Delhi High Court
Rajeev Kumar & Anr. vs Sanjeev Kumar & Ors. on 17 April, 2025
Author: Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
Bench: Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav
$-
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV
+ CS(OS) 416/2021 and CRL.M.A. 5518/2023, I.A. 15269/2021, I.A.
18098/2022
RAJEEV KUMAR
SON OF LATE SHRI SHADI LAL KUMAR,
R/O. WZ-692, FIRST FLOOR,
SHIV NAGAR EXTENSION,
NEW DELHI-110058
MOBILE NO.9212376741 .....PLAINTIFF NO.1
SH. RAKESH KUMAR,
SON OF LATE SHRI SHADI LAL KUMAR,
R/O. 33,WYNGATE DRIVE
AVON, CT-06001
ALSO AT;
BF-108, JANAK PURI,
NEW DELHI-110058
E-MAIL:[email protected] .....PLAINTIFF NO.2
(Through: Mr. Anil Panwar, Mr. Tanishq Panwar and Mr. Kawirangbou
Charenamei, Advs.)
Versus
SH. SANJEEV KUMAR
SON OF LATE SHRI SHADI LAL KUMAR,
R/O. BF-108, JANAK PURI,
NEW DELHI-110058 .....DEFENDANT NO.1
SMT. GEETA KUMAR @ DIMPLE
WIFE OF SH. SANJEEV KUMAR,
R/O. BF-108, JANAK PURI,
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
1 KUMAR KAURAV
NEW DELHI-110058
.....DEFENDANT NO.2
(Through: Mr. Ankit Jain, Sr. Adv with Mr. Pankaj Gupta and Mr. Mohit
Gupta, Advs.)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
% Reserved on: 02.04.2025
Pronounced on: 17.04.2025
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
JUDGMENT
1. The instant civil suit has been instituted seeking the following reliefs:-
“i) Pass a decree of declaration in favour of the plaintiffs and against
the defendants declaring therein that the defendant No.3 has no right to
make gift of any part of the property in question i.e. BF-108, Janak
Puri, New Delhi-110058 as shown red in the attached site plan except
the life estate/interest;
ii) Pass a decree of cancellation thereby cancelling the alleged gift
deeds; one being dated 26.08.2018 being registration No. 5037 in Book
No. 1, Volume No. 2942 on pages 171 to 179 dated 26.02.2018 thereby
gifting the entire ground floor, entire first floor and entire third floor
with roof/terrace rights and another gift deed dated 06.05.2019 being
registration No. 9669 in Book No. I, Volume No. 4331 at pages 722 to
132 thereby gifting the entire second floor of the property in question
i.e, BF- 108, Janak Puri, New Delhi-110058;
iii) Pass a decree of injunction in favour of the plaintiffs and against
the defendants restraining the defendants from creating third party
interest in the suit property by way of transferring, alienating and
parting with possession in any manner in the suit property i.e. BF-108,
Janak Puri, New Delhi- 110058;
iii-a) Pass a decree of permanent injunction in favour of the plaintiffs
and against the defendants restraining the defendants, their agents,
servants and legal heirs from dispossessing the plaintiff No.1 from the
second floor of property bearing No. BF-108, New Delhi-110058.
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
2 KUMAR KAURAV
iv) Pass a decree of injunction in favour of the plaintiffs and against the
defendants restraining the defendants from operating of locker No. 186
in Punjab National Bank, Hari Nagar, New Delhi- 110064 and also
injunct the defendants from withdrawing the amount from the accounts
mentioned in para 17 of the plaint.
v) Award cost of suit in favour of the plaintiff and against the
Defendants.”
2. The factual matrix of the case would indicate that the plaintiffs,
namely, Shri Rajeev Kumar and Shri Rakesh Kumar and defendant no.1,
namely, Shri Sanjeev Kumar are the sons of late Shri Shadi Lal Kumar and
late Smt. Sunita Rani. Defendant no.2, Smt. Geeta Kumar is the wife of
defendant no.1.
