasa Pai executed a settlement deed trans-
H ferring the said properties in favour of his mother-in-law
A.S.PAI v. SARASWATHI AMMAL (VENKATARAMIAH, J.] 125

Padmavathi l\mmal. This deed is in Malayalam language. An A
English translation of this · deed is produced before us. The
relevant portion of the settlement deed translated into English
reads as follows

B
.Qn 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 C
give certain properties to be enjoyed by yau and
after your life time,· by Sreenivasa Pai, from genera-
tion to ·generation,· paramparaya, for all time on the
bona fide belief that the income etc. of the proper-
ties proposed to be given would be sufficient for your
family life, the properties described in the schedule D
below purchased by me with myself acquired funds from
Subbayyavayyan Ayyavayyer, the general power of attor-
ney 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 muni- E
cipal tax and collecting rent of some of the buildings
leased on rent, are surrendered to you as· per this
deed, reiinquisliing 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 descen- F
dants 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 have the full power only to
object and set aside . the same. I hereby agree that G
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, payiiig government
assessment and municipal tax and 'since the rent deeds
of the buildings given on rent have been given along H
with this, collecting the rent etc. of the above
126 SUPKEME COURT H.EPORTS [l985j SUPP.2 s.c.R.

A 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 hil:i son v.Sreeai-
B vasa ?ai died in the year 1935. Padraavathi Antnal, the widow of
K. Vasudeva Pai., in whose favour the settlement de(-!d had bl~en
executed, died on June 27, 1951. After her death Saraswathi A.mmal
alias G.Kamala Bai, the widow of v.SreenJ.vasa Pai filed a suit in
the year 1952 in o.s. No. 153 of iY52 on the file of the Vistnlct
Judge, Quilon for possession of the properties described in
('
plaint A and H Schedules, the Plaint 'A' Schedule properties
being the properties which had been settled in favour of Padma-
vathi Ammal under the settlernent deed referred to above and
plaint 'li' Schedule properties being certain other properties
said to have been purchased from out of the rents and other
incomes realised from the plaint 1 A' Schedule properties as
IJ A.::>reenivasa Pai and his wife S.Lakshmi Annnal had denied the
right of Saraswathl Ammal a_;_ias G. Kamala Bai. The case put for-
ward by her in the plaint was that the plaint 'A' Schedule
properties hact 'been purchased in the name of A.Sreenivasa Pai for
the benetit 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
E holding that the benami nature of the purchase of the plaint 'A'
Schedule properties in the name of A.Sreenivasa Pai had not bie:en
established. Saraswathi Ammal alias G.Kamala liai filed au
appeal aginst the judg1n.ent of the District Court before the High
Court of Kerala in A.S. No. 297 of 19)9. The High Court was of
the opinion that on the evidence on record the~e was no reason to I

'
F interfere with the decree of the Trial Court dismissing the suit
holding that the benami nature of the. trar..saction 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 at" ising uut Of such
amendraents should be tried again by the Trial Court·
'

~
Accordingiy, the High Court by its Judgment dated ,January 18,
1961 remanded the case to the District Court. After remand, the
plaint· was ai.aended 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
H V.!:lreenivasa Pai to enjoy them after the life time of Padma.va.thi
Ammdl. lt was furthet" pleaded that on the death of Padma.va.thl
A.S.PAI v. SARASWATHI AMMAL [VENKATARAMIAll, J.] 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 A
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 properties and on her death
the said properties being Streedhana properties of Padmavathi
Ammal had devolved on her daughter Lakshmi Ammal. On the basis B
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 c
•
deceased Padmavathi Amnal as per the settlement deed
executed by the Ist 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 D
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. Aggrived E
by the judgment of the Trial Court Saraswathi Amnal 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, F
the husband of Saraswathi Ammal alias G.Kamala Bai had been con-
ferred 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 matt.er of. the settlement deed, she being the sole heir of G
• ",V.Sreenivi>.sa Pai on the termination of the life 'estate on the
d~~th of Paam,;vathi 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 propertie.s are concerend.
H
The only contention urged before us in this appeal by the
appellants is that under the settlement deed· Padmavathi Armnal
128 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1985J SUPP.2 s.c.R.

