Back
2016 Supreme(P&H) 1248
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
SURINDER GUPTA, J.
Amar Singh - Appellant
Versus
Ram Dhari - Respondent
RSA No. 1185 of 1987 (O&M)
Decided On : 04-08-2016
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. C.B. Goel
For the Respondent: Mr. A.P.S. Sandhu
The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of interpreting a Will based on the intention of the testator as reflected in the recitals of the Will, in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.
Headnote:
Inheritance - Will Interpretation - [Indian Succession Act, 1925, Section 57] - The court discussed the interpretation of a Will executed by Smt. Phullo and its application to the inheritance of land in village Kaul. The key legal provision discussed was Section 57 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, which deals with the interpretation of Wills and the intention of the testator. The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of the Will and the intention of the testator as reflected in the recitals of the Will.
Fact of the Case:
The dispute involved the inheritance of land in village Kaul owned by Smt. Phullo, with the plaintiff claiming natural inheritance and the defendant claiming the property based on a registered Will executed by Smt. Phullo.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Will executed by Smt. Phullo was confined to her property situated in villages Mirzapur and Narkatari only, and did not include the property in village Kaul. The court held in favor of the appellant, setting aside the judgment and decree passed by the Ist Appellate Court and ordering the dismissal of the plaintiff's suit.
Issues: The key issue was the interpretation of the Will executed by Smt. Phullo and whether it pertained to the property in village Kaul or only to the properties in villages Mirzapur and Narkatari.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the Will and the intention of the testator as reflected in the recitals of the Will. The court also cited Section 57 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, in its analysis of the Will.
Final Decision: The appeal was accepted, and the judgment and decree passed by the Ist Appellate Court were set aside, ordering the dismissal of the plaintiff's suit.
Surinder Gupta, J.
The dispute in this appeal relates to inheritance of land measuring 5 kanals 19 marlas situated in village Kaul, Tehsil Kaithal (now District), District Kurukshetra owned by Smt. Phullo, sister of plaintiff-Ram Dhari and defendant-Amar Singh.
2. In later part of the judgment parties will be referred as 'plaintiff' and 'defendant' as per civil suit.
3. Husband of Smt. Phullo pre-deceased her and she died issueless. While plaintiff-Ram Dhari (respondent) is claiming equal share in the suit land on the basis of natural inheritance, defendant-Amar Singh (appellant) claims suit property on the basis of registered Will dated 19.08.1977 executed by Smt. Phullo.
4. Smt. Phullo owned land in three villages, namely, Mirzapur, Narkatari and Kaul. The dispute pertains to inheritance of her land situated at village Kaul as there is no dispute regarding the inheritance of her land situated in villages Mirzapur and Narkatari on the basis of Will dated 19.08.1977.
5. Learned Sub-Judge, Kaithal upheld the execution of Will and dismissed the suit being not maintainable as plaintiff is not in possession of suit property. Learned Ist Appellate Court, however, held plaintiff to be owner of suit land in equal share with defendant with the observation that Will dated 19.08.1977 does not pertain to property of Smt. Phullo situated at village Kaul. The relevant observations made by learned Ist Appellate Court contained in paras 18 and 19 are reproduced as follows:-
“18. The learned counsel for the appellant had argued that there is no denial of the fact that Smt. Phullo Devi had properties at two places, namely at village Kaul and village Narkatari; that bare perusal of the Will would show that the testator had bequeathed her property situated at village Narkatari in favour of the defendant and that being so the plaintiff was entitled to succeed to her property at village Kaul to the extent of half share whereas the remaining half would be succeeded to by the defendant; that the learned trial Court has at least erred in dismissing the suit of the plaintiff with regard to the property at village Kaul. In order to appreciate this argument I have carefully, closely and consciously examined the Will Ex. D1. It is evident that the testator had bequeathed whole of her property situated in villages Mirzapur and Narkatari, Tehsil Thanesar in favour of the defendant. There is no mention with regard to her property at village Kaul in the Will.
19. Learned counsel for the respondent has drawn my pointed attention towards the words “APNI SARI JAYDAD” mentioned twice in the Will and wants this Court to read in the Will that the testator had also bequeathed her movable and immovable property situated at village Kaul in favour of the defendant besides her properties at villages Mirzapur and Narkatari. Moreover, he has further brought to my notice the words “SANKSHEP MEIN JO KUCHH JAHAN KAHIN MRITYU KE SAMAY MERE PASS HO” and has vehemently argued that these words also indicate that she intended to include the property at village Kaul also in the Will. I am not inclined to agree with this argument of the learned counsel inter alia for the following reasons:-
(i) That the parties and Smt. Phullo Devi were residents of village Kaul and that Smt. Phullo Devi had been married at village Narkatari;
(ii) that she had properties at villages Kaul, Mirzapur and Narkatari;
(iii) vide copy of judgment Ex. D3 and decree sheet Ex. D4, it is evident that Smt. Phullo widow of Tulsi had inherited 136 kanals and 18 marlas of land at village Narkatari from her husband Tulsi on his death in the year 1945 vide mutation no. 44 sanctioned on 11.03.1946. By way of decree dated 02.05.1978 in civil suit 'Sudhir Kumar Vs. Smt. Phullan' and Will dated 19.08.1977 she transferred the suit land in favour of Sudhir Kumar, Baldhir Singh and Jalbir Singh sons of Amar Singh, the present defendant. One Singh Ram claiming that after the death of Tulsi Smt. Phullo had started living w
