2010 Supreme(SC) 227

2010 (3) Supreme 168
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
G.S. Singhvi and Asok Kumar Ganguly, JJ.
P.K. Mohan Ram — Appellant
versus
B.N. Ananthachary and others — Respondents
Civil Appeal No.6412 of 2002
Decided on : 15-03-2010

IMPORTANT POINT
While interpreting an instrument to find out whether it is of a testamentary character, which will take effect after the life time of the executant or it is an instrument creating a vested interest in praesenti in favour of a person, Court has to very carefully examine the document as a whole, look into the substance thereof, the treatment of the subject by the settlor/executant, the intention appearing both by the expressed language employed in the instrument and by necessary implication and the prohibition, if any, contained against revocation thereof.

Headnote:Partition suit-Appeal against judgment passed by High Court in Second Appeal whereby High Court reversed the judgments and decrees of the trial Court and the lower appellate Court and dismissed the suit filed by the appellant for partition of his 1/17th share in the suit property- A careful reading of Ex.A-2 showed that in the title itself document had been described as Settlement Deed-By executing said document, original owner had expressed his intention, in no uncertain terms, to settle the property in favour of 16 persons who were none else than his own relatives and declared that ‘from this day onwards I and you shall enjoy the land and house without creating any encumbrance or making any alienation whatsoever.’ -This was an unequivocal creation of right in favour of 16 persons in praesenti- Though, the beneficiaries were to become absolute owners of their respective shares after the death of settlor, language of document clearly showed that all of them were to enjoy the property along with settlor during his lifetime and after his death,each of the beneficiaries was to get a specified share- In the concluding portion, settlor made it clear that he will have no right to cancel Settlement Deed for any reason whatsoever or to alter the terms thereof-The mere fact that beneficiary Nos. 1 and 2 and after them their heirs were to receive honours at the temple or that shares were to be divided after disposal of the property could not lead to an inference that Ex.A-2 was a ‘Will’-If Ex.A-2 was read as a whole, it becomes clear that it was a ‘Settlement Deed’ and the trial Court and the lower appellate Court did not commit any error by recording a finding to that effect- High Court committed serious error by setting aside concurrent judgments and decrees of the two courts- Although, in their written statement respondent Nos.1 and 2 did plead that Ex. A-2 was executed by original owner due to fraud or misrepresentation, no evidence was led by them to substantiate that allegation- Hence held that there was no valid ground or justification to entertain that plea- Impugned judgment of High Court set aside and those of trial Court and lower appellate Court restored-Appeal allowed. (Paras 21 to 24)

       Vested Interest and Contingent Interest-Distinction between- An interest can be said to be a vested interest where there is immediate right of present enjoyment or a present right for future enjoyment- An interest can be said to be contingent if the right of enjoyment is made dependent upon some event which may or may not happen-On the happening of the event, a contingent interest becomes a vested interest. (Para 10)

       Facts of the Case :

       Present Appeal has been filed against judgment passed by High Court in Second Appeal whereby High Court reversed the judgments and decrees of the trial Court and the lower appellate Court and dismissed the suit filed by the appellant for partition of his 1/17th share in the suit property.

       Findings of the Court :

       High Court held that even though Ex.A-2 was titled and described as ‘Settlement Deed’, in reality it was a ‘Will’ executed by original owner.A careful reading of Ex.A-2 showed that in the title itself document had been described as Settlement Deed.By executing said document, original owner had expressed his intention, in no uncertain terms, to settle the property in favour of 16 persons who were none else than his own relatives and declared that ‘from this day onwards I and you shall enjoy the land and house without creating any encumbrance or making any alienation whatsoever.’ .This was an unequivocal creation of right in favour of 16 persons in praesenti. Though, the beneficiaries were to become absolute owners of their respective shares after the death of settlor, language of document clearly showed that all of them were to enjoy the property along with settlor during his lifetime and after his death,each of the beneficiaries was to get a specified share. In the concluding portion, settlor made it clear that he will have no right to cancel Settlement Deed for any reason whatsoever or to alter the terms thereof.The mere fact that beneficiary Nos. 1 and 2 and after them their heirs were to receive honours at the temple or that shares were to be divided after disposal of the property could not lead to an inference that Ex.A-2 was a ‘Will’.If Ex.A-2 was read as a whole, it becomes clear that it was a ‘Settlement Deed’ and the trial Court and the lower appellate Court did not commit any error by recording a finding to that effect. High Court committed serious error by setting aside concurrent judgments and decrees of the two courts. Although, in their written statement respondent Nos.1 and 2 did plead that Ex. A-2 was executed by original owner due to fraud or misrepresentation, no evidence was led by them to substantiate that allegation. Hence held that there was no valid ground or justification to entertain that plea. Impugned judgment of High Court set aside and those of trial Court and lower appellate Court restored-Appeal allowed.