3. The root of the dispute lies in the interpretation of a registered Will
dated 24.09.2015 executed by late Shri Shadi Lal Kumar, who passed away
on 22.12.2015. By virtue of the said Will, late Shri Shadi Lal Kumar
bequeathed certain moveable and immovable properties to his wife, late
Smt. Sunita Rani, who survived him, and later, she passed away during the
pendency of present proceedings.
4. It is pertinent to mention that at the time of institution of the present
civil suit, Smt. Sunita Rani was impleaded as defendant no.3. Upon her
demise, her name was deleted from the array of parties. Accordingly, any
reference to defendant no.3 herein shall be construed as a reference to late
Smt. Sunita Rani.
5. It is stated that sometime in the year 2021, the plaintiffs came to know
about the execution of two registered gift deeds, dated 26.02.2018 and
06.05.2019, whereby, late Smt. Sunita Rani gifted the ground floor, first
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
3 KUMAR KAURAV
floor, second floor and third floor, alongwith the roof rights of property
bearing No.BF-108, Janak Puri, New Delhi-110058 to defendant no.2 Smt.
Geeta Kumar (daughter-in-law of late Smt. Sunita Rani).
6. The relief clause in the suit would also indicate that a declaration of
cancellation of gift deeds dated 26.02.2018 and 06.05.2019 has also been
sought. As per the case set up by the plaintiffs, the Will dated 24.09.2015
was executed by late Shri Shadi Lal Kumar in favour of his wife late Smt.
Sunita Rani bequeathing the properties for her lifetime and upon her demise,
the properties were to devolve among the three sons, i.e. plaintiffs and
defendant no.1.
7. The defendants appear to have filed a common written statement
asserting therein that late Smt. Sunita Rani became the sole and absolute
owner of the property by virtue of the registered Will dated 24.09.2015. It
was also stated that she had the full rights to sell or dispose of the property
in any manner, whatsoever, and if during her lifetime, she had executed gift
deeds in favour of defendant no.2, the same is legally permissible and no
fault can be found therein.
8. After the completion of pleadings vide order dated 02.03.2023, this
Court framed the following preliminary issue:-
“Whether by virtue of registered will dated 24.09.2015, defendant No.3
became the sole and absolute owner of the suit property or derived only a
lifetime interest therein?”
9. The aforesaid order was assailed by the plaintiffs in an appeal being
FAO(OS) 50/2023 before the Division Bench of this Court. In the said
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
4 KUMAR KAURAV
appeal, the plaintiffs took the plea that the preliminary issue framed under
Order XV Rule 3(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) can only be
of the jurisdictional issues. Hence, according to them, the issue framed vide
the order dated 02.03.2023 lacks the necessary characteristics to be framed
under the aforesaid provision of CPC and thus, the order dated 02.03.2023
was sought to be assailed.
10. It was also one of the pleas taken by the plaintiffs that though the
registered Will dated 24.09.2015 was admitted by them, however, the
moveable properties left behind by their parents were equally divided
amongst three sons. According to the plaintiffs, the aforesaid fact negates
the contentions of the defendants that the moveable and immovable
properties were bequeathed exclusively to defendant No.2.
11. The Division Bench, vide order dated 04.01.2024, disposed of the
appeal, directing this Court to adjudicate on the issue framed vide order
dated 02.03.2023 as a preliminary issue without evidence.
12. The aforesaid direction has been issued on the anvil of the fact that
the defendants have consented not to raise any plea of coercion pleaded by
them in reply to paragraph No.17 of the plaint. The Division Bench was of
the opinion that the Will dated 24.09.2015 requires to be interpreted in view
of the recitals made therein, which would not require any further evidence to
be adduced by the parties, and therefore, the decision on the said issue will
have a bearing on the outcome of the civil suit itself. Paragraphs Nos.9 to 17
of the order passed by the Division Bench read as under:-
“9. This Court has considered the submissions of the learned counsel for
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
5 KUMAR KAURAV
the parties and perused the record.
