Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

"5. If the said Julia does not marry or if she has no issues, the said Julia should enjoy the said property up to her death and thereafter this property of mine should be enjoyed by my eldest daughter, Severina Sobina Coelho and after her by her male descendants with permanent rights".

The short question for decision in the appeal is whether under cl. 3 (c) extracted above the interest which the eldest daughter' Severina took under the bequest was absolute or whether she had merely :a life interest with the absolute remainder vesting in ,her male issues, Before proceeding to deal with this matter, it would be convenient to set out how the question comes before us. This appeal arises out of a suit for partition and separate possession filed in September, 1946 by the widow and daughter of Denis--one of the sons of Mrs. Severina Sabina and relates to the property measuring 1 acre 37 cents with houses and structures thereon which is part of the property covered by cl. 3. We ought to mention that Severina died on February 14, 1946. It is the case of the plaintiffs that Severina acquired under the terms of cl. 3 (c)only a life interest in that property and that the remainder in absolute was conferred upon her male issues. On the other hand, the construction put forward by the contesting defendants who claim under a purchaser in a Court sale in execution of a decree against Severina is, that on a proper interpretation of the clause what was conferred on Severina was an absolute interest in the property as a result of which the interest in the property and not merely her life interest passed under the Court auction, and that consequently the claim for partition had to fail - Both the learned Trial judge as well as the District judge on appeal upheld the construction contended for by the defendants and dismissed the suit. On further appeal to the High Court the learned Single judge reversed this decree and decreed the suit holding that the daughter Severina obtained only a life interest in the property covered by cl. 3. It is the correctness of this construction that is challenged by the contesting defendants-the appellants before us.