NARENDRA GOPAL VIDYARTHI versus RAJAT VIDYARTHI

17. This Court, for the reasons stated hereinbefore, should E ordinarily upon setting aside the judgment of the High Court, remit the matter to it. However, we, in view of the fact that the suit was filed in the year 1995 and the principal controversy between the parties is construction of the said Will dated. 21.11.1965, though~ it proper to dispose of the matter F ourselves . . 4:

18. Before adverting to the said question, we may place on record that we have heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length on 17. 7 .2008. Appellant had furnished .· to us an unofficial translation of the said Will, correctness Whereofwas disputed by Dr. Saxena. We, therefore, entrusted the job to the official translator. A copy of the said Will, as translated by the official translator, has been placed before us. It is accepted by the counsel for both the parties that the said translation, to put it simply, even does not carry any meaning. SUPRE~E ·COURT REPO~T§ A We, therefore, chose to igno.re the same.

19. The translated. portions of the Will which are disputea one are as under : Extract of Will Official Translation c ~ anM ~ t My last willing~ness fcp. ~ tfl{A" ~ is that I shall cancel my ~<ITT~ m ~ all previous.Wills ang ~y way of this Will, I in my ¢1'lfl<lo"11~· ctr ~ \ill complete mental and ll ~~<PX w physical conscious- ( ~. anM ammr ness, execute that out 1-R qft ~ of my self acquired ,>\…,,… earnings a sum of 'iqi CITTCIT 'f,.,,~ if ~ Rs.30,000/- (Rupees 11 crfalf tfi~ 6'\ilH fifteen thot1sand only) 30,000/- ~ be §pared QF s13t apart f'R:q;jq~<i ~ m from.the benen~ of Dear 15,0001- 'liitl'm ~ ~ tq;- Narendra Gopal Vidya- rthi and his widowed 3T\ifi\if o:r~;:~ lfhz;r mother Chand-ramukhi fcrnwff 3TR ~ -rfr .,, Vidyarthi so that the. il~!f<if) ~ctr ~ study and marriage etc. ctr~ qqq; <PX { ~ of Narendra Gopal and l'JTtm;r qft cm;lTq Livelihood of his mother · such. as fooding and er tH&llld er mcfi ~ clothes could easily be iff ~ iff arranged and they ~~~~~ would not get any q;r lflCfIB ~ difficulty in their lives. No m~atR·fc.ITTfi one t)as any right or claim over his Munda- CRi! ~ ~ .3'1'R' raja amount and I have -q~~n;ft "I' i!T I ~~ complete right to use j'Ri'l\i)I c:m;rr ~ tJ"l" this as per my wishes ~ fWml ~ 3TR fcp'lft and nobody has any objection or right to .,.,.,.t ~ raise di~pute. Therefore ~""'1 in my complete '$ ~ ~ physical and mental '$ ~ atR ~ · consciousness by way Correct Translation H \§ nw lsst wish th9t PY WiW §f thi!? will, wh'ich I am stating in my senses, that from my self acquired earn-ings of whole life, only Rs.30,000/- (Rs. Thirty thousand only), the half of which i~ only Rs.15,0~Q/.,, (Rupees fifteen thoµsand only) may give 'Wakr for the benefits of dear Nare- ndra Gopal Vidyarthi, and his widow mother Chander Mukhi Vidya- rthi, by which for the education ·~rnd mainten-ance and· for the marriage .etp. e.f Narendra GoPC\H~rn~ {gr- th,~ rn~\nteriance, food, clothes etc. of his Mother appropriate arrangement could be made, and throughout life, there rn~y not t:Je enY type of difficulty !!ind problem. On this etipulated amount excepting me, there is not right or concern of anyone else, and I, according to my wish, for the use and NAR~NDRA GOPAL Vl!)YARTHI v. RAJAT VIDYARTHI [S.S. SINHA, J.] <ff~ ~~-<PT- of this Will, I Vishun 6Cf> ~ afR fcITT:fT Sahay son of Lala Sibo q;)- -rl-:l- Sahay hereby gifting the ~ ~ lR "''~ Mundaraja amount of ~crm:;n:rr~~<PT Rs.30,000/- Rupees ~ 1 ~ thirty thousand only) i!l$'<'l'Rll ~~~ qff\4d11~ <ff ~ lf tTiirf ~ ftrq WflJ !!'< IWJ'l I CITm 5\J'1"R' ~ q;)- w ~-Cf> 31'f-q> ~~ ~o •ql~4"( ~ lf ~ ~Cf> I'd "'C lf \i!+rr t ~ ~~f<mr~afR 'i.Hrctfl 'fff :q-;.