Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query..!
Scanned Judgements…!
In estate planning, wills often contain nuanced clauses that can spark disputes among heirs. Imagine a scenario where a testator grants a legatee the right to purchase the share of others in family property or shares. How do courts interpret such provisions? Are they enforceable options, mere wishes, or absolute transfers? This blog delves into the interpretation of clauses in wills whereunder the right is given to the legatee to purchase the share of others, drawing from key legal principles under the Indian Succession Act and related case law. While this provides general insights, consult a legal professional for specific advice.
The question at hand revolves around interpretation of the clauses will whereunder the right to given to the bequathee to purchase the share of other. Courts typically view such clauses as conferring a right or option rather than an absolute gift or devise. Their validity hinges on the testator's intent, gleaned from the entire will, including language, context, and codicils. Bajrang Factory LTD. VS University of Calcutta. - 2007 4 Supreme 513
As emphasized, Clauses in a will that confer a right to a legatee to purchase shares or property from others are generally interpreted as conferring a right or option rather than an absolute gift or devise. Bajrang Factory LTD. VS University of Calcutta. - 2007 4 Supreme 513 This distinction is crucial: words like desire or wish signal non-binding expressions, while bequeath or devise suggest transfers. In one analyzed case, the court noted that the word devise in Clause 7 seemed inappropriate, likely meaning desire instead, rendering it a wish rather than an enforceable bequest. Bajrang Factory LTD. VS University of Calcutta. - 2007 4 Supreme 513
Under the Indian Succession Act, 1925, wills must be construed holistically: The meaning of a will’s clauses must be derived from the entire instrument, with all parts construed together. Bajrang Factory LTD. VS University of Calcutta. - 2007 4 Supreme 513
Courts scrutinize wording. The use of words like 'desire' or 'wish' suggests a non-binding expression, whereas words like 'bequeath' or 'devise' imply a transfer of property. Bajrang Factory LTD. VS University of Calcutta. - 2007 4 Supreme 513 Ambiguous clauses favor validity if not statutorily barred.
The full document governs. Absolute bequests prevail over later clauses, as in a case where an absolute grant to children overrode grandchild provisions: The court found that the Will provided an absolute bequest to the four children of the testator, and the subsequent clauses regarding the grandchildren were redundant. Vikrant Kapila VS Pankaja Panda - 2022 Supreme(Del) 2119
Codicils confirm intent: Codicils, like Clause 12, confirm and incorporate the original clauses and clarify the testator’s intentions. Bajrang Factory LTD. VS University of Calcutta. - 2007 4 Supreme 513
Preemptive or purchase rights appear in various contexts, offering parallels to will clauses:
In share purchase agreements (SPAs), clauses like 7.2A grant directorship continuation post-purchase, but interpretation favors contract terms. Dredging Corporation of India Limited, Represented by its Managing Director, through its Joint Manager (Legal), Smt. V. Usha Rani VS Marrapu Sankara Rao, S/o M. Suryanarayana - 2022 Supreme(AP) 50 Similarly, interconnected SPAs with MOUs invoke arbitration for disputes. Galaxy Properties Private Limited, rep. by its Director VS Puravankara Projects Limited rep. by its Joint Managing Director - 2012 Supreme(Mad) 4904
These cases underscore that purchase rights, whether in wills or contracts, demand clear language and context to enforce.
Not all clauses create binding rights:
Recommendations for Drafting:- Use precise terms like option, desire, or right to purchase.- Align with the will's scheme.- Employ codicils for clarity.- Avoid words implying absolute transfer if option intended. Bajrang Factory LTD. VS University of Calcutta. - 2007 4 Supreme 513
In one SPA, limitations tied liability to dividends, rejecting broader claims. MAJLIS AMANAH RAKYAT vs NAGUIB MOHD NOR Analogously, will clauses should limit scope explicitly.
Legislation cannot retroactively impair vested rights, as in lease disputes: Legislation impairing accrued rights of transferees cannot operate retrospectively. Suresh Bajaj vs State of West Bengal - 2025 Supreme(Cal) 629 This protects bequeathed purchase options post-execution.
Partition Act, Section 4, activates post-sale for buyouts. Kammana Sambamurthy (D) By LRs. VS Kalipatnapu Atchutamma (D) - 2010 7 Supreme 171 Hindu Succession Act, Section 22, governs preemptive family rights. Vishnubhai Babubhai Jhaveri VS Bhupendra Babubhai Jhaveri - 2022 Supreme(Guj) 543
In summary, clauses granting legatees purchase rights are typically options, not absolutes, shaped by intent and context. While informative, this is general analysis based on precedents like Bajrang Factory LTD. VS University of Calcutta. - 2007 4 Supreme 513, Vikrant Kapila VS Pankaja Panda - 2022 Supreme(Del) 2119, and others—not legal advice. For tailored guidance, seek expert counsel to safeguard your legacy.
References:- Bajrang Factory LTD. VS University of Calcutta. - 2007 4 Supreme 513: Indian Succession Act principles on will construction.- Vikrant Kapila VS Pankaja Panda - 2022 Supreme(Del) 2119: Absolute bequests prevailing.- Vishnubhai Babubhai Jhaveri VS Bhupendra Babubhai Jhaveri - 2022 Supreme(Guj) 543: Preemptive rights in family property.- And additional sources as cited.
#WillInterpretation #InheritanceLaw #EstatePlanning
The interpretation of Section 111A of the Companies Act, 1956 as given by the majority in itself is akin to a restriction being placed on free transferability of shares. ... (c) Upon the Sale Notice being given, the Other Shareholder shall have the right, exercisable at its sole discretion, to purchase all, but not less than all, of the Offer Shares. ... The Union of India offered a value of Rs.101.65 per share calling upon the Claimant to indicate their willingness to buy the Called ....
