Important Point – Interpretation of a Will does not require any evidence.

1. The appellant/plaintiff has assailed an order dated 08.07.2016 passed by the learned trial court, rejecting his suit for declaration, possession, permanent and mandatory injunction instituted against the respondent No.1/defendant No.1 (mother), respondent No.2/defendant No.2 (brother), respondent No.3/defendant No.3 (sister-in-law) and respondent No.4/defendant No.4 (subsequent purchaser). The said suit has been held to be barred under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act and rejected on the basis of an application filed by the respondent No.4/defendant No.4 under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.

2. The undisputed facts of the case are that Shri Himmat Singh, father of the appellant and the respondent No.2, husband of the respondent No.1 and father-in-law of the respondent No.3, was the owner of premises bearing No.7/2 and 7/3/C in RD Ram Roop Vidya Mandir Estate, Sanjay Nagar, Delhi. During his lifetime, Shri Himmat Singh had executed a registered Will dated 07.03.1980. He expired on 12.06.1999, leaving behind his widow, the respondent No.1 and two sons, the appellant and the respondent No.2 as his Class I heirs. Initially, the appellant/plaintiff had instituted a simple suit for permanent and mandatory injunction against the respondents No.1 to 3, for restraining them from transferring, selling or alienating the suit premises. When the respondents No.1 to 3 were served with the summons and had entered appearance in the suit, they filed a joint written statement taking a plea that the respondent No.1/defendant No.1 had executed a gift deed dated 15.06.2007 in respect of the suit premises in favour of her daughter-in-law, the respondent No.3 herein who had in turn had executed a sale deed in respect of the suit premises in favour of the respondent No.4, M/s Ashima Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd.

3. On gaining knowledge of the aforesaid turn of events, the appellant/plaintiff sought leave to withdraw the said suit while reserving his right to file a fresh suit. As a result, the present suit came to be instituted by the appellant/plaintiff, wherein he impleaded his family members as defendants No.1 to 3 and the purchaser of the suit premises as defendant No.4.

4. After pleadings were completed, issues were framed in the suit. At the stage of recording of evidence, the respondent No.4 filed an application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, praying for rejection of the plaint on the ground that the same was devoid of any cause of action and was also barred by law. A reply in opposition to the said application was filed by the appellant/plaintiff.

5. On a perusal of the Will dated 7.3.1980, the learned trial court arrived at the conclusion that the testator, Shri Himmat Singh had not placed any express restriction on the right of the respondent No.1/defendant No.1 to enjoy the suit premises and in such circumstances, her right to create a third party interest therein could not be restricted or inferred by the Court. Resultantly, the application filed by the respondent No.4/defendant No.4 was allowed and the appellant’s suit was dismissed on the ground that it is barred under the provisions of Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act.

6. The gravamen of the arguments addressed by the counsel for the appellant is that under the Will, the deceased had bestowed a life estate in favour of the respondent No.1 and therefore, she could neither execute a gift deed in favour of the respondent No.3 and nor could the respondent No.3 in turn execute a sale deed in favour of the respondent No.4 and both the documents ought to be declared as null and void. In support of his argument, he has cited the following decisions:-

(i) Lakshmana Nadar and Ors. vs. R. Ramier; AIR 1953 SC 304

(ii) Bhura and Ors vs. Kashiram; (1994) 2 SCC 111

(iii) Mauleshwar Mani and Ors. vs. Jagdish Prasad and Ors.; AIR 2002 SC 727

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents No.1 to 3 supports the impugned order and submits that the appellant is trying to misinterpret the subject Wi