~ 11 ~ft f<mT~ ~ <ff lfCITTG <6 ~~~~~ ~'CPW{ ………… .. cft~ 6\jfH ~'l1'tl'T 30000 \:ill ll';f ~ afR ~ l!T <ff ~ ~ \ifITT crq; ~'ITT~~ Gt 14 cU G if (if7fT ~ 1 arEr ~ lf<PR ~°Rt"G~ CffT q;r~nr which has been depo- sited jn the Saving account of Bank of India Ltd., Gwalior Branch in the name of dear Narendra Gopal and his mother Chandar Mukhi Vidhyarthi and thus for their benefit I am making a trust … The amount of the said Rs.30,000/- which has been spared by me in the name of Narendra Gopal and his widowed mother, as far as possible, shall be invested ;n the immo- veable property. Till date the efforts to purchase house has not been fulfilled. If in the purchase of immovable property a sum of more than the sum of Rs.30,000/- is required then the same shall be inyested from the working capital of Vidyarthi and Sons and agreern~nt share be rni:!Qe ac~ordingly. rffCfiffl m ~-311R ~ ~\1114GIG~ ff 'ij)cftp Cj)XGf cftX1 ~ 30000 ~ ~ ~mm~-~ W'tf~~-il'Xl~ ftf 'l'T iJf T'tf 3f h 6Cfi~t'CffT~o \ffiT ~ In any c;ircums- tances, at one time the ~aiRlct> 'ITT ~ \jfj'<f I number of the trustees spending, I have complete right to make the Will, and no other person has any right to object ci>r quarrel. As such in my comple~e senses, by way of this will, I Bishan Sahai son of Lala Shiv Sahai, by separating, the amount of Rs.30,000/ – which is deposited in savings accounts in the Bank of India Ltd., Gwalior Branch., for the benefits of Nare-ndra Gopal Vidyarthi, and his motner Chander Mukhi Vid-yarthi, hereby 'WAKF' to establish a Trust …… Rupees thirty thousand (30,000/-) which I have Wakf for Narendra Gopal and his mother, so far as possible may be invested in immove- able property. Efforts to purchase the house4 have remained uns- uccessful till now. In case in the pur:..chase ' of the immov-able property, if more: than the Wakf amount of Rupees thirty thous- and (30,000/-) is c c SUPREME COURT REPORfS ~ ·- .. " 1ft W'ff T{ ~ shall not be more than Cfiffi' 'il ~ qft four. If any trustee act "q°R. ~ ~ 'I' against the motive of this trust of uses the W1ft 3llR -cffll 1ft ~ amount of this trust for trm m !fR!'<lfil ~ 'q"(' his own benefit then the q«l'll<i'"llq ~. ~ · said trustee would be q; ~ qfi presumed to be removed ~ CIR from the post of trustee CR\ifi m ~ or property of this trust ctft~m~m and the. remaining 'Gl'Tftr 1fCPTC;' ~ ft;r~ trustee of this trust ~ffi"l1<i1 CIR m would take action <f>1m3Tirt ~ ~ against him. May God ·~ ~ fulfill my wishes and lfTGT ~'fil\jf ~~ct grant peace to my soul. (2008] 16 S;C.R : req~!r~d~ th~n th~t may be invested from the. capital of Viciyarthl & sons and the rights of ownership may be fixed according to that. ltslt'i I q) q;nf<fll ~ % QlFtT ~ ~ 3fN ~· 3lTcirT <ITT~~. In any case, at any time, the number of Trustees shall not be more than four, if .any trustee singly or jointly acts against the motive of the trust created by this will or uses the money as property of the trust for his personal benefit th~p· ttie s~id trustee would be pr~sumed to pe removed from his post of trustee and the remaining trustees will be able to take action. against him .. May God fulfill my wishes and give peace to my soul. According to 'the respondent, the af9r~m@nti().n~p F . controversial portion should. read as unq~r : "In such circumstance§, if immovable property does not. get available, handing over of caS,h amount to her would be useful destruction~ Therefore, for the purpose of safety ·of the amount, it would be. must that she be riot given all big cash amount. Watch on rental amount and interest is must. For the bigger expenditure, the decision and sanction of the trustees is necessary. If immovable property becomes· available then rent of the same otherwise the bank interest over the said amoun1 of y·, 1-·. NARENDRA GOPALVIDYARTHI v. RAJATVIDYARTHI [S.S. SINHA, J.] Rs.30,000/- shal! be given to the Narendra Gopal and his widowed mother for their personal expenses so that they would not have to stretch their hands before anyone for the personal expenses. In this regard trustees have to be gracious and farsighted. It would be taken care that the · property shall remain family and would not be mortgaged or sold. Rs.30,000/- was set apart for the limited purpose of maintehance and for the benefit of Vaidarthi. and his mother. c This means that the intention of the testator was that only small amount should be given not a big amount and for the ·safety of the amount, big cash should not be given to the widowed mother or the petitioner. Strict vigil would be must. The decisions and sanction of the trustees is necessary, Watch on rental and interest is must. They wanted to. bring up the widowed mother as well as the minor child and for that purpose they spared that amount."

