High CourtsDivision Bench(1896) 12 MAD CK 0014

Kamarazu and Another vs Venkataratnam

Madras High Court · Decided on 10 December 1896 · Citation: (1897) ILR (Mad) 293

HON’BLE JUDGES
Subramania Ayyar, J · Davies, J

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

1 paragraphs · 143 words
1.

The terms of the will read in the light of the deed of partition referred to therein clearly indicate that the intention of the testator was to confer on his daughters an absolute, and not a limited, estate, in so far as the moveable property which was at his absolute disposal was concerned. There is nothing in the instrument or in the surrounding circumstances, which could lead one to think that the intention was to limit the gift to a daughter''s estate, or in other words, simply for their lives. The daughters thus having taken an absolute estate, the alienation sought to be impeached was within their rights. We must, therefore overrule the view taken by the District Judge, and in reversal of his decree we dismiss the suit with costs throughout. This involves the dismissal of the memorandum of objections also.