10. The twin facts of existence of the valid registered Will dated
24.09.2015 and the ownership of the suit property by late Sh. Shadi Lal
Kumar are admitted by the parties.
11. The Appellants have expressed concern only with regard to the proof
of averments made by them in paragraph 17 of the plaint as regards
creation of fixed deposits. The Respondents in reply to the said paragraph
in the written statement have admitted the contents of the table set out in
the plaint. Therefore, the creation of the fixed deposits is not disputed by
Respondent No.3.
12. The Respondents and more specifically Respondent No.3 is bound
down to her statement made before this Court that the contention in the
written statement (in reply to paragraph 17 of the plaint) with respect to
the alleged coercion in creating the fixed deposits will not be pressed
during arguments for decision of the issue framed in the impugned order.
13. It is accordingly, directed that the effect, if any, of the facts set out by
the Appellants in the table at paragraph 17 of the plaint shall be
considered by the learned Single Judge, as it stands, without taking into
consideration the allegations of coercion made in the corresponding
paragraph of the written statement.
14. The Appellants are satisfied with the aforesaid directions and are
accordingly, agreeable to the adjudication of the issue framed by the
learned Single Judge in the impugned order on the admitted facts between
the parties.
15. In the considered opinion of this Court, there is no infirmity in the
impugned order dated 02.03.2023. In view of the consent of the parties
recorded in this order, the issue framed by the learned Single Judge
satisfies the conditions set out in under Order XV Rule 3(1) CPC. Further,
in view of the admitted position by all parties to the suit, as regards the
absolute ownership of late Sh. Shadi Lal Kumar as well as the validity of
the Will dated 24.09.2015, the claims and defences raised by the parties
only involves the interpretation of the clause of the registered Will dated
24.09.2015 and no further evidence is required to be adduced for deciding
the issue. This Court is also of the opinion that the decision on this issue
will be sufficient for the decision of the entire suit.
16. With the aforesaid directions and binding the parties to the statements
made before this Court, the present appeal is disposed of. The objection
raised by the Respondents to the maintainability of the appeal has not beenSignature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
6 KUMAR KAURAV
decided in view of the consent recorded above.
17. Pending applications also stand disposed of.”
13. Mr. Anil Panwar, learned counsel appearing for the plaintiffs, takes
this Court through the registered Will dated 24.09.2015 and emphasises that
the said Will not only relates to the properties which are disputed in the
instant civil suit, but encompasses within itself various moveable properties.
He then contends that if the remaining moveable properties are divided
equally between the plaintiffs and defendant no.1, there is no reason as to
why the property in dispute in the instant civil suit should not be divided in
the same manner. He, therefore, imputes mala fides on the part of the
defendants in not adhering to the equitable division of the suit property.
14. Learned counsel further reads the recitals of the Will and submits that
the reading of the entire document nowhere empowers the beneficiary of the
Will, namely, late Smt. Sunita Rani to gift the suit properties. According to
him, the intention of the Testator has to be adjudged on the basis of
attending circumstances. He explains that the latter part of the Will
unequivocally states that after the death of the Testator and his wife, namely,
late Smt. Sunita Rani, simultaneously or separately, the properties would
devolve to all three sons, who would all become the joint and complete
owners of the properties in equal shares.
15. He further explains that if the first part of the Will is construed to
mean that the beneficiary was entitled to dispose of the property or to gift it,
then the second part of the Will would become redundant, and such an
interpretation of the Will should not be resorted to in any manner. He then
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
7 KUMAR KAURAV
contends that one of the floors, as stated in the gift deeds i.e., the third floor,
did not even exist at the time of execution of the Will. To buttress his
submissions, he placed reliance on the decisions in the cases of Bhagwat
Sharan v. Purushottam1, Shyamal Kanti Guha v. Meena Bose2, Shakuntla
v. Rajinder Singh Deswal3 and Laxmana v. Chandrappa Gowda4.