20. We have also been taken through the entire original Will. The testator had a philosophical bent of mind. The recitals in the Will show that he was aware of the uncertainties of life. He had made a Will also on 19th February, 1959. As he lived till 1965, he executed the Will in question. The Will recites that God had been kind enough to him. He had four daughters, Sunbderkala, Sarladevi, Shanti Devi and Lakshmi Devi who were happily married. He also acknowledged that he had five sons, Raghuvansh Sahay (Mithubabu), Harbans Sahay (Kaptan), Rameshwar Sahay, Rajeshwar Sahay and Krishna Sahai (Kisho). He also stated that out of the five sons, four, namely, Raguuvansh Sahay, Rameshwar Sahay, Rajesnwar ..A Sahay and Krishna Sahay were highly educated and well placed in their life. They are married and were in employment. They had been leading a happy life. He wished a lon·g and prosperous life for them. However, he expressed his agony for the death of his eldest son Harvansh Sahay (Kaptan) who had Sl.JPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 16 S.C.R. A died in the year 1949 leaving behind a small child and a young wife. He aekriowl@dges that proper ar~angements should be .made tot maintenance of Chahdramukhi, his widowed daughter.;in;.law. Some arrangements should also be made for education, maintenance arid marriage. of her son Narendra g Gopc:ll. It appea-rs from the Will that he had saved about Rs.30,000/-. Indisputably, he had also a sum of Rs.10,000/- In a firm known as "Vidyarthi and Sons". Indisputably again, he thought of purchasing an initnoveable pr<Jperty for the benefit of the appellant and his mother out tn~ same did not c materialize.

21. It is in the aforementioned backdrop of facts, the Will in question is required to be construed. Before we proceed to do so, we may also notice some subsequent events. The house property In question was purchased by Bishan Sahai in his own D name from Stnt. Laxmibai Kelkar. After his death which took place in 1973; the· said property stood mutated in the name of Chandramukhi Devi and after her death in the name of the appellant. No other family member objected thereto. The High Court, in its impugned judgment, has, in fact, recorded that for E the purpose of obtaining the order of mutation, the other family members he_lped Chandramukhi. They also filed applications for exemption from payment of property tax by her. Admittedly, since the date.of death of Bishan Sahai, the appellant and his mother alone have been.in possession of the property. The suit F was filed in the year 1995. Therein, no other family member was impleaded. If the plaintiff-respondent intended to obtain a d_eclaration that the property in question is a joint family property; it was expected that other family members would be impleaded. None of the sohs of Bishan Sahai was examined G as a witness. No explanation was sought' for from them as to why they themselves were instrumental in getting the name of Chandramukhi mutated.

22. A bare perusal of the Will would show that he-had kept apart Rs.30,000/- for Chandramukhi and the appellant.· The NARENDRA GOPAL VIDYARTHI v. RAJATVIDYARTHI [S.B. SINHA, J) .J purpose of doing stl was that from his IHcdme, he had made i jew~lleries ffif othefS. The Will speaks of division of the utensils 13fsu, Ao~t>rding to him, it was the duty of the brothers to look after the widow of Iii§ son Kaptan and Narendra Gopal, as they had beefl earning Wall1 the child bf with his mother should iive With them so as to enable him to meet the ups and downs of B life. He did hot Want that the said amount should be wasted and for tfte said purpose, some sort of supervision was necessary. He, therefore, wanted to make a 'wakf in their favour so as, to enable them not only to maintain themselves but also to spend for the education and upbringing as well as marriage of c Narendra Gopal. He declared that apart from himself, nobody else had any interest therein nor anybody can raise any dispute in regard thereto. He made his sof1S the Executors of the wakf. He as; indicated hereinbefore, used the word 'wakf.

