Delhi High Court
Mrs. Shakuntla & Anr vs Rajinder Singh Deswal on 20 August, 2025
$~
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment reserved on: 22.07.2025
Judgment pronounced on: 20.08.2025
+ RFA(OS) 24/2022, CM APPL. 43972/2022
MRS. SHAKUNTLA & ANR. .....Appellants
Through: Mr. Ravi Gupta, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. Naresh Gupta, Mr. Rachit
G., Ms. Muskaan Mehra, Advs.
versus
RAJINDER SINGH DESWAL .....Respondent
Through: Mr. Harish Malhotra, Sr. Adv.
with Mr. N.K. Kantawala, Mr.
A.M. Nair, Advs.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN
SHANKAR
JUDGMENT
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.
1. By way of the present Appeal filed under Section 96 of the
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 read with Section 10 of the Delhi High
Court Act, 1966, the Appellants1 are assailing the judgment and
decree dated 26.09.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in
CS(O.S.) No. 2664/2014 titled as Shakuntla & Anr v. Rajinder Singh
Deswal2. The sole issue for consideration before this Court is with
respect to the interpretation of the various clauses of the registered
1
Plaintiffs before the learned Single Judge
2
Hereinafter referred to as „the Civil Suit‟
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN RFA(OS) 24/2022 Page 1 of 12
Signing Date:20.08.2025
11:38:18
Will executed on 24.02.1993 by late Mr. Mam Chand Deswal3. The
execution of the registered Will by the Testator is not in dispute,
which reads as under:
“This is the Last Will and Testament made at Delhi this 24th day of
Feb. 1993 by me-Mam Chand Deswal Son of Late Shri Hira Lal
Deswal aged about (not legible) resident of House No. 8, North West
Avenue Road, Punjabi Bagh Extension, New Delhi-110025 while
being in possession of full senses, good health and sound disposing
mind.
1. Whereas, I, the Testator, above named MAM CHAND DESWAL
hereby revoked my previous will registered at S. no. 15291 in
Additional Book No. 3 Vol. No. 893 Pages 166-168 dated 10/10/90 in
the office of Sub Registrar, Kashmeri-Gate Delhi and execute this
LAST & FINAL WILL of mine without any duress, pressure, threat,
coercions or temptation.
2. Life is short and uncertain but to obviate any dispute between my
surviving heirs it is expedient that I should make the will of my Estate.
3. I have got my living wife Mrs. NANKI DEVI, one married son,
named Shri Rajinder Singh Deswal, two married daughters namely
Mrs. Shakuntla W/o Shri Bhupender Pal and Mrs. Krishna Prakash
w/o Shri Brahm Prakash.
4. I, therefore of my own free-will and desire, declare, devise and
bequeath that during my life time I shall continue to remain absolute
owner in possession of all my estate, moveable and immoveable
properties which at present I possess and which I will acquire till my
death and after my death the same will be inherited by my wife, Mrs.
Nanki Devi and will stand absolute and exclusive properties of my
wife.
5. I have bank accounts (saving and fixed deposits), joint accounts
with my wife Mrs. Nanki Devi in Punjab National Bank, State Bank of
India, and Union Bank of India, Punjabi bagh, New Delhi-110026. I
have got a locker in my and my wife‟s name in Union Bank of India,
Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi-110026 and some important documents are
lying in the lockers. After my death the same will become the property
of my wife Mrs. Nanki Devi only and none of my either legal heirs
shall have any right and interest with it.
3
Hereinafter referred to as „Testator‟
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN RFA(OS) 24/2022 Page 2 of 12
Signing Date:20.08.2025
11:38:18
6. I own one double storey House No. 8, North West Avenue Road,
Punjabi Bagh Extension, New Delhi-110026 on a plot of 300 Sq.
yards which was constructed from my own earning of my life time.
One storey of this house has been given on rent from which my
monthly expenses are met as my pension is insufficient to meet the
expenses. The month expenses of the house also includes, yearly
House Tax, white washing and maintenance of the building etc. etc.
