Madras High Court
V. RAMASWAMI
Ramaswami Naidu - Appellant
Versus
Gopalakrishna Naidu - Respondent
Decided On : 02/24/1977
WILL OR SETTLEMENT - TRANSFER OF INTEREST - DISPOSITION IN PRAESENTI OR ON DEATH OF EXECUTANT - INTERPRETATION OF DOCUMENT - REVOCABILITY OF WILL - INCOME ENJOYMENT AND RESTRICTION ON ALIENATION DURING EXECUTANT'S LIFETIME - CONSTRUCTION OF DOCUMENT AS WILL.
Fact of the Case:
The issue before the court was whether a document executed by Nachar Ammal was a will or a settlement. The document was styled as a settlement deed and registered as such. It stated that the executant, out of love and affection for the plaintiffs, intended to make them absolute owners of the property after her lifetime. The disposition clause stated that the plaintiffs would take the property absolutely after the executant's lifetime, with all rights of alienation, and that the patta would be transferred to them. The executant was entitled to enjoy the income from the properties during her lifetime and had no power to encumber or alienate the property.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the document was a will and not a settlement. The court applied the test of whether the disposition of interest in the property was in praesenti in favor of the settlees or whether it was to take effect on the death of the executant. The court found that the disposition was to take effect on the death of the executant, as the plaintiffs were to take the properties only after her death. The court also held that the clause restricting the executant's powers of alienation during her lifetime did not enlarge the plaintiffs' interest and make it a disposition in praesenti.
Issues: 1. Whether the document executed by Nachar Ammal was a will or a settlement. 2. Whether the disposition of interest in the property was in praesenti in favor of the settlees or whether it was to take effect on the death of the executant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the test of whether the disposition of interest in the property was in praesenti in favor of the settlees or whether it was to take effect on the death of the executant. The court found that the disposition was to take effect on the death of the executant, as the plaintiffs were to take the properties only after her death. The court also held that the clause restricting the executant's powers of alienation during her lifetime did not enlarge the plaintiffs' interest and make it a disposition in praesenti.
Final Decision: The court held that the document was a will and not a settlement and dismissed the plaintiffs' second appeal.
Key Points: - The core test is whether the disposition of interest is in praesenti to the settlee or takes effect on the death of the executant (!) (!) . - The document being styled and registered as a settlement does not determine its nature; substance over form applies (!) . - The clause restricting the executant’s power to alienate property does not enlarge the plaintiffs’ interest if the disposition is only upon death (!) (!) . - A will is inherently revocable, and declaring it irrevocable does not change its nature (!) (!) . - Restrictive clauses during the executant’s lifetime are consistent with a settlement but do not change a will if there is no present disposition (!) (!) .
JUDGMENT :- The question that arises for consideration in this second appeal by the plaintiff' s is whether the deed dated 5-7-1962 executed by one Nachar Ammal is a will or a settlement. If it is construed as a will, the plaintiffs' suit is liable to be dismissed, and if it is construed as a settlement, the plaintiffs will succeed. Though the trial court held that it is a settlement deed, the lower appellate court held that it is a will and dismissed the suit.
2. The document is styled as a settlement deed. It was also registered as such. In the preamble of the document, it is stated that out of natural love and affection for the first plaintiff and his wife the second plaintiff who are the son and daughter-in-law of the executant' s paternal uncle and with a view to make them absolute owners after her lifetime, she is executing the document. In the disposition clause, it was stated that after the lifetime of the executant, the property will have to be taken and enjoyed absolutely with all rights of alienation by the plaintiffs and that the
patta also will have to be transferred in favour of the plaintiff after her lifetime. The document further provided that during her lifetime, the executant was entitled to enjoy the income from the properties and without any power to encumber the property or in any way alienate the same. It was also stated that the executant had no right to either change or revoke the settlement deed for any reason.
3. The broad tests or characteristics as to what constitutes a will and what constitutes a settlement have been noticed in a number of decisions. But the main test to find out whether the document constitutes a will or a gift is to see whether the disposition of the interest in the property is in praesenti in favour of the settlees or whether the disposition is to take effect on the death of the executant. If the disposition is to take effect on the death of the executant, it would be a will. But if the executant divests his interest in the property and vests his interest in praesenti in the settlee, the document will be a settlement. The general principle also is that the document should be read as a whole and it is the substance of the document that matters and not the form or the nomenclature the parties have adopted. The various clauses in the document are only a guide to find out whether there was an immediate divestiture of the interest of the executant or whether the disposition was to take effect on the death of the executant. If the clause relating to the disposition is clear and unambiguous, most of the other clauses will be ineffective and explainable and could not change the character of the disposition itself. For instance, the clause prohibiting a revocation of the deed on any ground would not change the nature of the document itself, if under the document there was no disposition in praesenti. In such a case the clause prohibiting revocation will be contrary to law and will be ineffective. If, on the other hand, the document is a settlement, merely because a right of revocation is given, it would not change the character of the document as a settlement because such a clause will be against law and will be invalid. The nomenclature of the document nor the fact that it had been registered also will not be of any assistance in most of the cases unless the disposition is very ambiguous and extraneous aid is required to construe that clause.
4. In this case, one other important circumstance which calls for special mention and consideration is the clause to the effect that the executant was to enjoy the income from the properties during her lifetime and that she will not have any right to encumber the property or in any way dispose of the same during her lifetime. This clause is normally consistent with a document being a settlement and a transfer of an interest in praesenti but the right to possession and the right to income being postponed to a future date. But as already stat
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.