16. Per contra, Mr. Ankit Jain, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr.
Pankaj Gupta, appearing on behalf of the defendants, contends that the issue
in question deserves to be decided against the plaintiffs. According to him,
the Will dated 24.09.2015 confers unfettered and absolute right in favour of
the beneficiary to dispose of the property as per her wishes, without prior
consent of any of the other legal heirs and if the beneficiary, namely, late
Smt. Sunita Rani executed registered gift deeds in favour of defendant no.2,
the said deeds confer an absolute right in favour of defendant no.2.
According to him, during the lifetime of the beneficiary, if she had chosen to
dispose of the property in any manner whatsoever, then there arises no
question of devolving the said property into the share of other legal heirs.
17. According to him, the right of devolution of the property in favour of
the other legal heirs is extinguished on the execution of the Will dated
24.09.2015. He submits that if there is a conflict between the former and
latter part of the Will, it is the latter part that gives way to the former part of
the Will, meaning thereby that the devolution of the property would
succumb to the first part of the Will.
1
(2020) 6 SCC 387.
2
(2008) 8 SCC 115.
3
2022 SCC OnLine Del 3059.
4
(2022) 18 SCC 483
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
8 KUMAR KAURAV
18. With respect to the division of the other moveable assets, he submits
that no estoppel would operate against law, and he explains that in the
instant case, it is well settled that the beneficiaries under the Will, if
conferred unrestricted rights, any steps with respect to the disposal of the
said property would not be subject to any challenge. To substantiate his
position, the learned senior counsel placed reliance on the decisions in the
cases of Sanjay Ray v. Sandeep Soni & Ors.5, S. K. Chopra v. V. N.
Chopra6 and Sadaram Suryanarayana v. Kala Surya Kantham7.
19. In rejoinder submissions, Mr. Panwar reiterates his initial
submissions and contends that the decision relied upon by the defendants
would be of no assistance to them. Additionally, learned counsel submits
that there is no plausible answer forthcoming from the defendants as to why
the moveable assets were subjected to division. He then contends that the
issue requires to be decided in favour of the plaintiffs and against the
defendants.
20. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel appearing
for the parties and perused the record.
21. Before embarking on the merits of the case, it is pertinent to briefly
sail through the legal discourse revolving around the interpretation of the
Will and the recourse to be adopted when there appear to be conflicting
recitals in the Will.
5
2022 SCC Online Del 1525.
6
2017 SCC Online Del 8987
7
(2010) 13 SCC 147.
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
9 KUMAR KAURAV
22. In Ramkishorelal v. Kamal Narayan8, the Supreme Court had
considered the question of conflict(s) in an instrument and had explained the
approach to be observed in the following words:–
“The golden rule of construction, it has been said, is to ascertain the
intention of the parties to the instrument after considering all the
words, in their ordinary, natural sense. To ascertain this intention the
Court had to consider the relevant portion of the document as a whole
and also to take into account the circumstances under which the
particular words were used. Very often the status and the training of
the parties using the words have to be taken into consideration. It has
to be borne in mind that very many words are used in more than one
sense and that sense differs in different circumstances. Again, even
where a particular word has, to a trained conveyancer a clear and
definite significance and one can be sure about the sense in which such
conveyancer would use it, it may not be reasonable and proper to give
the same strict interpretation of the word when used by one who is not
so equally skilled in the art of conveyance. Sometimes it happens in the
case of documents as regards disposition of properties, whether they
are testamentary or non-testamentary instruments, that there is a clear
conflict between what is said in one part of the document and in
another. A familiar instance of this is where in an earlier part of the
document some property is given absolutely to one person but later on,
other directions about the same property are given which conflict with
and take away from the absolute title given in the earlier portion. What
is to be done where this happens? It is well settled that in case of such a
conflict the earlier disposition of absolute title should prevail and the
later directions of disposition should be disregarded as unsuccessful
attempts to restrict the title already given. (See Sahebzada Mohd.