7. After the death of wife Mrs. Nanki Devi, my son named Rajinder
Singh Deswal will inherit all my estate and property moveable and
immoveable.
8. Both of my daughters are well settled in their respective families
and enjoying happy life. My elder daughter (Mrs. Shakuntla) has got
one daughter named Pooja and one Son Parshant Kumar. After my
death a sum of Rs.21,000/- should be paid to my daughter Shakuntla
for her daughter‟s marriage „Pooja‟ from my bank accounts.
9. My younger daughter Mrs. Krishna Prakash has also got two child,
one daughter named Neha and one son named Poras. After my death
a sum of Rs.21,000/- should be paid from my Bank accounts to Mrs.
Krishna Prakash for her daughter‟s marriage (Neha).
10. I desire that after my death there will be no dispute amongst my
heirs in respect of my moveable and immovable properties left by me
at the time of my death and if any one will create dispute that will be
untenable and not triable by any court.
11. The contents of my this LAST WILL have been typed by me and the
same are correct and according to my desire and wife.
12. So long as I am alive I will be the owner in possession of my above
said properties.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF I, the above named Testator have set my
hands to this LAST Will on the day, months and year first above
written in presence of witnesses.”
2. In order to examine the issues involved in the present case, it is
imperative to cull out the relevant facts in brief, which are set forth
hereinafter.
3. On 20.08.1973, the Testator vide a perpetual sub-lease deed
acquired the property bearing No. 8, Northwest Avenue Road, Punjabi
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN RFA(OS) 24/2022 Page 3 of 12
Signing Date:20.08.2025
11:38:18
Bagh Extension, New Delhi-110026, admeasuring 300 sq. yds.4
Pursuant to the acquisition, a house was constructed on the suit
property by the Testator using his own funds. Thereafter, vide a
registered Will dated 24.02.1993, the Testator bequeathed the suit
property in favour of his wife, Mrs. Nanki Devi. The Testator passed
away on 18.10.1993, leaving behind his widow, Mrs. Nanki Devi, and
their children namely Mrs. Shakuntla5, Mrs. Krishna Prakash6, and
Mr. Rajinder Singh Deswal7.
4. Mrs. Nanki Devi passed away on 20.08.2014. Prior to her
demise, she executed a registered Will dated 26.08.2013, whereby she
bequeathed equal shares in the suit property in favour of her three
children. It is, however, clarified that the Will dated 26.08.2013 is not
a subject matter of the dispute in the present case. The dispute at hand
is an offshoot of a suit for partition filed by the two daughters of the
Testator, which has been contested by the son, Mr. Rajinder Singh
Deswal.
5. In pursuance thereof, the learned Single Judge, upon observing
the validity and legality of the Will as not being contested by the
parties, proceeded to hear the arguments on the merits of the case and
ultimately dismissed the Civil Suit.
6. Learned senior counsel representing the parties have filed their
respective written submissions and have relied upon judgments with
the Appellants filing an additional submission thereof. The
4
Hereinafter referred to as „the suit property‟
5
Plaintiff No. 1 before the learned Single Judge
6
Plaintiff No. 2 before the learned Single Judge
7
Defendant before the learned Single Judge
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN RFA(OS) 24/2022 Page 4 of 12
Signing Date:20.08.2025
11:38:18
contentions along with judgments relied upon by the parties are
examined hereinafter.
7. Learned senior counsel representing the Appellants contended
that Clause 4 of the Will uses the expressions “absolute and
exclusive”, which unequivocally reflects the intention of the Testator
to confer an absolute right of ownership upon Mrs. Nanki Devi, to the
exclusion of all others. It is further contended that with respect to suit
property no. 8, Northwest Avenue Road, Punjabi Bagh Extension,
New Delhi-110026, the remaining clauses of the Will are redundant,
and as such, the Respondent cannot derive any benefit from Clause 7,
in view of the overriding effect of Clause 4. Additionally, it is also
contended by the learned senior counsel that the learned Single Judge
has failed to examine the effect of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession
Act, 19568.
