IMPORTANT POINT
Both the Courts below fell into error in holding that Sevamma became absolute owner of the disputed property after death of her husband. The deceased husband had a limited and restrictive right in the property under a Will and his widow could not alienate it by invoking Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

Headnote:Law of Wills-Interpretation-Limited estate or absolute interest-Language clear-No additions to be made-Questions raised (1) Whether the right given to Guruswamy, the benefactor under the Will dated 1st June, 1942 was a limited right? (Yes) (2) If Guruswamy had a limited right whether his widow Sevamma could get absolute right under Section 14(1) of Hindu Succession Act, 1956 to execute the impugned sale deed in favour of respondents 1 & 2? (No) - Appeal allowed-Case law discussed.
       Held : In the present case we find that the language of the Will is clear and unambiguous. Thus to find out intentions of the testatrix, no supplementing or reading down any word is necessary. The testatrix bequeathed her property to her brother s sons, namely, one from first wife, plaintiff and other to Guruswamy, from the second wife. To both she clearly records in no uncertain words that they would have limited right with no right to alienate. She also clearly records in case son is born to them they would get absolute right including right to alienate. (Para 12)
       If that be so, the only point which requires our consideration, is what right Sevamma widow of Guruswamy gets after the death of Guruswamy? We have no hesitation to hold that the limited right of Guruswamy cannot be interpreted by any stretch of language that testatrix intended to give absolute right to Guruswamy or to his widow. They were to hold the property for delivery to the son, in case, born out of their wedlock. In no case Sevamma s right over the property would mature into absolute right by virtue of Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act. Her right could only mature as such, if her claim could be based on any of her pre-existing right including right in lieu of maintenance out of her husband s property. But in no case it would mature where the property is held by her husband either in trust for the benefit of other or as limited and restricted owner with no right to alienate. Hence even if Sevamma continued to enjoy the property after the death of her husband, she held the property at the most, in the same capacity as her husband but not to claim it towards her right of maintenance. If husband had any other property apart from what was gifted by Poovamma, she could claim her above right under Section 14(1) but not over the property given to her husband Guruswamy as a limited owner. The High Court fell into error while construing Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act by extending its width so wide which spills over its permissible boundary when it held, a Hindu wife will acquireabsolute right in the property of her husband and then applying it to the facts of this case. (Para 13)
       Held also : We find in the case before us trial court held that Sevamma became absolute owner by virtue of Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act which has no legs to stand, both on facts and law. We have already recorded Guruswamy has a limited and restrictive right no absolute right. His widow on the facts of this case cannot be treated to be class 1 heir under the said Act. Hence both the courts below fell into error in holding that Sevamma became absolute owner. Accordingly, the finding of both the trial court and the appellate court are unsustainable in law. (Para 18)
       Held finally : In view of the aforesaid findings we answer the first question by holding that the Will dated 1st June, 1942, grants Guruswamy limited and restrictive right in no case to mature into full right. As a consequence of this we answer the second question by holding that Sevamma did not inherit the suit property from her husband nor possessed it in lieu of maintenance hence question of maturing it into full right under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act does not arise. Thus we hold Sevamma had no right to alienate the suit property thus sale of the suit property in favour of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 can not be held to be valid. Thus for these reasons and findings, we set aside the findings and the judgment of both of the trial court and the High Court and decree the suit of the plaintiff Costs on the parties. (Paras 19 & 20)

JUDGMENT

Misra, J.- In spite of expertise in drafting a Will, the testators infusing his intentions in it, the struggle for a claim under it remained unabated, the tug of war between the two claimants under it has been the cause of issue before the courts from its very inception. The strong desire to succeed, even for wrongful claims, has led such claimants to split and interpret, even simple words and clear intentions into two possible interpretations. That is why court has to exercise and interpret a Will with circumspection and caution in order to give thrust to the true intentions of a testator.

2. This appeal also raises similar question of the interpretation of a Will and consequently the right of a widow of a benefactor under the Will. The questions raised are:

(a) Whether the right given to Guruswamy, the benefactor under the Will dated 1st June, 1942 was a limited right.

(b) If Guruswamy had a limited right, whether his widow Sevamma could get absolute right under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 to execute the impugned sale deed in favour of respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

3. In order to appreciate the controversies and to answer the aforesaid two questions, we are hereunder giving short matrix of facts which are essential for the disposal of this appeal.

4. The following Genealogical Table showing the relationship inter se between testatrix Poovamma and the beneficiaries under the Will is given as under:

Revalappa

l l

Muniyamma=Lakshmaiah=Vellamma Poovamma

(First Wife) (Second Wife) Testatrix

l l

Muninanjappa Guruswamy=Sevamma [widow]

(Plaintiff) (Defendant No. 3)

5. The suit was filed by the plaintiffs-appellants for declaration that the sale deed executed by defendant No. 3 Sevamma, widow of Guruswamy in favour of defendant-respondent Nos. 1 and 2 is not binding on them as she had no right to sell the same, hence defendant Nos. 1 and 2 cannot derive any right, title or interest over the suit property by virtue of the said sale deed. Poovamma was the original owner of the suit property which is not in dispute. The plaintiffs lost his father Lakshmaiah, the brother of Poovamma when he was four years old and was looked after by Poovamma. Guruswamy the brother of plaintiff born from the second wife also came under the care of Poovamma. Defendant No. 3 Sevamma is the widow of Guruswamy. The case of plaintiffs-appellants is, under the aforesaid registered Will dated 1st June, 1942 Poovamma bequeathed the suit property in favour of both plaintiff and Guruswamy. Under the Will none of the legatees, the benefactor under the Will gets any right to alienate any part of the suit property hence Guruswamy and his widow Sevamma could at best have life interest without any right of alienation. Thus the property bequeathed, after the death of both, namely, Guruswamy and his widow Sevamma reverts back to the plaintiff. In spite of this limited right, Sevamma sold this property to defendant Nos. 1 and 2 (respondent Nos. 1 and 2 in this Court) on 4th September, 1980 through a registered sale deed. As a consequence of this respondent Nos. 1 and 2 filed petition for plaintiff s eviction. This led to the filing of the present suit by the plaintiffs-appellant as aforesaid. The case set up by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 is that after the death of Guruswamy his widow Sevamma became absolute owner by virtue of Sections 13 and 14 of the Hindu Succession Act and hence alienation of this property, through the said sale deed is valid. Defendant No. 3 Sevamma supported the case of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and further said that after the death of her husband she was in possession of the suit property, which was in lieu of her right of maintenance, thus by virtue of Sections 13 and 14 of the Hindu Succes

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2001 Supreme(SC) 664

Cases Referred (5)