నాల్గవ ప్రకరణము.
333
If the intention of the testator was such as you honestly feel to be you should have carried out his intention whether the ex-office members agree or not. Now that you have begun to collect the opinions and the conditions laid down in the Telugu enclosure regarding the equal distribution of interest among the 12 families seem to have been subsequently formed after mature consideration on the basis of pure selfishness, I doubt if the intention of the testator as you or the conditions say, was true. The conditions say that the portion remaining unclaimed by reason of the extinction of issue in any one of the twelve families must be distributed equally among the rest. For instance if half a dozen families are destitute of issue at any time which God in His boundless mercy may forbid, to claim the distribution of the ownerless portions among the rest is a pure selfishness in my opinion. What is it then if you do not call it selfishness? Granting that the opinion of the testator at his death was true, we as well-wishers of the movement are bound to consider whether he formed that opinion in a state of mental peace or agony. It is quite plain he formed the same just before his death when he was in great agony. If we formed that opinion in that painful state, can we give effect to his intention in such a way that the movement should suffer? We should also take into consideration how anxious he was in a state of good health for the welfare and progress of the movement. I hope I will not be contradicted if I say that there is not one at least at present so enthusiastic as he in the list of the so many members. As it is quite evident that he was a sincere well wisher of the movement (of course including the already married couples), we will have to consider whether the movement will suffer or not by carrying out his intention at his death. If the interest should be distributed only among the existing twelve families, can we celebrate any more