Kamgar Shah v. Jagdish Chandra Deo Dhabal Deo). It is clear,
however, that an attempt should always be made to read the two parts
of the document harmoniously, if possible; it is only when this is not
possible, e.g., where an absolute title is given is in clear and
unambiguous terms and the later provisions trench on the same, that
the later provisions have to be held to be void.”
8
1963 Supp (2) SCR 417
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
10 KUMAR KAURAV
23. Further reference can be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in
the case of Navneet Lal v. Gokul9, wherein, the Supreme Court summarised
the principles regarding the interpretation of the Will, and held that the true
intention of the testator has to be gathered not by solely looking into the
isolated expressions used in the Will but rather to perceive the Will as a
whole with all its provisions. The relevant extracts of the said case read as
under:-
“8. From the earlier decisions of this Court the following principles,
inter alia, are well established:
“(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 [1950 SCC 702 : AIR 1951
SC 139 : (1950) SCR 766, 772] )
(2) In construing the language of the will the court is entitled to
put itself into the testator’s armchair (Venkata
Narasimha v. Parthasarathy [41 IA 51, 72 : 21 IC 339 : 15 Bom
LR 1010] ) 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 case and Gnanambal Ammal v. T. Raju
Ayyar [1950 SCC 978 : AIR 1951 SC 103 : (1950) SCR 949, 955]
)
(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
9
(1976) 1 SCC 630
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
11 KUMAR KAURAV
Singh v. Thakurain Bakhtraj Kuer [AIR 1953 SC 7 : (1953) SCR
232, 240] )
(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 expressions 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. (Pearey Lal v. Rameshwar Das [AIR
1963 SC 1703 : 1963 Supp (2) SCR 834, 839, 842] )
(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 intention contained in the will. (Ramachandra
Shenoy v. Hilda Brite Mrs [AIR 1964 SC 1323 : (1964) 2 SCR
722, 735] ).”
24. The Supreme Court in Gopala Menon v. Sivaraman Nair10, observed
that the recitals of Will therein, read that the property described therein
“shall vest in my wife, Sreedevi Amma, daughter of Moorkkath Madhavi
Amma, with power of alienation”. In the context of the said recital, the
Supreme Court held that in such a scenario, absolute estates exist in favor of
the beneficiary therein i.e., the wife. The Supreme Court further held that
10
(1981) 3 SCC 586.
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
12 KUMAR KAURAV
when an absolute estate is conferred, then it is implicit that the beneficiary is
free to deal with and dispose of the property in any manner.
25. In Mauleshwar R Mani v. Jagdish Prasad11, the English translation
of the Will therein reads that “The testator’s wife whose name is Smt Sona
Devi, would be entitled to the entire assets and properties with the right of
transfer and after death of Sona Devi….”. In such a factual scenario, the
Court held that the beneficiary was given an unlimited and absolute estate.
The Court further held that where under a Will, a testator has bequeathed his
absolute interest in the property in favour of his wife, any subsequent
bequest which is repugnant to the first bequest would be invalid.
Furthermore, where a testator has given a restricted or limited right in his
property to his widow, it is open to the testator to bequeath the property after
the death of his wife in the same Will. The relevant extracts of the said case
read as under:-
“10. In Ramkishorelal v. Kamalnarayan [AIR 1963 SC 890 : 1963 Supp
(2) SCR 417] it was held that in a disposition of properties, if there is a
clear conflict between what is said in one part of the document and in
another where in an earlier part of the document some property is
given absolutely to one person but later on, other directions about the
same property are given which conflict with and take away from the
absolute title given in the earlier portion, in such a conflict the earlier
disposition of absolute title should prevail and the later directions of
disposition should be disregarded. In Radha Sundar Dutta v. Mohd.
Jahadur Rahim [AIR 1959 SC 24 : 1959 SCR 1309] it was held where
there is conflict between the earlier clause and the later clauses and it
is not possible to give effect to all of them, then the rule of construction
is well established that it is the earlier clause that must override the
later clauses and not vice versa. In Rameshwar Bakhsh Singh v. Balraj
11
(2002) 2 SCC 468.
