BHAGWAN KR I SHAN GUPTA versus PRABHA GUPTA & ORS.

Citation: [2009] 3 S.C.R. 393 · Decided: 25-02-2009 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA, V.S. SIRPURKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

(2009] 3 S.C.R. 393 
BHAGWAN KR I SHAN GUPTA 
v. 
PRABHA GUPTA & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 1186 of 2009) 
FEBRUARY 25, 2009 
[S.B. SINHA AND V.S. SIRPURKAR, JJ.] 
Family dispute: 
A 
B 
Partition of property - Family settlement - Permissibility c 
- Held: Both.the brothers declare each other to be owners of 
the property having equal share therein - Arrangement 
between them by way of family settlement is permissible in 
law. 
Family settlement -
Interpretation of -
Held: D 
Technicalities in interpretation should not be insisted upon -
If family settlement in relation to property was possible, 
doctrine of arm chair rule of construction was applicable -
Doctrine of arm chair rule. 
Succession Act, 1925: 
ss. 7 4 and 82 - Will - Construction of - Held: Will should 
be read as a whole and the surrounding circumstances may 
E 
be given effect to for the purpose of ascertaining intention of F 
testator from words used and the surrounding circumstances 
where for the Court will put itself in the armchair of the testator 
- Will. 
'M', the testator and 'G' were brothers. The property 
in question was in the name of 'M'. A double storeyed G 
building and a barsati were constructed thereon, which 
were subject matter of the Will executed by 'M'. Appellant 
is one of the heirs and LRs. of the testator. He filed 
partition suit and a preliminary decree was passed on the 
393 
H 
394 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2009] 3 S.C.R. 
A premise that the tenor of the Will suggested that the 
property was to be divided equitably between the heirs 
of testator and of the other brother. High Court upheld 
the order of lower Court. Hence the present appeal. 
B 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The materials on record show that the 
property belonged to two brothers. The land might have 
been acquired in the name of the testator but from the 
declaration made in the will as also the other documents, 
C it is evident that both the brothers contributed equally 
thereto. [Para 1 O] [399-G-H] 
2. A Will is required to be construed like any other 
instrument. Where however, a doubt arises in regard to 
0 
the intention of the testator, recourse to the arm chair rule 
is invoked. For the said purpose, the conduct of the 
testator in regard to dealing with the property would be 
admissible. The fact that the property in question stood 
in the name of the testator is not in dispute. It, however, 
. E stands accepted that both the brothers contributed 
equally not only for acquisition of the said property but 
also raising constructions thereupon. [Para 12] [400-H; 
401-A-B] 
3. A declaration was made by the testator himself that 
F for all intent and purport, 'G' had half share in the property 
and he was entitled thereto. As a declaration in derogation 
of his title was made in the said Will by the testator, the 
same would be relevant for interpretation of the Will. A 
declaration was specifically made in the Will in regard to 
G contribution by both the brothers in equal proportion not 
only in respect of Ground Floor and the First floor but 
also barsati thereof. Although when a property is a self-
acquired one, the doctrine of family settlement stricto 
sensu may not be applicable but in a case of this nature 
where both the brothers declare each other to be owners • 
H 
• 
BHAGWAN KRISHAN GUPTA v. PRABHA GUPTA & ORS. 395 
of the property having equal share therein, an 
A 
arrangement between them by way of a family settlement 
is permissible in law. Such a family settlement was not 
only in relation to the title of the property but also in 
relation to the use and possession thereof. By reason of 
the said 'Will', therefore, whereas ownership of the 
B 
ground floor vested in the four sons of the testator, the 
ownership of the first floor vested in the members of the 
family of 'G'. Barsati portion of the said house did not 
figure in the vesting part of the said will. Paragraph 5 of 
the said will refers to the use and possession so far as c 
the share of the sons of the testator is concerned 
meaning thereby the same would confine to the ground 
floor' portion only. [Paras 15 and 17] [402-D, E, F, G; 403-
A] 
4. The Will should be given a broad construction 
D 
keeping in view the special equity principle. When there 
is a family settlement, evidently, technicalities in the 
matter of construction should not be insisted upon. If 
family settlement in relation to the property in question 
was possible, the doctrine of 'arm chair' rule 

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