Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

"The word 'or' is prima facie, and in the absence of some restraining context, to be read as disjunctive, and, if a testator wishes to give his trustees a discretion to apply his property either to charitable or to benevolent objects, I do not myself know that other word in the Englisn language he can more suitably use than the word 'or'. 1 approach this question, therefore, on the view that the word 'or' is prima facie to be read as meaning what it says."

8. In the case above mentioned, a testator by his will gave the residue of his estate "for such charltame institution or institutions or other charitable or benevolent object or objects in England as my acting executors or executor may in their or his absolute discretion select". The House of Lords, Lord Wright -- dissenting -- held fhat upon the true construction of this clause, the words "or benevolent" prima facie indicated an alternative purpose and, as there was nothing in the will to justify different interpretation the gift was void for uncertainty. The case was decided upon the principle that if the trustee is given a discretion to apply trust property for purposes, some of which are and some are not charitable, the trust is void for uncertainty. It is to be observed that the House of Lords did not decide that the power of the trustees to select a benevolent object would cease as soon as they would select a charitable object and devote a part of the trust fund to it. I think that when the word "or" is used in relation to two or more alternatives, it is not necessarily the case that the alternatives are mutually exclusive. The question as to whether they are mutually exclusive or not must be determined by applying the general rule that words should be construed to ascertain the intention of the provision in question to be collected from the whole of Its terms, see Horsey v. Caldwell, (1946) 73 CLR 304 at 3134 (Australia). On a true construction of Section 176 I am satisfied that the right of the pawnee to sue upon the debt or promise does not exclude or destroy his right to sell the pawn.