8. In order to substantiate his arguments qua the intention of the
Testator, the learned senior Counsel representing the Appellants has
relied upon Madhuri Ghosh & Anr. v. Debobrata Dutta & Anr.9;
Vikrant Kapila & Ors. v. Pankaja Panda & Ors.10; Sadaram
Suryanarayana & Anr. v. Kalla Surya Kantham & Anr.11;
Mauleshwar Mani & Ors. v. Jagdish Prasad & Ors.12; Judge Pal
Khera v. Chand Rani Khera13; Gopal Menon v. Sivaraman Nair14;
Ram Kishore Lal & Anr. v. Kamal Narayan15; (Kunwar)
8
Hereinafter referred to as „the Act, 1956‟
9
(2016) 10 SCC 805
10
RFA (OS) 15 of 2022
11
(2010) 13 SCC 147
12
(2002) 2 SCC 468
13
2012 SCC OnLine Del 2271
14
AIR 1979 SC 1345
15
AIR 1963 SC 890
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN RFA(OS) 24/2022 Page 5 of 12
Signing Date:20.08.2025
11:38:18
Rameshwar Bakhsh Singh v. (Thakurain) Balraj Kuar, Thakurain
& Ors.16; Sathish Kumar Chojar v. Subhashani Chopra & Ors.17;
Mathai Samuel & Ors. v. Eapeneapen (dead) by LRs18; Mysore
Minerals ltd. MG Road, Bangalore v. Comm. Of Income Tax,
Karnataka, Bangalore19; Ram Gopal v. Nand Lal & Ors.20; Bandura
Ramamurty v. Koppula Vajram & Ors.21; and Mohan Singh v. Gur
Devi22.
9. Per Contra, learned senior counsel representing the Respondent
has submitted that for the purpose of interpretation of the Will, the
same is required to be read in entirety and efforts should be made to
harmoniously construe all its clauses. An attempt has to be made to
give meaning to each and every clause in the Will, and in any case, as
per Section 88 of Indian Succession Act, 192523, if two Clauses of the
Will are irreconcilable so much so that they cannot stand together, the
last shall prevail. He further submitted that the Plaintiffs have never
claimed that Mrs. Nanki Devi had any pre-existing right or claim
including right of maintenance in the suit property. It is submitted that
she was having her own business of shorthand and typing coaching
college under the name of Dayanand Commercial College. She
became the owner of the shop at Ram Bagh Road in June, 1990 and
even purchased a residential plot measuring 400 sq. yds. in Delhi in
the year 1972. Even after the demise of her husband on 18.10.1993,
16
AIR 1935 Privy Council 187
17
(2014) SCC OnLine Del 3403
18
2012(13) SCC 580
19
(1999) 7 SCC 106
20
1905 SCR 766
21
1960 SCC OnLine Ori 63
22
AIR 1931 LAHORE 767
23
Hereinafter referred to as „the Act, 1925‟
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN RFA(OS) 24/2022 Page 6 of 12
Signing Date:20.08.2025
11:38:18
she continued to receive pension, along with the benefit of
investments and savings left behind by her husband.
10. Learned senior counsel representing the Respondent has further
placed reliance on Raghbir Singh v. Budh Singh24; S. Rajagopal
Chettiar v. Hamasaveni Ammal25; and Navneet Lal v. Gokul26.
11. This Court has heard learned senior counsel representing the
parties at length and, with their able assistance, has perused the paper
book as well as the trial court record.
12. This Court has duly considered the submissions advanced by
the learned senior counsel for the parties and the judgments relied
upon thereby. Upon a harmonious reading of the Will in its entirety, it
becomes evident that the intention of the Testator was to confer a
life/limited interest upon his wife and not an absolute or exclusive
right in the suit property. Undoubtedly, Clause 4 of the Will uses the
expressions „absolute and exclusive‟, however upon careful perusal of
Clauses 7, 8 and 9 of the Will, it becomes amply clear that the
Testator bequeathed limited life estate in favour of his wife Mrs.
Nanki Devi.