Vasudevan Nedungadi also filed O.S.No. 2 of 1990 for declaration that the four sons donot get absolute right in the property in as much as he has exercised the rights given to him under the Will of the owner to purchase their right by payment of money. ... 4. ... Vasu Nedungadi surrendered his share of business after dissolving the partnership to Vasudevan Nedungadi on receipt of consideration by his children. What remained was only his share of right in a portion of ....
The beneficiaries will not have any power to dispose of their share of the property in any manner whatsoever. They will have the right to enjoy their share of the property but will not have the right to make any Will with respect to their share. ... According to us, no other reading can give a more purposeful interpretation to the Will. If we are to agree with the interpretation of the Will sought to be given by the appellants then it cannot be #HL_S....
[17] The Defendant then issued a notice dated 28 June 2019 exercising his right to purchase the 300,000 shares held by MARA under cl 11 of the Shareholder's Agreement. ... of the contract so that the contract clauses can be construed harmoniously and effect can be given to the express words in all the contract clauses as far as possible; (d) if the natural and ordinary meaning of the words is clear and unambiguous, the Court will give effect to the ... (Issue 2) [23] For ease of reference I reproduce t....
predecease her, shall have full right to the same one-fourth share of the Trust property enjoyed by Mrs. ... Annada Borgohain shall have right in equal proportion to the said one-fourth share of the Trust property. The heir of a pre-deceased son of Mrs. ... Annada Borgohain shall get the same share as the son would have got if he had survived her:- ... * * * * ... Clause 20.- No beneficiaries shall have right to transfer by way of sale the whole or any part of his undivided s....
The writ petitioner raised specific ground that the learned single Judge did not consider the clauses 7.2A, 7.4 and 11 of Share Purchase Agreement (SPA) dated 08.03.2019 whereunder the appellant/petitioner is entitled to continue as Director of respondent No.2 - Corporation, but simply relying on clauses ... Learned single Judge also did not consider the balance tenure of writ petitioner for a period 15 months and mainly concentrated on interpretation of various clauses#HL_EN....
The writ petitioner raised specific ground that the learned single Judge did not consider the clauses 7.2A, 7.4 and 11 of Share Purchase Agreement (SPA) dated 08.03.2019 whereunder the appellant/petitioner is entitled to continue as Director of respondent No.2 – Corporation, but simply relying on clauses ... Learned single Judge also did not consider the balance tenure of writ petitioner for a period 15 months and mainly concentrated on interpretation of various clauses#HL_E....
The writ petitioner raised specific ground that the learned single Judge did not consider the clauses 7.2A, 7.4 and 11 of Share Purchase Agreement (SPA) dated 08.03.2019 whereunder the appellant/petitioner is entitled to continue as Director of respondent No.2 – Corporation, but simply relying on clauses ... Learned single Judge also did not consider the balance tenure of writ petitioner for a period 15 months and mainly concentrated on interpretation of various clauses#HL_E....
On 25.11.1971 the Irrigation and Waterways Department, Government of West Bengal issued a memo dated 25.11.1971 whereby and whereunder it has been decided by the Government to treat the aforementioned three clauses of the said lease deed as deleted. ... 21 numbers of clauses. ... Urgent photostat certified copy of this judgement, if applied for, be given to the parties on completion of usual formalities. ... Bihani that the respondent no.4 has also miserably failed to construe the true spirit of the memo dated 21.02.1986....
Galaxy properties Private Limited along with Nile Developers Private Ltd., and its two Directors entered into a Share Purchase Agreement with the Respondent on 22.11.2007, whereby and whereunder, the Appellant has agreed to purchase the shares of Nile. ... In both the Share Purchase Agreements, there is reference to mother MOU (22.11.2006) and amended MOU (22.11.2007). In this regard, we may usefully refer to Clauses 3(a) and 3(b) of Share ....
There are clauses being substituted or subsequent modification of clauses between the Share Purchase Agreement when viewed alongside with the Tripartite Agreement. It is reiterated that the Tripartite Agreement with the IFCI Venture Capital was meant only to protect the interests of the financier so that it does not act coercively against respondent No.1.
It is contended that parties are Hindus and they have pre-emptive right to purchase the shares of other coparcenar if the other coparcenar wants to sell to third party. According to the plaintiffs, though they have preferential right to purchase the share of other co-owners, defendant Nos. 1 and 2 did not make any offer regarding the sale of their undivided share to the plaintiffs and they have sold it i.e. defendant Nos. 1 and 2, their undivided shares in joint family property to defendant Nos.
Clause J of the recitals in ‘Share Purchase Agreement – A’ dated November 29, 2001 notes– The relevant clauses of the Share Purchase Agreement are quoted as under. “J. The Purchaser has conducted a financial, technical and legal due diligence as to the affairs and financial position of the Unit transferred to the Company and in this context has done a complete and thorough review of the Date Room Documents (as defined hereafter).” The Share Purchase Agreement dated November 29, 2001 was executed and is filed.
3 has right to purchase to exclude the outsider who holds an equitable right of purchase of the shares of other defendants.
4) Whether the suit contract of sale is not voidable having been made by the ostensible owner, the first defendant and as the plaintiff acted in good faith? 2) Whether the suit house contract of sale binds the second defendant? 3) Whether the second defendant has got the right to purchase the half share of the first defendant?
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