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
13 KUMAR KAURAV
Kuar [AIR 1935 PC 187 : 1935 All LJ 1133] it was laid down that
where an absolute estate is created by a will in favour of devisee, the
clauses in the will which are repugnant to such absolute estate cannot
cut down the estate; but they must be held to be invalid.
11. From the decisions referred to above, the legal principle that
emerges, inter alia, are:
(1) where under a will, a testator has bequeathed his absolute
interest in the property in favour of his wife, any subsequent
bequest which is repugnant to the first bequeath would be
invalid; and
(2) where a testator has given a restricted or limited right in his
property to his widow, it is open to the testator to bequeath the
property after the death of his wife in the same will.
12. In view of the aforesaid principles that once the testator has given
an absolute right and interest in his entire property to a devisee it is not
open to the testator to further bequeath the same property in favour of
the second set of persons in the same will, a testator cannot create
successive legatees in his will. The object behind is that once an
absolute right is vested in the first devisee the testator cannot change
the line of succession of the first devisee. Where a testator having
conferred an absolute right on anyone, the subsequent bequest for the
same property in favour of other persons would be repugnant to the
first bequest in the will and has to be held invalid. In the present case
the testator Jamuna Prasad under the will had bequest his entire estate,
movable and immovable property including the land under self-
cultivation, house and groves etc. to his wife Smt Sona Devi and
thereafter by subsequent bequest the testator gave the very same
properties to nine sons of his daughters, which was not permissible. We
have already recorded a finding that under the will Smt Sona Devi had
got an absolute estate and, therefore, subsequent bequest in the will by
Jamuna Prasad in favour of the nine daughters’ sons was repugnant to
the first bequest and, therefore, invalid. We are, therefore, of the view
that once the testator has given an absolute estate in favour of the first
devisee it is not open to him to further bequeath the very same property
in favour of the second set of persons.”
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
14 KUMAR KAURAV
26. In the case of Madhuri Ghosh v. Debobroto Dutta12, the Supreme
Court held that where an absolute bequest has been made in respect of
certain property to certain persons, then a subsequent bequest made qua the
the same property later in the same Will to other persons would be of no
effect.
27. In M.S. Bhavani v. M.S. Raghu Nandan13, the Will involved therein
is similar to the factual matrix in the present case, which reads as “After my
death, my wife Smt Nirmala shall be sole legal and rightful heir over my
immovable and movable property and she will have every right and
authority to sell, mortgage and lease my house or totally bequeath it to
anybody who take care of her in her last days, and old age also….In case my
wife is unable to sell the house during her lifetime, my daughter shall be the
seller of the house and she should (sic) the house mutually with my son
Raghunanda.” The Supreme Court held that there is no inconsistency in the
Will therein and as per the intention of the Testator therein, the property is
bequeathed by giving an absolute interest.
28. The gravamen of the controversy pivots upon the construction and
legal import of the registered Will dated 24.09.2015, executed by late Shri
Shadi Lal Kumar. The rights asserted by the plaintiffs and those defended by
the defendants turn decisively on the interpretation of its clauses.
Accordingly, it is necessary to examine the relevant recitals forming the
substratum of the testamentary disposition. The pertinent portion of the Will,
which has come under judicial scrutiny, reads as follows:-
12
(2016) 10 SCC 805.
13
(2020) 5 SCC 361.
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
15 KUMAR KAURAV
” I hereby declare that I have the following immovable and Movable
properties as per detail below:-
a) That i am the sole and complete owner and in possession of entire
freehold built up property bearing No.BF-108, on land measuring area
150 Sq.Yds. comprising of Ground Floor. First Floor and Second Floor
with all its land and roof rights. Situated in the layout plan of Janak Puri,
New Delhi 110058 having been acguared the same, by virtue of deed, duly
regd. As document No.5766, in addl. Book No.1, Volume No.7419, on
pages 94 to 95, Dt.27/07/93, registered in the office of Sub-Registrar.