13. Moreover, while deliberating upon the intention of the Testator,
this Court also deems it appropriate to refer to the Introductory Clause
in conjunction with Clause 11 of the Will. A plain and literal reading
of the Introductory Clause ascertains that the Will was authored
personally by the Testator. This assertion further finds corroboration
in Clause 11 of the Will, wherein the Testator has expressly stated that
24
AIR 1978 Delhi 86
25
AIR 1992 SC 704
26
AIR 1976 SC 974
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN RFA(OS) 24/2022 Page 7 of 12
Signing Date:20.08.2025
11:38:18
the Will was typed by him. In view of the aforestated, this Court finds
it appropriate to observe that, since the Will was typed by the Testator
himself, the usage of words/expressions therein were in pursuance of
the standpoint of a layman and his own understanding of the
vocabulary used in a general parlance. By virtue of the same, the
intention of the Will cannot be circumscribed by usage of expressions
“absolute and exclusive” under Clause 4 of the Will. It is apposite to
note that when a testamentary instrument is authored by a layman, the
linguistic acumen and the terminology used therein must not be read
stricto sensu, by putting the usage of expressions to examination
through the lens of an expert. On the contrary, the language used must
be construed in light of the Testator‟s intention coupled with an
understanding of the expressions, which remains unembellished by
technical legal interpretation.
14. In view of the aforestated observations, the argument advanced
by the learned senior counsel representing the Appellants lacks
substance and is devoid of merit. In this regard, the attention is drawn
towards Section 82 of the Act, 1925, which is reproduced
hereinbelow-
“82. Meaning of clause to be collected from entire Will-The meaning
of any clause in a Will is to be collected from the entire instrument,
and all its parts are to be construed with reference to each other.”
A plain reading of the above provision makes it manifestly clear that
the meaning of any clause in a Will is required to be understood in the
context of the entire instrument and not in isolation.
15. Moreover, reference may also be made to the Sections 87 and
88 of the Act, 1925, reproduced herein below-
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN RFA(OS) 24/2022 Page 8 of 12
Signing Date:20.08.2025
11:38:18
“87. TESTATOR’s intention to be effectuated as far as possible–
The intention of the testator shall not be set aside because it cannot
take effect to the full extent, but effect is to be given to it as far as
possible.
88. The last of two inconsistent clauses prevails–Where two clauses
of gifts in a will are irreconcilable, so that they cannot possibly stand
together, the last shall prevail.”
Section 87 of the Act, 1925 underscores that the intention of the
Testator has to be given effect to, as far as possible. Whereas Section
88 provides that if two clauses of a Gift or a Will are so irreconcilable
that they cannot possibly stand together, the latter shall prevail.
16. As far as the submission made by the learned senior counsel
representing the Appellants that the learned Single Judge failed to
adequately consider the plea under Section 14(1) of the Act, 1956, this
Court relies on the learned Single Judge‟s order dated 28.07.2015. The
relevant paragraph from the Order is reproduced herein below-
“4.With the consent of the counsels for the parties, only one issue is
framed from the present-
(1) what is the effect of clauses 4 and 7 contained in the registered
will dated 24.02.1993, executed by late Sh. Mamchand Deswal father
of the parties? (Onus upon parties)
5. Counsels for the parties state that in view of the fact that the
legality and validity of the will dated 24.02.1993 executed by Shri
Mamchand Deswal is undisputed, they be permitted to address
arguments on the aforesaid issue in the first instance. The aspect of
the legality and validity of the document dated 26.08.2013, stated to
be a will executed by the mother of the parties in respect of the suit
premises, shall be examined later on.”
A perusal of the above-stated paragraphs show that no claim or issue
was raised by the Appellants before the learned Single Judge against
its claim raised under Section 14 of the Act, 1956 before this Court.
Paragraph 5 of the Order, at the outset, reflects that the parties sought
permission only to address the dispute arising out of the Will dated
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN RFA(OS) 24/2022 Page 9 of 12
Signing Date:20.08.2025
11:38:18
24.02.1993 and accordingly, the issue was framed upon their request.
