Construction of settlement deeds can create absolute reversionary ownership and permit testamentary disposition of self-acquired property.

A settlement was construed as conferring an absolute estate in reversion, because the instrument had to be read as a whole and the words referring to "heirs and representatives" were treated as words of limitation rather than purchase. The later restrictive language was treated as inoperative or merely descriptive, consistent with the effect of the Oudh Estates Act, 1869. On that footing, the property in Lachman Singh's hands was held to be self-acquired rather than ancestral, so Hindu survivorship rules did not govern it. He was therefore entitled to dispose of the property by will, and the appeal failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, on a true construction of the settlement, Lachman Singh took only a life estate or an absolute estate in reversion; (ii) whether the property in Lachman Singh's hands was ancestral or self-acquired so as to determine his power to dispose of it by will.

Issue (i): Whether, on a true construction of the settlement, Lachman Singh took only a life estate or an absolute estate in reversion.

Analysis: The settlement had to be construed as a whole and, so far as possible, given effect rather than defeated. The words referring to the "heirs and representatives" were treated as words of limitation, not purchase, and the later limiting language was regarded as either inoperative or merely descriptive of the supposed legal incidents of the grant. This construction was consistent with the effect of the estate having been brought within the scheme of the Oudh Estates Act, 1869, particularly Section 15.

Conclusion: Lachman Singh took an absolute estate in reversion.

Issue (ii): Whether the property in Lachman Singh's hands was ancestral or self-acquired so as to determine his power to dispose of it by will.

Analysis: The decisive consideration was whether the estate, after passing under the settlement, retained the character of property governed by Mitakshara descent or became property held by Lachman Singh in his own right. The estate had originally been subject to the Oudh Estates Act, 1869 and to succession by a single heir under Section 22, and the settlement had taken it out of the ordinary course of Hindu succession. On that footing, the property in Lachman Singh's hands was treated as self-acquired rather than ancestral, making the competing theories of survivorship unnecessary to decide.

Conclusion: Lachman Singh could validly dispose of the property by will.

Final Conclusion: The appellants failed on the construction of the settlement and on the character of the property, and the decree against them stood. The appeal was dismissed with costs.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a settlement confers an absolute reversionary estate and the property is thereby held as self-acquired rather than ancestral, the holder may dispose of it by will; construction should, where possible, preserve the effect of the instrument rather than defeat it.

---