Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

10. As to the second point argued by Mr. Upjohn it is sufficient to say that there are concurrent findings that the chatram was a public trust, and their Lordships may add they also find that the chatram is a public trust.

11. As to the third point argued by Mr. Upjohn, that the Courts below misconstrued the will of Swaminatha Ayyar of November 7, 1881, that contention if well founded would show that the gift of some of the property to the chatram which each Court has found to belong to the chatram was a void gift within the decision of the Board in Ranchordas Vandrawandas v. Parvatibai (1899) L.R. 26 I.A. 71, s.c. 1 Bom. L.R. 607. The testator was one of the five sons of Kalyanarama Ayyar. It is not necessary to set out the translation of the whole of his will; the contention turns on the meaning of part of the will.

13. Their Lordships assume the words "the charity" in the translation are the correct rendering of the vernacular which they are informed is in Tamil. If those words are the correct rendering of the vernacular they plainly refer to the chatram charity which had immediately before been indicated and the gift was not void for uncertainty. The original will was before the learned Subordinate Judge who tried the suit and who understood Tamil. This is what he Said as to that part of the will:--

14. It is next contended that this gift of a and share in the 3rd share to a 'Dharmam' was invalid, and the decision in I.L.R. XXX Madras series 340 was relied upon. A perusal of Swaminatha Ayyar's will indicates to my mind that the "Dharmam" he intended to create in respect of the 1/3rd share in the 2/3rd share was the Dharmam to which he gave a 1/3rd share in the income: and that the gift of 2/3rd share of a 2/3rd share is not void for uncertainty.