23. What should be the tflie meaning of the said word is the question. Whereas, Mr. Mehta submits that it should be '1 treated as ;gift', according to Dr. Saxena, the same connotes a trust. The ordinary meaning of 'wakf is taking out something out of one's ownership and passing it on to God's ownership dedicating Its usufruct – without tegard to indigence or affluence, perpetually and with the intention of obtaining Divine pleasure – for persons and individuals, or for institutions or mosques and graveyards, or for other charita61e purposes. It is in their true sense neither gift nor trust.

24. Gift of some amount in cash does not require registration nor does the statutory requirements as contained in Sections 122 and 123 of the Transfer of Property Act are attracted therefor.

25. Was it the amount which was the subject matter of the Will or an immoveable property which was to be purchased from the said amount, meant to be transferred in favour of the respondent absolutely is the question.

26. The Will provides that if the sum of Rs.30,000/- is found [2008]· ~6 S.C.R. · A to be inadequate for purchase of an immoveable property, the amount of Rs.10,000/- which was available with the partnership firm vidyarthi & Sons·be utilized which would be determinative factor as regards the extent of title of the property ..

27. The word used in the Will ·is 'karar'. ·1t may mean determination; it may also mean agreement. But if the extent of the title is ·to be de!ermined, the same will have a direct nexus with the amount spent from the sum of Rs.10,000/- which was with the partnership firm. If determination of the extent of C the title has a nexus with the amount spent from the said sum ofRs.30,000/- vis-a-vis the said sum of Rs.10,000/-, title was ' to be passed in favour of the beneficiary.

28. This gives rise to two questions which. are of some importance. When a sum is to be invested in the immoveable t- ). • IL ' /- ' r I-r :I r- 'j 1– I r- 1– D property and in the event, any further sum is necessary; the extent·of title is required to be determined, does it demonstrate. the intention on the part of the testator. In our opinion, it does. Wakf is a 'final dedication'. a goes out of the control of dedicator. The use of the said word may not be appropriate in E a situation of this nature but that only goes to s~ow that the testator intended to divest himself of the said property.

29. The very fact that the-testator categc:ically stated that the extent of title in the property will depend upon the amount of additional contribution required to be made from the fund of F Vidyarthi and Sons itself is an indication to show that his wish was that title should vest in the. beneficiaries to the extent of the property which represented the amount of Rs.30,000/- out of the total amount of consideration required to acquire the same. There cannot be any doubt whatsoever that his intention G also was that the entire cash may not be paid to Chandramukhi. as she was of gullible character. She eoutd be made to part therewith by any other person by sweet words. A precaution was, therefore, required to be taken. The amount was required to be spent wisely. T.he amounl which was required for their H maintenance and education of appellant whether derived from NARENDRA GOPAL VIDYARTHI v. RAJATVIDYARTHI · [S.S. SINHA, J.] the inte(est or from the rental only was to be handed over. It is only for the aforementioned limited purpose, the trust was created. The sole beneficiary of the trust, in our opinion, was· merely the· appellant and his mother. It may be true that the property Was purchased in the name of the testator himself. The High Court commented that the same could have been done , B .in the name of the appellant and his· mother or at least the purchase could have been a joint one. But the Will is required .,.( to be construed on the basis of the terms used therein and not otherwise.

30. The answer to the question may be difficult one. Only ·because there does not exist any straight forward answer, the same would not mean that beneficiaries under the Will shall be deprived therefrom only because the property was purchased in his own name by the testator. The testator had a long wish to purchase an immoveable property. He even thought of D acquiring a property, price whereof might exceed Rs.30,000/- . If he wanted to keep apart the said sum of Rs.30,000/- for the . benefit of the appellant and his mother, we think he also wanted to bequeath the immoveable property purchased out of the said amount.