A
became the absolute owner of the properties described in the
plaint 'A' Schedule and that on her death her daugher 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 owne<I by Padmavathi Allina!. The deci-
sion in this case depends upon the true coustruction of the reci-
B
tals in the settlement deed. In constrUiag a document, whether
in English or in any Iudian 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 aniliiguity in t.he words used in the
c 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 propP.rties. 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
D only a life estate in them. The crucial wrds in the settlement
deed which have 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, b] Sreenivasa Pai, the son born of you
to Vasudeva Pai, fri)m generation to generation, paramparaya, for
all time l· • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • I hereby agree that you,
and ·after you, your son and his descendants fl'om generation to
E generation for all time may hold the properties and enjoy the
same fr.om this day onwards ..... ~ ............... ,j

lt is seen from the portions of the settlement deed,
extracted above, that A.Sreenivasa Pai desired to give the
prope.rties mentioned in the Mid deed to V.Sreenivasa Pai abso-
F lutely subject to the life interest conferred on Padmavathi
Amnal. 'It is difficult to agree with the subnission 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 properti.e.s were being given to her to be enjoyed by
her and by her heirs from generation to generation. It m.'1.y be
G noted that V.Sreenivasa Pai admittedly was not an apparent heir
to the properties of Padmavathi Arnmal on the date of the document
as her daughter Lakshmi Ammal was alive on that date. If
A.Sreenivasa Pai intP..nded that his wife s.Lak.shmi Ammal should
succeed to the properties transferred under the settlement deed
after the death of Padmavat:W. Ammal he would have stated in the
H 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
A.S.PAI v. SARASWATHI AMMAL [VENKATARAMIAH, J.] 129

after . you, · y0ur son, and his descendants from generation to A
generation for all time illay 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, B
yours son and his descend4nts fiom generation to generation'
meaningless. Any such construction should ordinarily be avoided.
Having regard to the recitals in the document and the circumstan-
ces •in which it came .to be executed, we are 'of"the view.t~t the
above words of disposition conferring title on v. Sreenivasa Pai
do not constitute a subordinate clause in the deed. We do not C
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 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 D
read as a whole leaves no doubt in our mind that V. Sreenivasa Pai
was given under i t 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 Padmavatlii ·Ammal should alone be benefited.
The document conferred, as observed by the High Court, a vested E
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.Sreeniva.sa 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 F
his sole heir was, therefore, entitled to the said properties on
the termination of the life estate of Padmavathi Anjmal. Our view
is also in conformity with the rule of construction adopted by
this Court in Ramachandra Sbeooy & Anr. v. Mrs. Hilda Brite &
Ors., [1964] 2 S.C.R. 722, at pages 135-736 where this Court has
observed thus : G

"It is one of the cardinal principles Ot 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 repug- H
nant provisions conferring successive interests, if
130 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [19851 sUPP.2 s.c.a.
A
the first interest crested 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
B in the will. It is for this reason that where there is
a bequest to A even though it be in terms apparently
absolute f ollawed by a gift of the same to B
absolutely "on" or "after" or "at" A's desth, A ia
prima facie held to take a life interest and B an in-
terest in remainder, the apparently absolute interest
C of A being cut down to accOlllllOdate the interest cres-
ted in favour of B."

The High Court was, therefore, right in decreeding the suit
in favour of Ssraswathi Amnal alias G. Kamala Bai in so far aa
U the plaint 'A' Schedule properties were concerned.

Before concluding the judgment, we should refer to one other
submission made by the lesrned counsel for the appellants .A.Sree-
nivasa Pai and S.Lakshmi Amnal regarding claim made by them in
respect of the improvements said to have been made by
E A.Sreenivasa Pai on the properties described in plaint 'A' Sche-
dule. We do not find any substance in this submission because
Padmavathi Amnal died on June 27, 1951 and the plaintiff had
instituted the suit on September 10, 1952 and it is not shown
that any improvements Md been made in good faith during the
period between the said two dates.
F
In the result this appeal fails and it is dismissed with
costs.

Appeal dismissed.