Consequently, the contention of the learned senior counsel
representing the Appellants that the learned Single Judge did not
consider the plea under Section 14 of the Act, 1956, does not hold any
merit, particularly in view of the background that the order dated
28.07.2015 was passed with the consent of the Parties. Therefore, in
absence of any independent claim or subsequent issues framed with
respect to Section 14 of the Act, 1956, the Appellants cannot at this
stage press for relief under this Section, since the same was not
pressed before the learned Single Judge.
17. The judgments relied upon by the learned senior counsel
representing the Appellants are, upon careful examination, clearly
distinguishable and thus inapposite to the adjudication of the present
dispute. The Appellants‟ reliance on Ram Kishore Lal (Supra), Ram
Gopal (Supra), Mathai Samuel (Supra) is misplaced, as these cases
pertain to distinct testamentary instruments effectuated for bequest.
Consequently, the above-stated judgments are of no assistance in the
interpretation of the Will.
18. With regard to the remaining judgments cited by the learned
senior counsel representing the Appellants, it is noted that the
judgments enunciate the principle that, in case of conflict between two
clauses of a Will, the intention of the Testator/Executor on
comprehensive reading of the instrument is required to be gathered.
Hence, this Court finds such a proposition to be of limited relevance
in view of the statutory provisions and interpretive principles
delineated in the preceding paragraphs.
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN RFA(OS) 24/2022 Page 10 of 12
Signing Date:20.08.2025
11:38:18
19. Learned senior counsel representing the Respondent has also
placed reliance on Raghbir Singh (Supra), in this case the Supreme
Court while dismissing the findings provided by the Trial Court,
observed that the interpretation of the Trial Court, which gave effect
solely to the first part of the Will, ran contrary to the rules of
construction under the provisions of Sections 82, 83, 85 and 86 of the
Act. The Court highlighted that one cannot isolate the part granting an
“absolute estate” to the widow. Rather the testamentary instrument
that appears absolute must be construed as a life estate if the language
of the Will, considered contextually, suggests such intent.
20. Alternatively, learned senior counsel representing the
Respondent has placed its reliance upon the decision of the Supreme
Court in Navneet Lal (Supra), which lays down the settled principle
of testamentary interpretation. It unequivocally affirms that the
intention of the Testator is the guiding light in construing a Will, and
as such a holistic reading of the entire document is necessitated.
Isolated expressions must not be construed in a vacuum, rather the
Will must be interpreted in the context of the Testator‟s personal
background, familial relations, and understanding of the
language/expressions used.
21. In S. Rajgopal Chettiar (Supra), the Supreme Court upheld the
decision of the High Court, upholding that the word „absolutely‟ cannot
be read in isolation, de hors the entire bequest. In view of the Supreme
Court having adjudicated upon a similar set of facts, the decision
therein provides authoritative guidance and serves as a valuable
reference point for the present dispute. Accordingly, this Court finds it
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN RFA(OS) 24/2022 Page 11 of 12
Signing Date:20.08.2025
11:38:18
suitable to consider the rationale therein while rendering its own
determination.
22. In light of the aforestated statutory provisions and the
observation of this Court upon the judgments relied upon by the
learned senior counsel representing the parties, the arguments of
learned senior counsel representing the Appellant that the bequest qua
the suit property will stop at Clause 4 of the Will, is untenable and
cannot be accepted in view of Section 82 of the Act, 1925. Notably,
the Testator in Clauses 8 and 9 bequeathed a sum of Rs.21,000/-
(Rupees Twenty-One Thousand Only) each to his two married
daughters, whilst categorically recording that they were well-settled in
their respective matrimonial homes. The wordings used in the Clauses
8 and 9 of the Will, further reinforces the inference that the intention
of the Testator was not to grant an absolute estate to his wife rather the
intention was to create a limited interest, with a subsequent bequest in
favour of his son.
23. Therefore, this Court finds no merit in the present Appeal, and
the same is accordingly dismissed. Pending application also stands
closed.
ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.
HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J.
AUGUST 20, 2025/sv/jn/hr
Signature Not Verified
Signed By:JAI
NARAYAN RFA(OS) 24/2022 Page 12 of 12
Signing Date:20.08.2025
11:38:18