31. The Indian Succession Act contains provisions for construction of the Will. We may notice some of them. "7 4 -Wording of Will-It is not necessary that any technical words or terms of art be used in a Will, but only that the wording be such that the intentions of the testator can be known therefrom. · • 82 – Meaning or clause to be collected from entire Will-The meaning of any clause in a Will is to be collected from the entire instrument, and all its parts are to be construed with reference to each other. Illustrations (i) The testator gives to B a specific fund or property at the death of A, and by a subsequent clause gives the t- whole of his property to A The effect of the several clauses taken together is to vest the s·pecific fund or property in A for life, and after his decease iri s; it appearing from the bequest to B that the testator meant to use in a restricted sense the words in which he describes what he gives to (ii) Where a testator having an estate, one part of which is called Black Acre, bequeaths the whole of his estate to c A, and in another part of his Will bequeaths Black Acre to B, the latter bequest is to be read as an exception out of the first as if he had said "I give Black Acre to 8, and all the rest of my estate to A". 84-Which of two possible constructions preferred- l Where a clause is susceptible of two meanings according t to one of which it has some effect, and according to the other of which it ·can have none, the former shall_ be r preferred."

32. Applying the principles of construction of Will, as contained in the aforementioned provisions, we are of the opinion that if the Will is read as a whole and if the surrounding circumstances are to be given effect to, the only conclusion that can be reached was that the aforementioned amount of Rs.30,000/-was set apart only for the benefit of the appellant and his mother. It might have been invested in immoveable property but ~mly thereby they could nor have been deprived of the amount.