Delhi and I, Shadi Lal Kumar is currently sole orner of aforesaid property
and this property is free of any liens or claims.
b) I have a joint Savings Bank account No. 1527000300370822 in the
Punjabi National Bank, Hari Nagar Branch, situated at BF-81, JanakPuri,
New Delhi-110000, in this name of myself with my wife Smt. Sunita Rani.
c) I also have a Savings Bank account No. 1527000109468100 in the
Punjab National Bank, Hari Nagar Branch, situated at BF-81, Janakpuri,
New Delhi-110058, in my own name with nominee as my wife Smt Sunita
Rani.
d) I have a PPF (Public Provident Fund) Account No. 467 in the Punjab
National Bank BF-81, Janak Puri, New Delhi-110058
e) I have a joint MIS (Monthly Income Scheme) Account No. 175714 in the
POST OFFICE, JAIL ROAD SHIV NAGAR, New DELHI, in the name of
myself and my wife.
f) I have a joint Recurring Deposit Account No. 128706 in the POST
OFFICE, JAIL ROAD SHIV NAGAR, New DELHI, in the name of mysell
and my wife
g) I have a joint Savings Bank Account No 8360790 in the POST OFFICE,
JAIL ROAD SHIV NAGAR, New DELHI, in the name of myself and my
wife.
h) I have a joint Locker No. 186 in the Punjab National Bank, Hari Nagar
Branch, situated at BF-81, Janakpuri, New Delhi-110058, in the name of
myself and my wife
i) I have a joint SCSS (Senior Citizen Savings Scheme) Account No. 2747
in the Punjab National Bank B-1, Community Centre, Janak Puri New
Delhi-110058 with a total sum of rupees fifteen lakhs. Interest on this
amount @9% is credited by the bank in our Savings Account No.
1527000300370822 in the PNB, BF-81, Janakpuri, New Delhi
j) I have a Joint Savings Account No. 016593700002717 in the YES BANK,
B-1 COMMUNITY CENTRE, JANAK PURI, NEW DELHI-110058 in the
name of myself and my
That as long as I am alive, I shall remain the absolute owner of the
said properties and right to enjoy the same in any manner whatsoever, I
think fit and proper in the present circumstances. But after my death, my
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
16 KUMAR KAURAV
above mentioned Properties along with all other moveable and
immoveable properties, which shall stand in my name at the time of my
death, will go and devolve to my WIFE NAMELY SUNITA RANI, who
alone, after my death will become the sole and complete owner of my
above said Property and she can enjoy her full nghts in the manner she
likes and she can sold, dispose off, rent out, let out or entered into any
agreement with any person(s) etc. in respect of the above said properties,
with anyone without laking any permission from any of my legal heirs
And my other legal heirs sons brothers, sisters daughters, son-in-law,
daughter-in-law, successors, relative and none else etc. shall have no
rights, title, interest, share, claim, concern, whatsoever respect of the
said properties
That after the death of myself and my wife simultaneously or
separately, in that event, the said Properties along with all other
moveable and immoveable properties. will go and devolve to my all three
sons who all will become the joint and complete owners of my above said
Properties in equal share and they will bound be to sell, dispose off the
said property to anyone intending purchasers and sale amount shall be
divided between them in equal share and also get the amount from all
above accounts and moveable items jewellery, cash etc from the locker
and all items and considerations will be divided between them in equal
shares.”
29. A bare perusal of the aforesaid recital reveals the following legal
consequences:-
(i) Upon the demise of the Testator, all movable and immovable
assets forming part of his estate were to devolve in favour of his wife,
late Smt. Sunita Rani. The said bequest was immediate and operative
from the date of his death.
(ii) The said late Smt. Sunita Rani was unequivocally declared as the
sole and absolute owner of the entire estate, both in title and in
interest, without qualification or reservation.
