Reddendo Singula Singulis — Interpretation of Statutes Notes

Reddendo Singula Singulis

Read this sentence: “I devise and bequeath all my real and personal property to X.” You “devise” real property and “bequeath” personal property — each verb goes to the noun it naturally fits, even though the sentence runs them together. Distributing each phrase to the matter it belongs to is reddendo singula singulis, and it quietly saves many a clumsily drafted clause from absurdity.

What is reddendo singula singulis?

Reddendo singula singulis [rendering each to each / referring each to each] is a rule of construction under which, where a sentence contains several subjects and several objects (or several words each answering to a different one of them), each word or phrase is applied to the subject or object to which it naturally belongs, rather than reading them all together in a way that produces nonsense.

In short: match each phrase to its proper partner.

Its features:

1. The rationale. When a clause lumps together several things and several qualifications, a literal “everything applies to everything” reading can be absurd. The rule distributes the words sensibly — each to the one it fits — to give effect to the obvious intention.

2. The classic illustrations:

   • “I devise and bequeath all my real and personal property” — “devise” (the word for gifts of land) attaches to “real property”; “bequeath” (the word for gifts of movables) attaches to “personal property”.
   • “Men and women may become members of fraternities and sororities” — men → fraternities; women → sororities, each to its natural counterpart.
   • A constitutional example: where a provision refers to persons who may take an oath “before the Chief Justice or a judge appointed in that behalf”, the words are distributed so each part fits the office it naturally answers to.

3. How it operates in practice. The court reads the composite sentence and allocates each phrase to the correct subject/object, so the provision reads sensibly and each part does its intended work — an application of reading the statute as a whole to avoid absurdity.

4. Relation to the other maxims. Like noscitur a sociis and ejusdem generis, reddendo singula singulis is a linguistic aid to find intention; but it does a different job — noscitur colours a word by its neighbours, ejusdem generis confines general words to a class, while reddendo distributes several words each to its proper partner. Do not confuse the three.

5. The limit. The rule is used only to give effect to the evident intention and to avoid absurdity; it is not applied where the natural reading of the sentence already makes sense, or where distribution would defeat the plain meaning.

Maxim: “Reddendo singula singulis” — by referring each to each; where a clause has several parts, each word or phrase is applied to the subject or object to which it naturally and appropriately relates.

In Simple Terms: When a sentence throws together several words and several things, reddendo singula singulis matches each word to the thing it naturally belongs to — “devise” to land, “bequeath” to movables — so the provision reads sensibly instead of absurdly.

🧩 WORKED EXAMPLE — Distributing “devise and bequeath”

Facts. A will says: “I devise and bequeath all my real and personal property to my nephew.” A dispute arises over whether the technical words match the two kinds of property.

Rule. Reddendo singula singulis distributes each phrase to the matter it naturally fits, to give effect to the obvious intention and avoid absurdity.

Apply. “Devise” is the correct term for a gift of real (immovable) property; “bequeath” for a gift of personal (movable) property. So “devise” is read with “real property” and “bequeath” with “personal property”.

Conclusion. The gift is valid as to both kinds of property — each verb applied to its natural counterpart — rather than being struck down for a supposed mismatch. The distribution rescues the clause from an absurd literal reading.

flowchart TD
    ROOT["Reddendo singula singulis (refer each to each)"]:::root
    ROOT --> A["Sentence with several subjects & objects"]:::leaf
    A --> B["Match each word/phrase to its natural partner"]:::leaf
    B --> C["'devise' -> real property"]:::leaf
    B --> D["'bequeath' -> personal property"]:::leaf
    B --> E["Avoids absurd 'all applies to all' reading"]:::leaf
    classDef root fill:#FFF8DC,stroke:#000,stroke-width:1px,color:#000;
    classDef leaf fill:#E6F3FF,stroke:#1E3A8A,color:#000;
    linkStyle default stroke:#888,stroke-width:1px;

Case Laws

• Koteswar Vittal Kamath v K. Rangappa Baliga & Co. (1969) — applies reddendo singula singulis to distribute words to their appropriate subjects, giving the provision a sensible meaning.
• Bishop of Crediton v Bishop of Exeter (1905) — the classic English application of reddendo singula singulis to a composite clause.

Back to Top

📄 Full notes + Question Bank (₹199) — every topic in depth, model answers to all past KSLU questions, in one printable PDF. Get the bundle · 10 Solved Problems · All Interpretation of Statutes topics