33. How a Will has to be interpreted is no_ longer res G integra. Intention of the testator must be ascertained from the words used and the surrounding circumstances. The Court will Pl.!t itself in the armchair of the testator. )…_ In Navneet Lal v. Gokul [(1976) 1 SCC 630] it has been H held: NARENDRA GOPAL VIDYARTHI v. RAJAT VIDYARTHI [S.B. SINHA, J.] -1 _ "8. From the earlier decisions of this Court the following principles, inter alia, are well established: . (1) In construing a document whether in English or in vernacular the fundamental rule is to ascertain the intention from the words used; the surrounding circumstances are to be considered; but that is only for the purpose of finding out the intended meaning -4 of the words which have actually been employed. (Ram Gopal v. Nand La~ (2) In construing the language of the will the court is c entitled to put itself into the testator's armchair ( Venkata Narasimha v. Parthasarathy) and is bound to bear in mind also other matters than merely the words. used. It must consider the surrounding circumstances, the position of the testator, his family relationship, the probability that he would use words in a particular sense … But all ,,f this is solely as an aid to arriving at a righf construction of the will, and to ascertain the meaning of its language when used by that particular testator in that document. ( Venkata Narasimha case and Gnanambal Ammal v. T. Raju Ayyar) (3) The true intention of the testator has to be gathered not by attaching importance to isolated expressions but by reading the will as a whole with all its provisions and ignoring none of them as redundant or contradictory. (Raj Bajrang Bahadur Singh v. Thakurain Bakhtraj Kuer) (4) The court must accept, if possible, such construction as would give to every expression some effect rather than that which would render any of the expressions inoperative. The court will look at the circumstances under which the testator H (2008] 16 S.C.R. makes his will, such as the state of his prop,erty, of his family and the like: Where apparently conflicting .,_ dispositions can be reconciled by giving full effect to every word used in a d.ocument, such a construction should be accepted instead of a construction which would have the effect of cutting down the clear meaning of the words used by the testator. Further, where one 9f the two reasonable constructions would lead to intestacy, that should be discarded in favour of a construction which does c not create any such hiatus. (Pearey Lal v. Rameshwar Oas) (5) It is one of the cardinal p~inciples of construction of r wills that to the extent that it is legally possible effect should be given to every disposition contained in ·o the will unless the law prevents effect being given to it. Of course, if there are two repugnant · provisions conferring successive interests, if the r first interest created Is valid the subsequent interest cannot .take .effect but a Court of construction will ' .. . proceed to the farthest extentto avoid repugnancy, ' so that effect could be given as far as possible to every testamentary intention contained in the will. (Ramachandra Shenoy v. Hilpa Brite Mrs)'." {See also Arunkumar & Anr. v. Shriniwas & Ors. [(2003) 6 SCC·98]} . • This. aspect oUhe matter has recently been considered in j– Bajrang Factory Ltd. v. University of Caiucutta_[(2007) 7 SCC 183], whereir it was held: "39. With a view to ascertain the intention of the maker of the will, not only the tern;is thereof are required to be tc;tken into cQns.ideration but also all circumstances attending tllereto. The will as a whole must, thus, be considered for the said purpose and not _1:qerely the particular part ~hereof. NARENDRA GOPAL VIDYARTHI v. RAJAT VIDYARTHI [S.B. SINHA, J.] As the will if read in its entirety, can be given effect to, it is imperative that nothing should be read therein to invalidate the same. 40. In construing a will, no doubt, all possible contingencies are required to be taken into consideration, but it is also a well-settled principle of law that only because a part of .,–4 a document is invalid, the entire document need not be invalidated, if the former forms a severable part. The legatee admittedly did not have any issue, nor did he adopt or appoint any person. In a situation of this nature, effect c can be given to Clause 12 of the will, if it is read as occurring immediately after Clause 5 of the original will. fa.s the said clause stands on its own footing, its effect must be considered vis-a-vis Clause 6, but the court may not start with construction of Clauses 6 and 7, which may lead to a conclusion that Clause 5 is also invalid. The i contingencies contemplated by Clause 6 may not have any effect on Clause 7, if it does not take place at all. The property which should have been purchased with the sale proceeds could have been the subject-matter of the bequest and in terms thereof the University of Calcutta became the beneficiary on the death of the original legatee. We do not find any reason as to why the same cannot be given effect to. We have indicated hereinbefore that it is possible to construe Clause 7 of the will and in fact a plain reading thereof would, thus, lead to the conclusion that it merely provides for an option given to the legatee to take recourse thereto. We have also indicated hereinbefore that the term "devise" in the context of Clause 7 does not carry any meaning and, therefore, the same for all iritent and purport should be substituted by the word "desire". As a matter of fact, the appellant in the copy of the will supplied to us had also used the word "desire" in place of the word "devise", which would also go to show that even the appellant understood Clause 7 in that fashion. Clause 7, if so read, will have no application to the properties which were to be substituted in place of the immbvable properties belonging to the testator. The benefit of the sale proceeds, thus, in absence of any action on the part of the legatee in terms of Clause 7 shall also vest in the University. Moreover, the questions as to whether the deed of sale purported to have been executed by the legatee in favour of Chamong Tea Co. Ltd. or other instruments executed by him in favour of the appellants . ~. herein are pending for consideration before the High Court. ' " ' r- which may have to be determined on its own merit. In the c event the said transactions are held to be: void, the question of giving any other or further effect to Clause 6 of the will may not arise." In Anil Kak v. Kumari Sharda Raje & Ors. [2008 (6) SCALE 597], this Court stated : "The testator's intention is collected from a consideration of the whole Will and not from a part of it. If two parts of t the same Will are wholly irreconcilable, the court of law would not be in a position to come to a finding that the Will dated 4.11.1992 could be given effect to irrespective of the appendices. In construing a Will, no doubt all possible contingencies are required to be taken into consideration. Even if a part is invalid, the entire document need not be invalidated, only if it forms a severable part. [See Bajrang Factory Ltd. and Anr. 'v. University of Calcutta and Ors. [(2007) 1 sec 1831 -;– In Halsbury's Laws of England, Fourth edition, Volume 50, page 332-33, it is stated : '462. Leading principle of construction: The 1.eading principle of construction which is applicable to all wills without qualification and overrides every. >–.' other rule of construction is that the testator's intention is collected from a consideration of the whole will taken in connection with any evidence NARENDRA GOPAL VIDYARTHI v. RAJAT VIDYARTHI [S.S. SINHA, J.] i properly admissible, and the meaning of the will and of every part of it is determined according to that intention'." In Shyamal Kanti Guha (0) Through LRs. & Ors. v. Meena Bose [2008 (9) SCALE 363), it is stated : "Keeping in mind the aforementioned backdrop, the Will . .,. . should be construed. It should be done by a Court indisputably placing itself on the arm-chair of the testator. The endeavour of the Court should be' to give effect to his c intention. The intention of the testator can be culled out not only upon reading the Will in its entirety, but also the background facts and circumstances of the case." Following the said principles, we have no hesitation to hold that the title to the said property vested in the appellant. 34. For the reasons aforementioned, we are of the view t that the impugned judgment cannot be sustained. It is set aside accordingly. Appeal is allowed with costs. Counsel's fee assessed at Rs.50,000/-. N.J. Appeal allowed.