ARUNKUMAR AND ANR. versus SHRINIWAS AND ORS.

Citation: [2003] 3 S.C.R. 453 · Decided: 08-04-2003 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DORAISWAMY RAJU, ASHOK BHAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

ARUNKUMAR AND ANR. 
A 
v. 
SHRINIWAS AND ORS. 
APRIL 8, 2003 
[DORAISWAMY RAJU AND ASHOK BHAN, JJ.] 
B 
Deeds and Documents: 
Will-Construing of-Wife bequeathing self acquired property to her 
husband and after his death to her three minor nephews as the couple had no C 
issue-It was specifically mentioned that after the death of husband, his 
relations would have no right to the estate-After death of the testator and 
soon after the death of her husband, brother of husband and his children 
come in possession of the property and filed an injunction suit which ended 
in compromise between the plaintiffs and father of the minors-later the three D 
nephews of the testator claiming their right through will filed another suit 
stating that the compromise was obtained by undue influence, coercion and 
misrepresentation-The trial Judge though acceptud the claim that compromise 
decree was vitiated by coercion and misrepresentation, but held that in view 
of s. 124 of Indian Succession Act, the husband of testator succeeded as fit!/ 
owner of the property and as such the plaintiffs were not entitled to the E 
propert)~Held, the intention of the testator should be given the primary 
importance and courts should construe the words in the background of the 
intended meaning which the testator himself desired to ascribe to the words 
used-The intention of the testator in respect of what has been bequeathed in 
favour of the husband of the testator is only a limited life interest, is 111ade F 
clear in the will-Reasons also have been assigned in the will itself as to why 
the three minor children hm•e been chosen for being given the ulti111ate and 
absolute rights after the death of her husband-In addition to all this, there 
is a specific clause which in unmistakable terms stipulates that "'the relations 
of my husband have no right to this estate nor there will be any in fitture "-
Thus the testament cannot be construed to bequeath the property absolutely G 
in /avow· of the husband and placing such a construction would amount to not 
only re-writing the several clauses in the will but wo11ld constitute violence to 
the language and firrther defeat the verJ' intention of the testator- On going 
through the recitals in the will, the only possible and reasonable construction 
that could be placed on the will by giving fir// effect to the intention of the H 
453 
454 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2003) 3 S.C.R. 
A testator as found expressed in all relevant portions of the will would be to 
construe the bequest made in favour of her husband as one for life interest 
and remainder bequeathed absolutely in favour of thi! three minors after the 
life time of her husband-The provisions of s. 124 will have no relevance to 
the case on hand and on the very construction of the will, the claim of the 
B appellants is upheld. 
Navneet Lal@Rangi v. Gokul and Ors., (1976( I SCC 630, relied on. 
Mauleshwar Mani and Ors. v. Jagdish Prasad and Ors., (2000( 2 SCC 
468, distinguished. 
C 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 9961-9962 
of 1995. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 20.9.93 of the Mumbai High Court 
in F.A. Nos. 3 and 36 of 1986. 
D 
Mrs. J. S. Wad, Ashish Wad and Ms. Niharika Bahl for the Appellants. 
S.V. Deshpande and Ms. Anuradha Rustogi for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered: 
E 
The above appeals have been filed against the common Judgment and 
decree passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay, 
Aurangabad Bench, on 20.9.1993 in FA Nos. 3 and 36of1986, whereby the 
learned Judges in affirming the decision of the Trial Court, have chosen to 
reject the appeals including the cross-objections. 
F 
The only question that arose for consideration was as to the construction 
to be placed on the Will dated 28. 1.1969, executed by late Sitabai wife of 
Ramchandra Ganesh Mudhalwadkar. Indisputably, she is the absolute owner 
of the property which was the subject matter of the Will in question. As per 
the Will, a translated copy of which was furnished and placed on record, the 
G testator made the bequest in the following terms: 
"After my death, my husband Shri Ramachandra Ganesh 
Mudhalwadkar shall be the heir and owner of my property as detailed 
below. In accordance with this Will (i) Master Anilkumar s/o Narhari 
aged 12 (ii) Master Arunkumar s/o Narhari aged 9 (iii) Master 
H 
Shashikant s/o Narhari aged 6, shall be the owners of my property 
• 
ARUNKUMAR v. SHRINIWAS 
455 
after t

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.