SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2016 Supreme(SC) 897

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
R.K. AGRAWAL, ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN, JJ.
Madhuri Ghosh & Anr. – Appellants
VS.
Debobroto Dutta & Anr. – Respondents
CIVIL APPEAL NO.10742 of 2016 (Arising out of SLP(C) No.4994 of 2014)
Decided On : 09-11-2016

IMPORTANT POINT
Where an absolute bequest has been made in respect of certain property to certain persons, then a subsequent bequest made qua the same property later in the same Will to other persons will be of no effect.

Headnote:(a) Interpretation of Will – Testator declaring that after his death the property shall vest in his wife and elder daughter jointly – Testator further stating that after death of his wife, the said daughter shall become the “exclusive” owner of the said house No.77 and that if his daughter was to predecease his wife, then his wife shall become the “exclusive” owner – The Will thus granting an absolute right to the property jointly in favour of the widow and the elder daughter – There is nothing to infer grant of only a limited interest in favour of the widow and the elder daughter – Impugned judgment not sustainable. (Para 11)

       (b) Interpretation of Will – Absolute bequest made in respect of certain property to certain persons – Subsequent bequest made qua the same property later in the same Will to other persons – Will be of no effect. (Para 12)

       1963 Supp (2) SCR 417; (2002) 2 SCC 468 – Relied upon

       Facts of the case:

       By a registered Will one Ajit Kumar Ghosh bequeathed House No.77, Ram Bagh, Allahabad to his wife and elder daughter jointly. He went on to state in the aforesaid Will that after the death of his wife and his elder daughter, various other lineal descendants would become owners of specified parts of the immovable property, namely, House No.77.

       After death of Shri Ajit Kumar Ghosh his widow and elder daughter filed Suit No.747/2001 before the Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Allahabad, claiming that the plaintiffs be declared as joint owners of one half of house no.77 by virtue of the Will dated 21st January, 2000.

       Whereas the trial Court found that only a life interest was created in the said property in favour of the widow and the elder daughter, the first appellate Court found that in view of the unequivocal language of the said Will that an absolute interest had been created in favour of the plaintiffs, and therefore set aside the order of the trial Court, to the extent that the trial Court held that only a life interest had been so created.

       In second appeal the High Court held that that in fact only a life interest was created by the Will dated 21st January, 2000 in favour of the plaintiffs and that therefore, the second appeal would have to be allowed and the trial Court decree reinstated.

       Finding of the Court:

       Impugned judgment is not sustainable.

       Result: Appeal allowed.

JUDGMENT

R.F.Nariman, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The present appeal arises out of a judgment dated 5th July, 2013 passed by the High Court of Allahabad in which a second appeal has been allowed reinstating the trial Court decree, in which a certain Will has been construed to confer only a life interest on the plaintiffs.

3. The brief facts necessary to decide this appeal are as follows.

4. By a registered Will dated 21st January, 2000, one Ajit Kumar Ghosh bequeathed House No.77, Ram Bagh, Allahabad to his wife and elder daughter jointly. He went on to state in the aforesaid Will that after the death of his wife and his elder daughter, various other lineal descendants would become owners of specified parts of the immovable property, namely, House No.77. Since the bone of contention revolves around the correct construction of this Will, paragraphs 2 and 4 of the Will are set out herein:

“2. That house no.77, Ram Bagh, Allahabad was inherited by me from my mother Smt. Subodh Bala Ghose vide registered Will dated 27.2.83 and I am the absolute owner of said immovable property. So long as I am alive I shall be the exclusive owner of the said property and after my death my said house no.77, Ram Bagh, Allahabad shall vest on my wife Smt. Madhuri Ghose and my elder daughter Sunanda Ghose jointly. After the death of my wife Smt. Madhuri Ghose my daughter Km. Sunanda Ghose shall become the exclusive owner of the said house property no.77, Ram Bagh, Allahabad. In case Km. Sunanda Ghose predeceases my wife Smt. Madhuri Ghose, then Smt. Madhuri Ghose shall become the exclusive owner of the said house property No.77, Ram Bagh, Allahabad. The ownership of my Ambassadar Car No.UPD 2575 shall pass on to my wife Smt. Madhuri Ghose.

4. That after the death of my wife Smt. Madhuri Ghose and my daughter Km. Sunanda Gosh, my grandson Indranil Chaudhary son of Amit Chaudhary R/o AE-232, Sector Salt Lake City Calcutta shall become the owner of the ground floor of house no.77, Ram Bagh, Allahabad and he shall be exclusive owner of the said portion and my grand daughter Km. Mohana Chaudhary d/o Amit Chaudhary r/o AE-232, Sector Salt Lake City Calcutta shall become the exclusive owner of second floor of house No.77, Ram Bagh, Allahabad and my grand son Devopriyo Dutta s/o Devobrito Dutto r/o 77, Ram Bagh, Allahabad shall become the owner of Ist floor of house no.77, Ram Bagh, Allahabad and none else shall have any right or title on the said house.”

5. Shri Ajit Kumar Ghosh died on 18th June, 2001. His widow and elder daughter filed Suit No.747/2001 before the Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Allahabad on 8th October, 2001, in which it was claimed that the plaintiffs be declared as joint owners of one half of house no.77 by virtue of the Will dated 21st January, 2000. Paragraph 1 of the plaint expressly stated that the mother-in-law of plaintiff No.1 had bequeathed house no.77 jointly to her son and daughter-in-law i.e. plaintiff No.1, and that therefore the relief claimed against the defendants, who are other family members, would be confined to a declaration of the other half of the property which was the subject matter of the bequest. This position was not disputed by the defendants, and hence the parties went to trial basically on two issues -

(I) whether a subsequent Will propounded by the defendants dated 4th June, 2001 superseded the Will dated 21st January, 2000 and must, therefore, be given effect and (II) if not, what is the correct construction of the Will dated 21st January, 2000. Suffice it to say that it has concurrently been found by the learned Additional Civil Judge and the Additional District Judge in first appeal, that the Will dated 4th June, 2001 was not proved. The only question, therefore, which survived was the correct construction of the registered Will dated 21st January, 2000.

6. Whereas the trial Court found that only a life interest was created in the said property in favour of the widow and the elder daughter, the first appellat



















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top