IMPORTANT POINTS
An attempt should always be made to read two parts of a document harmoniously if possible and when it is found that the title was given in absolute clear terms to a devisee, the later provision dealing with the line of succession on the demise of the first devisee would be repugnant to the earlier disposition and the same cannot be scaled down to a life interest.

JUDGMENT :

1. The 9th defendant who is the appellant herein is the foster daughter of one Narayanan Nambiar and his wife Sreedevi Amma. Narayan Nambiar during his life time had executed Ext.B1 registered Will, by which, the properties were bequeathed to his wife Sreedevi Amma with a further clause that in the event of any property found left out on her demise, the same would go to their foster daughter, the 9th defendant. After the death of Sreedevi Amma, her natural legal heirs came up with the suit claiming right over the property by devolution. It was contested by the 9th defendant, the foster daughter, claiming exclusive right over the property based on the clause in the Will directing ultimate disposition in her favour. Thus, the construction of Ext.B1 Will and the legal validity of ultimate disposition made therein were came up as substantial question of law.

2. This Court in Smitha K.S. and another v. Devaki and another (2020 (2) KHC 42) had the occasion to consider the impact of wording 'after the death of both of us, the property will go to' in a testamentary succession and held that the words indicate only a life interest. It is further held that when an apparently absolute bequest is followed by a gift of the same to another on the demise of the first, then the interest of the first bequest is considered as a life interest only and relied on the legal proposition laid down in Ramachandra Shenoy and another v. Mrs. Hilda Brite and Others (AIR 1964 SC 1323=1964 KHC 561=1964 (2) SCR 722) without noticing the legal position settled by the Privy Council and a Constitution Bench of the Apex Court on the matter.

3. In the year 1935, the Privy Council had laid down the legal position in Rameshwar Bakhsh Singh and others v. Balraj Kaur and others (AIR 1935 PC 187) that where an absolute estate is created by a Will in favour of devisee, the clauses in the Will which are repugnant to such absolute estate cannot cut down the estate; but they must be held to be invalid.

4. In Ramkishorelal and another v. Kamalnarayan (1963 Suppl (2) SCR 417 = AIR 1963 SC 890), the Constitution Bench of the Apex Court settled the legal position that in a disposition of properties where a conflict arises between what is said in one part of the testament viz-a-viz what is stated in another part of the document especially when in the earlier part the bequest is absolute, but the later part of the documents gives a contrary direction about the very same property, the earlier clauses appearing in the Will cannot be diluted or taken away and shall prevail over directions contained in the later part of the disposition. The relevant portion of the judgment is extracted below for reference:

“The golden rule of construction, it has been said, is to ascertain the intention of the parties to the instrument after considering all the words, in their ordinary, natural sense. To ascertain this intention the Court has to consider the relevant portion of the document as a whole and also to take into account the circumstances under which the particular words were used. …................................. .... It is well settled that in case of such a conflict the earlier disposition of absolute title should prevail and the later directions of disposition should be disregarded as unsuccessful attempts to restrict the title already given. It is clear, however, that an attempt should always be made to read the two parts of the document harmoniously, if possible; it is only when this is not possible, e.g. where an absolute title is given in clear and unambiguous terms and the later provisions trench on the same, that the later provisions have to be held to be void.”

5. Subsequently, by referring the above said decisions, the Apex Court in Mauleshwar Mani and others v. Jagdish Prasad and others (AIR 2002 SC 727) had reiterated and summarised the legal position that “ 1)Where under a Will, a testator has bequeathed his absolute interest in the property in favour of his wife, a