Second appeal over interpretation of a will bequeathing properties to nephews with a clause favouring the testator's widow. The High Court held that reading the will as a whole showed absolute rights in the widow, with only residue to legatees, and dismissed the appeal.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
PRESENT
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE C.PRATHEEP KUMAR FRIDAY, THE 12TH DAY OF APRIL 2024 / 23RD CHAITHRA, 1946
RSA NO. 1016 OF 2005
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT DATED 09.12.2004 IN AS NO.113 OF 1999 OF SUB COURT, NEYYATTINKARA ARISING OUT OF THE JUDGMENT DATED 29.07.1999 IN OS.563 OF 1997 OF I ADDITIONAL MUNSIFF COURT,NEYYATTINKARA
APPELLANT/APPELLANT/PLAINTIFF:
S.KRISHNANKUTTY NAIR RESIDING AT THUNDUVADAKKETHIL VEEDU, T.C.40/1061, NEAR MUKKOLAKKAL TEMPLE, SREEVARAHAM, MANACAUD P.O, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.
BY ADVS. SRI.L.MOHANAN SMT.LIGEY ANTONY
RESPONDENTS/RESPONDENTS/DEFENDANTS 1 & 3:
2 DAISY YESUDASAN W/O. LATE YESUDASAN RESIDING AT GRACE VILLA, PULIMUTTOM, NEYYATTINKARA
BY ADV SRI.G.S.REGHUNATH
THIS REGULAR SECOND APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 9.4.2024, THE COURT ON 12.04.2024 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
2
RSA.1016/2005
J U D G M E N T
Dated this the 12th day of April, 2024
This is a Second appeal filed by the appellant in AS No.113 of 1999 on the file of Sub Court, Neyyattinkara, who is the plaintiff in OS.No.563/1997 on the file of Munsiff Court, Neyyattinkara, against the dismissal of his suit by the trial court as well as the First Appellate Court.
3
RSA.1016/2005
per order in IA.No.1/2005 dated 9.4.2024). As per Exhibit A1 will, the appellant claims absolute right over plaint schedule item No.A to D properties subject to life interest of 1st respondent. The authority of the 1st respondent to execute Exhibit A2 Sale Deed is the subject matter in dispute involved in this case.
RSA.1016/2005
4
“Have not the courts below erred in dismissing the suit considering and interpreting Ext.A1 will relying on an isolated sentence only, without gathering the intention of the testator as to whether his intention was to bequeath the properties to the legatees providing only life interest for his wife in relation to the immovable properties scheduled?”
detail.
5
RSA.1016/2005
of a will, the true intention of the testator is to be gathered by reading the will as a whole. In the decision in Navneet Lal alias
Rangi v. Gokul and Others [(1976) 1 SCC 630] the principles to
be followed while construing a will, are enumerated in paragraph 8 as follows:
(1) In construing a document whether in English or in vernacular the fundamental rule is to ascertain the intention from the words used; the surrounding circumstances are to be considered; but that is only for the purpose of finding out the intended meaning of the words which have actually been employed. (Ram Gopal v. Nand Lal and Others [1950 SCR 766 at p.772: AIR 1951 SC 139 at page 141])
(2) In construing the language of the Will the court is entitled to put itself into the testator's armchair (Venkata Narasimha v. Parthasarathy [1913 (41) Ind App 51 at p.73 (PC)]) and is bound to bear in mind also other matters than merely the words used. It must consider the surrounding circumstances, the position of the testator, his family relationship, the probability that he would use words in a particular sense....But all this is solely as an aid to arriving at a right construction of the Will, and to ascertain the meaning of its language when used by that particular testator in that document. Venkata Narasimha's case supra and Gnanambal Ammal v. T. Raju Ayyar and Others [1950 SCR 949 AT P.955: AIR 1951 SC 103 AT PP 105-6]
RSA.1016/2005
6
(3) The true intention of the testator has to be gathered not by attaching importance to isolated expressions but by reading the will as a whole with all its provisions and ignoring none of them as redundant or contradictory (Raj Bajrang Bahadur Singh v. Thakurain Bakhtraj Kuer [1953 SCR 232 AT P.240 -(AIR 1953 SC 7 AT P 9])
(4) The court must accept, if possible, such construction as would give to every expression some effect rather than that which would render any of the expression inoperative. The court will look at the circumstances under which the testator makes his will, such as the state of his property, of his family and the like. Where apparently conflicting dispositions can be reconciled by giving full effect to every word used in a document, such a construction should be accepted instead of a construction which would have the effect of cutting down the clear meaning of the words used by the testator. Further, where one of the two reasonable constructions would lead to intestacy, that should be discarded in favour of a construction which does not create any such hiatus. Paerey Lal v. Rameshwar Das[1963 Supp (2) SCR834 at pp.839-842: AIR 1963 SC 1703 at pp.1705-1706]
(5) It is one of the cardinal principles of construction of wills that to the extent that it is legally possible effect should be given to every disposition contained in the will unless the law prevents effect being given to it. Of course, if there are two repugnant provisions conferring successive interests, if the first interest created is valid the subsequent interest cannot take effect but a Court of construction will proceed to the farthest extent to avoid repugnancy, so that effect could be given as far as possible to every testamentary
RSA.1016/2005
7
intention contained in the Will. (Ramachandra Shenoy and Another v. Mrs. Hilda Brite and Other[1964 (2) SCR 722 at p735: AIR 1964 SC 1323 at pp.1328-1329]).
The same view was held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Navneet
Lal (supra) , relied upon by the first appellate Court and Ganesh Bhandary V. Ambunhi [1989 (2) KLT 882] relied upon by the trial court.
8
RSA.1016/2005
relating to conferring right over the schedule properties in favour of the 1st respondent, it is evident that the testator wanted to confer absolute and unfettered right and title including possession over the entire scheduled properties on the 1st respondent and wanted to bequeath only the residue after the death of the 1st respondent on the legatees.
In the result, Second Appeal is dismissed with costs.
Sd/C. PRATHEEP KUMAR,
JUDGE
sou.
RSA.1016/2005
9
APPENDIX
APPELLANT'S EXHIBITS
EXHIBIT A2 - COPY OF SALE DEED NO.235/1997
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the courts below erred in interpreting Ext.A1 will by an isolated sentence instead of gathering the testator's overall intention as to whether the wife had only a life interest in the schedule
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Navneet Lal alias Rangi v. Gokul and OthersRelied on¶7
(1976) 1 SCC 630 · Who else cites this
Ganesh Bhandary v. AmbunhiReferred¶7
1989 (2) KLT 882
S. Krishnankutty Nair
Seethalekshmi Amma
Daisy Yesudasan
C. Pratheep Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
