S.RAJAGOPAL CHETTIARversusHAMASAVENI AMMAL AND ORS.

                      S. RAJAGOPAL CHETIIAR
A                               v.
                    HAMASAVENI AMMAL AND ORS.

                               AUGUST 23, 1991.

B            [N.M. KASLIWAL AND K. RAMASWAMY, JJ.]

          Hindu Succession Act, 1956: Section 14( 1) Hindu Law-Will~
    Scope and construction of-Testator bequething properties to daug/1ter
    and after her to her male children-Daughter whether acquiring abso.
    lute Estate.
c         Constitution of India, 1950: Article 136--Appeal by Special
    Leave-Contention neither raised in Courts below nor in Special Lepve
    Petition:_Cannot be raised for first time during the course of arguments
    in appeal.

D          'P' executed a will on 22.6.1924. The terms of the will provided
    that after the death of testator his wife shall enjoy the properties till her
    lifetime; after her wife's lifetime the properties shall be enjoyed abso-
    lutely by his daughter and after her daughter the properties should go
    to her male children.                                                           .._.
E          A question arose as to whether on the basis of the will the daugh-
    ter acquired a life estate or an absolute estate. The High Court held that
    the fact that the testator directed that after her daughter the properties
    shall go to her male children clearly showed an intention that daugh-
    ter's interest in the properties was not absolute. Accordingly, the High         '
    Court held that the daughter acquired only a life estate in the proper-
F   ties. Hence this appeal against the judgment of the HighSourt.

          Dismissing the apjital, this Court,

        HELD: 1. It cannot be held that the testator of the will wanted to
  give absolute right in the property to bis daughter. The intention of the
G testator to give absolute right in the property to bis daughter is
  negatived by a clear mention in the will that after bis daughter the
  property shall ultimately go to her male children. In case the intention
  of the testator was to give the properties absolutely in favour of bis
  daughter and not merely life interest then there was no question of
  mentioning that after her it should go to her male children. Accord-
H ingly, the view taken by the High Court was correct. [7I6C-E]

                                         714
              RAJAGOPAL v. HAMASAVENI AMMAL [KASLIWAL, l. ]                715

           2. A contention :neither raised in any of the courts below nor         A
      before the High Conrt_ nor in the petition fer special leave cannot be
      permitted to be raised for the first time before this Court during the
••>   course of arguments. [716F]

            CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 902
      cl~.                                                                        B
           From the Judgment and Order dated 13.7.1976 of the Madras
      High Court in S.A. No. 1575 of 1973.

            K. Ram Kumar and Ms. Janki Ramachandran for the Appellant.

            M. Raghuraman for the Respondents.                                    c
            The Judgm~nt of the Court was delivered by

              KASLIW AL, J. This appeal by Special Leave is directed against
      the Judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Madras dated                D
      29. 7 .1976. The short controversy in the case is regarding the ambit and
      scope of a will dated 22.6.1924 executed by one Padmanabha Chettlllf.
      The construction of the will is in question in the present case. A trans-
      lation of the will as supplied by the appellant in this Court reads as
      under:
                                                                                E
                        "On the 2nd day of June, 1924, i.e. Tamil 9th day of
                  Ani of Raktakshi year, this will executed by me,
                  Padmanabba Chettiar, son of Sarni Chettiar, Vysya caste,
                  cultivation, resident of New Street, Sultanpettai, Koppam,
                  Palakkadu Taluq, Kallikottai District, presently at Aniai-
                  malai, is to the effect. As I do not have male progeny and I F
                  have attained old age, the movable and immovable proper-
                  ties mentioned hereunder in my possession and enjoyment,
                  both ancestral and also self acquired, shall be enjoyed by
                  me absolutely till my life time, after my lifetime my wife
                  Dhanalakshrrii Ammal shall en joy likewise till her lifetime;
                  after her lifetime as described hereunder A Schedule pro- G .
                  perties shall be enjoyed absolutely by my daughter and
                  wife of Anaimalai Subramania Chettiar, Rajalakshmi
                  Ammal, and after her it should go to her male children". .

           The question which arises on the basis of the contents of the
      above will is whether Ra jalakshmi Ammal had acquired a life estate         H
    716                   SUPREME COURT REPORTS              [1991] 3 S.C.R.

A   under the will or an absolute estate. The High Court took the view that
    it was one of the cardinal principles of construction of wills that so far
    as legally possible effect should be given to every disposition contained
    in the will unless the law prevents such effect being given to it. The
    High Court held that the fact that the testator directed that after
    Rajalakshmi Ammal it shall go to her male children clearly showed an
B
    intention that Rajalakshmi Ammal's interest in the properties should
    not be absolute. The High Court thus arrived to the conclusion that
    Rajalakshmi Ammal should be deemed to have held only a life estate
    in the properties and after her death, her male children got the proper-
    ties absolutely.

C         After going through the contents of the will we agree with the
    view taken by the High Court. We do not agree with the contention of
    the learned counsel for the appellant raised before us that
    Padmanabha Chettiar, the testator, of the will wanted to give absolute
    right in the property to his wife Dhanalakshmi Ammal and thereafter
D   absolute right in favour of his daughter Rajalakshmi Ammal. The
    above intention is negatived by a clear mention in the will that after
    Rajalakshmi Ammal the property shall ultimately go to lier male
    children. In case the intention of the testator was to give the properties
    absolutely in favour of Rajalakshmi and not merely life interest then
    there was no question of mentioning that after her it should go to her
E   male children.

          Learned counsel for the appellant also raised a contention that
    even if it may be considered that only life interest was given to
    Rajalakshmi Ammal under the will, such right became absolute under
    Section 14 (I) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. This contention was
F   neither raised in any of the courts below nor before the High Court nor
    in the petition for special leave and we ca.mot permit this ground to be
    raised for the first time before us during the course of arguments. In
    the result we find no force in this appeal and the same is dismissed with
    no order as to costs.

    T.N.A ..                                               Appeal dismissed.