Back
2019 Supreme(P&H) 1767
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Anil Kshetarpal, J.
Barinder Singh Randhawa - Appellants
Versus
Jai Partap Singh And Another - Respondent
RSA No.436 of 2017 (O&M)
Decided On : 06-03-2019
Ms. G.K. Mann, Advocate for the appellants; Mr. S.S. Majithia, Advocate, for the respondents.
The interpretation of a will should be based on the entire instrument and its clauses, and the intention of the testator should not be set aside.
Headnote:
WILL INTERPRETATION - PROPERTY DISPUTE - Indian Succession Act, 1925 - Section 82, Section 85, Section 87
Fact of the Case:
Dispute over the estate of Smt. Paramjit Kaur, involving conflicting interpretations of her will and subsequent will of her husband Kashmir Singh Randhawa.
Finding of the Court:
The lower courts erred in interpreting the will of Smt. Paramjit Kaur as conferring a limited estate to her husband, Kashmir Singh Randhawa. The court found that the will did not restrict the estate of the first beneficiary and that the intention of the testator was to disinherit her estranged daughter-in-law and her heirs.
Issues: Interpretation of the will, framing of issues by the trial court, correctness and validity of the subsequent will executed by Kashmir Singh Randhawa.
Ratio Decidendi: The interpretation of a will should be based on the entire instrument and its clauses, and the intention of the testator should not be set aside. The court must carefully examine each sentence or clause of the will to deduce the correct conclusion.
Final Decision: The Regular Second Appeal is allowed, and the case is remitted back to the trial court to frame an issue on the validity of the subsequent will executed by Kashmir Singh Randhawa.
JUDGMENT
Anil Kshetarpal, J. - Defendants-appellants are in the Regular Second Appeal against the judgments passed by both the Courts below.
2. In the considered view of this Court, following questions of law arise for consideration by this Court:-
1) Whether an absolute bequest in favour of a beneficiary can be treated to be a restricted life estate merely on the ground that the testator had also regulated the bequest after the death of first beneficiary?
2) Whether the issues are to be framed by the trial Court on the basis of various prayer made in the suit or the issues are required to be framed in accordance with Order XIV Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure i.e. material propositions of fact or law affirmed by one party and denied by other party and each material proposition has to be the subject matter of separate and distinct issue?
3. A short pedigree table would be convenient to understand the inter se relationship between the parties:-
4. Dispute in the present case is with respect to the estate of Smt. Paramjit Kaur who died on 05.01.2010. Her husband Kashmir Singh Advocate died on 29.03.2011 whereas Jaskaran Pal Singh died on 25.12.2011. Kashmir Singh also allegedly executed a registered Will in favour of his son Barinder Singh, appellant on 09.09.2010.
5. Plaintiffs Jai Partap Singh and Veer Partap Singh, minor sons of late Jaskaran Pal Singh through their mother Kanwaljit Kaur, widow of late Jaskaran Pal Singh filed this suit for declaration claiming that they are owners of the property to the extent of half share jointly.
6. Defendants namely Barinder Singh and his son Manpartap Singh contested the suit by pleading that on the death of Paramjit Kaur, Kashmir Singh became absolute owner of the property and Kashmir Singh during his lifetime bequeathed the property exclusively in favour of Barinder Singh vide registered Will dated 09.09.2010.
7. Learned trial Court framed the issues based upon the reliefclaimed. This is not the mandate of Order XIV of the Code of Civil Procedure. The issues are not to be framed on the basis of relief claimed. Each material proposition of fact and law has to be the subject matter of separate and distinct issue. This Court has noticed that a wrong practice has developed in the trial Courts to frame the issues on the basis of the relief claimed. Attention of the Courts is drawn towards mandate of Order XIV Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure which should be followed by the Courts in letter and spirit. The issues framed by the trial Court are extracted as under:-
"I. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to relief of declaration, as prayed for in the head note of the plaint? OPP.
2. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to relief of permanent injunction, as prayed for in the head note of the plaint? OPP.
3. Whether the present suit is not legally maintainable? OPD.
4. Whether plaintiffs have no right, title and interest in the suit property? OPD.
5. Relief."
8. Order XIV Rule 1 CPC is extracted as under:-
"ORDER XIV-
SETTLEMENT OF ISSUES AND DETERMINATION OF
SUIT ON ISSUES OF LAW OR ON ISSUES AGREED UPON
1. Framing of issues
(1) Issues arise when a material
proposition of fact or law is affirmed by the one party and
denied by the other.
(2) Material propositions are those propositions of law orfact which a plaintiff must allege in order to show a right to sue or a defendant must allege in order to constitute his defence.
(3) Each material proposition affirmed by one party denied by the other shall form the subject of distinct issue.
(4) Issues are of two kinds :
(a) issues of fact,
(b) issues of law.
(5) At the first hearing of the suit the Court shall, after reading the plaint and the written statements, if any, and [after examination under rule 2 of Order X and after hearing the parties or their pleaders], ascertain upon what material propositions of fact or of law the parties are at variance, and shall thereupon proceed to frame and record the issues on which the right decision of the c