(iii) The Will expressly authorised her to exercise complete dominion
over the properties bequeathed to her. This included the right to sell,
alienate, gift, lease, or otherwise dispose of the properties or enter into
any agreements, without restriction or interference.
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
17 KUMAR KAURAV
(iv) The Will further declared that she was not required to obtain any
consent or concurrence from the other legal heirs of the Testator. The
bequest in her favour was made to the express exclusion of all other
potential claimants.
(v) In no uncertain terms, it was provided that the other legal heirs
shall have no right, title, interest, share, or claim–whether present or
future–in respect of the properties so bequeathed.
30. When the characteristics of the Will, as delineated above, are
examined on the touchstone of well-established principles of testamentary
jurisprudence, as enunciated by the Supreme Court in a series of
authoritative pronouncements, it is manifestly clear that the Will did not
confer merely a life estate upon late Smt. Sunita Rani rather, it clothed her
with an absolute and unencumbered title, free from any fetters of succession
or reversion. The bequest, in its essential nature, was unconditional and not
circumscribed by temporal limitations as to her lifetime.
31. The latter portion of the Will, which contemplates that upon the
demise of both the Testator and his wife, whether simultaneously or at
different times, the properties, both movable and immovable, shall devolve
equally upon their three sons, must be read in harmony with the earlier
dispositive clause. Such a construction suggests that this latter clause was
intended to operate only in the event that the absolute owner, late Smt.
Sunita Rani died without disposing of any properties during her lifetime.
32. Far from being mutually contradictory, both parts of the Will appear
to co-exist harmoniously when interpreted in light of the overarching
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
18 KUMAR KAURAV
testamentary intent. The intention discernible from the Will is that during
her lifetime, the beneficiary, late Smt. Sunita Rani, was to exercise full and
unhindered ownership rights, and it was only in the absence of any
disposition or encumbrance by her that the properties would devolve in
equal shares upon the three sons. In other words, the clause relating to
devolution upon the sons was contingent and residual in character, operative
only upon the failure of the late Smt. Sunita Rani, to deal with the properties
in the exercise of her plenary ownership. Any construction to the contrary
would amount to reading into the Will a restriction which the Testator
consciously chose to eschew.
33. So far as the contention of the plaintiffs regarding non-existence of
the third floor in the Will is concerned, the defendant specifically
controverts the same in the Written Statement that the third floor was
existing and even the photographs filed by the plaintiff would suggest that
there is some construction on the third floor of the property in question.
Even otherwise, the recitals of the Will make it fundamentally clear that the
intention of the Testator was to give an absolute interest in favour of the
beneficiary.
34. The contention of the plaintiffs that the Will confers only a life
interest upon late Smt. Sunita Rani, therefore, deserves to be rejected.
Furthermore, the authorities relied upon by the plaintiffs are inapposite to
the facts of the present case as the recitals in the Will under consideration
leave no scope for ambiguity or contradiction and instead reflect a clear
intent of the Testator.
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
19 KUMAR KAURAV
35. Even otherwise, where a testamentary instrument unequivocally
confers upon the beneficiary an absolute, unqualified, and unrestricted right
to deal with the property in any manner, any subsequent clause seeking to
impose limitations or conditions on such right becomes otiose. A later
clause, the literal interpretation of which would undermine or defeat the
clear and absolute bequest made earlier, cannot be enforced so as to dilute or
negate the vested rights conferred upon the primary legatee. This principle
stands fortified by settled jurisprudence and authoritative pronouncements of
the Supreme Court, as referred to hereinabove.
36. In view of the foregoing analysis, this Court concludes that the
preliminary issue vide the order dated 02.03.2023 must be answered in
favour of the defendants. Consequently, the present suit, being devoid of
merit, stands dismissed along with all pending applications.
37. No order as to costs.
(PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV)
JUDGE
APRIL 17, 2025
p/@m
Signature Not Verified
Signed
By:PURUSHAINDRA
20 KUMAR KAURAV
[ad_1]
Source link