Back
2016 Supreme(Del) 2352
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
VALMIKI J. MEHTA, J.
Smt. Suman Lata - Appellant
Versus
Sh. Amit Kumar & Anr. - Respondents
RSA No. 395 of 2015
Decided On : 18-07-2016
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Amarjit Singh
For the Respondents: Mr. Paritosh
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the interpretation of a Will should be based on the intention of the testator as expressed in the language of the Will. The court also emphasized the importance of giving effect to every disposition contained in the Will unless the law prevents effect being given to it.
Headnote:
Will Interpretation - Property Ownership - Indian Succession Act, 1925 - [Section 100 of CPC] - [Section 88 of Indian Succession Act, 1925] - [Summary of Acts and Sections: The judgment discusses the interpretation of the admitted Will dated 5.5.1992 left behind by late Sh. Sant Ram Sachdev. The key legal provisions discussed include Section 88 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, which deals with the last of two inconsistent clauses prevailing, and the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Navneet Lal @ Rangi Vs. Gokul & Ors. (1976) 1 SCC 630, which lays down five rules while construing/interpreting a Will. The court's decision is influenced by the interpretation of the Will and the effect of the later part of the Will, which states that after the death of the appellant/plaintiff and her husband, the suit property and all other properties of late Sh. Sant Ram Sachdev will be owned by respondent no.1 and his brother Sh. Krishan Kumar.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant filed a Regular Second Appeal against the Judgment of the First Appellate Court, which reversed the Judgment of the Trial Court and dismissed the suit for permanent and mandatory injunctions and mesne profits with respect to the suit property no.C-169, Pandav Nagar, Delhi-92. The main issue was the interpretation of the admitted Will dated 5.5.1992 left behind by late Sh. Sant Ram Sachdev, determining whether the appellant became an absolute owner of the suit property or only received a life interest under the Will.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant and her husband became joint absolute co-owners of the suit property. It also held that the Will gave absolute ownership of the suit property to the appellant and her husband, with the condition that whatever will remain and subsist out of the suit property as on the date of the death of the appellant/plaintiff and her husband would vest with the respondent no.1/defendant no.1 and his brother Sh. Krishan Kumar. The court dismissed the appeal, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
Issues: The main issues were the interpretation of the admitted Will dated 5.5.1992 and whether the appellant became an absolute owner of the suit property or only received a life interest under the Will. Another issue was whether the later part of the Will, stating that after the death of the appellant/plaintiff and her husband, the suit property and all other properties of late Sh. Sant Ram Sachdev will be owned by respondent no.1 and his brother Sh. Krishan Kumar, was inconsistent with the earlier part of the Will giving absolute interest to the appellant/plaintiff and her husband.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of the Will and the effect of the later part of the Will, which states that after the death of the appellant/plaintiff and her husband, the suit property and all other properties of late Sh. Sant Ram Sachdev will be owned by respondent no.1 and his brother Sh. Krishan Kumar.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the Regular Second Appeal, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.
Valmiki J. Mehta, J.
1. This Regular Second Appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) is filed by the appellant/plaintiff against the Judgment of the First Appellate Court dated 13.10.2015 which reversed the Judgment of the Trial Court dated 27.3.2015 whereby the trial court had decreed the suit of the appellant/plaintiff for permanent and mandatory injunctions and mesne profits with respect to the suit property no.C-169, Pandav Nagar, Delhi-92. The effect of the judgment of the first appellate court is that the suit of the appellant/plaintiff has been dismissed both for mandatory and permanent injunctions as also for mesne profits. I may note that appellant/plaintiff by claiming mandatory injunction, was effectively claiming possession of the suit property.
2. The sole issue to be decided in the present case is interpretation of the admitted Will dated 5.5.1992 left behind by late Sh. Sant Ram Sachdev who is the father-in-law of the appellant/plaintiff i.e the father of Sh. Raj Kumar, the husband of the appellant/plaintiff. Two issues arise as regards the interpretation of this Will. The first issue is as to whether the appellant/plaintiff became an absolute owner of the suit property or only received a life interest under the Will whereby there remained a right of remainder interest in the respondent no.1/defendant no.1 and his brother Sh. Krishan Kumar as per the Will dated 5.5.1992 of late Sh. Sant Ram Sachdev. The second issue is that even if the Will dated 5.5.1992 does not give a remainder interest to the respondent no.1/defendant no.1 and his brother Sh. Krishan Kumar, even then can it be said that the appellant/plaintiff is not entitled to the reliefs effectively of possession and mesne profits qua the suit property inasmuch as appellant/plaintiff was only one of the absolute co-owner, with her husband and the father of the respondent no.1/defendant no.1 and Sh. Krishan Kumar, being the other absolute co-owner, who has died intestate, and hence the respondent no.1 as the son inherited his share in the suit property out of the share of his father/Sh. Raj Kumar. The first appellate court has dismissed the suit by observing that interpretation of the Will even if the same shows that the appellant/plaintiff did not receive only life interest but was the absolute co-owner of the suit property, she was only one co-owner with the other co-owner being her husband Sh. Raj Kumar, and since her husband Sh. Raj Kumar (and the father of the respondent no.1) has died intestate, the respondent no.1/defendant no.1 would become one of the co-owners of the suit property by inheriting 1/3rd share out of the half share of his father Sh. Raj Kumar in the suit property, and that therefore he could not be evicted from the same. The relevant paras of the judgment of the first appellate court are paras 37 to 42 and these paras read as under:-
“37. Looking the facts of the case from the other angle as well, assuming that the intention of the testator is to make the respondent Smt. Suman Lata and her husband Lt. Sh. Raj Kumar absolute owner of the suit property by the testator as per his Will dated 05.05.1992, still the respondent cannot be termed as the absolute owner of the suit property as per the Will dt. 05.05.1992, the relevant portion of Will Ex.PW1/A is as under: "I, the testator am the absolute owner uptill as I am alive, and after my death the said testimony my son and daughter-in-law (Sh. Raj Kumar S/o Sh. Sant Ram Sachdev and Smt. Suman Lata w/o Sh. Raj Kumar) shall before the absolute owner of the abovesaid property, who will be free to use, enjoy, sell, mortgage gift or transfer the same to any other person as they like without any interference or disturbance from other legal heirs, and he will also become the holder of my bank account or other movable and immovable property which have not been mentioned in this deed and after the death of the said testimonies Sh. Raj Kumar and Smt. Suman Lata W/o
