BHURA AND ORS. versus KASHIRAM

Citation: [1994] 1 S.C.R. 16 · Decided: 05-01-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.M. SAHAI, A.S. ANAND

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
BHURA AND ORS. 
v. 
KASHIRAM 
JANUARY 5, 1994 
B 
[R.M. SARAI AND DR. A.S. ANAND, JJ.) 
M.P. Abolition of Proprietary Rights (Es~ates, Mahals, Alienated 
~ 
Lands) Act, 1950: S.38-Limited estate-Enlargement into absoli.te estate-
Pennissibility of-Transfer of such property-Validity of. 
c 
Hindu Succession Act, 1956: S.14(2}-Father bequeathing certain sir 
lands and house to his daughte~imited estate-Whether could be enlarged 
into absolute estate. 
,-
Will-l'rinciples of Construction-Intention of testator to be detennined 
!{;: 
D by reading the will as a whole. 
~ 
One 'P' executed a will in favour of his daughter 'S' bequeathing 
certain sir lands and a house to her. On the death of the testator the said 
'S' transferred the property to the defendants, by way of a gift deed. The 
testator's adopted son filed a suit claiming that the will. created only a life 
E 
interest in favour of 'S' in the property and so the transfer made by her 
was not binding on him beyond her lifetime and that he was entitled to be 
put in possession of the said property, as the exclusive owner after the 
death of 'S'. The suit was dismissed. The defendants preferred an appeal 
before the High Court and with the permission of the Court raised an 
F 
additional plea that the suit land being sir land, had vested in the state on 
the coming into force of the M.P. Abolition Act and by virtue of S. 38 
thereof 'S' who was in possession of the suit property on the date of the 
Abolition Act, derived the absolute, heritable and transferable title in her, 
independent of the will. 
G 
Aggrieved by the High Court's judgment, the original plaintiff 
preferred the present appeal. 
>.-
, 
Dismissing the appeal, this court 
HELD : 1.1. In the will the testator after narrating the description 
H of the property had stated that he was executing the will so that no dispute 
16 
BHURA v. KASHIRAM 
17 
arises between his adopted son and daughter 'S' after his death. The entire A 
will though not happily worded, does bring out his intention. It is settled 
law that the courts must make all efforts to determine the real intention 
of the testator by reading the will as a whole and giving effect to the 
intentions ofthe testator. Construction, which would advance the intention 
of the testator has to be preferred and as far as possible effect is required B 
to be given to every disposition contained in the will, unless the law 
prevents such effect being given to it. [19-G-H; 20-C-D] 
1.2. The bequeath in favour of 'S' clearly speaks of the testator's 
intention of only creating a life interest in her and nothing more and the 
various expressions used therein are indicative of and are reconcilable only C 
with the hypothesis that the testator was creating an estate in favour of 'S' 
only for her life time and not an absolute estate. Therefore, under will 'S' 
did not get more than a life time estate because the language of the will is 
inconsistent with her having got an absolute right over the land. [20-F, G] 
2. Section 14(2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 mandates that D 
nothing contained !n sub-section 1 of Section 14 shall apply to any property 
acquired by way of gift or under a will or by any other instrument 
prescribing a restricted right in such property. Since the will itself 
prescribed a restricted right of life-estate in the property in favour of 'S' 
that estate could not be enlarged into an absolute estate in view of the E 
express provisions of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. [21-A, B] 
3. 'S' continued to retain possession of the Sir land not under any 
fresh grant under the provisions of the M.P. Abolition Act but was already 
in possession of the said land as a limited owner under the will. On a true 
construction of the will, the High Court was right in holding that 'S' had F 
only a limited estate in the suit land and, therefore, the alienations made 
by her in favour of defendant Nos. 2 to 9, were not binding on the appellant, 
after her death. [21-D-F] 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1690 of G 
1984. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 22.8.1980 of the Madhya 
Pradesh High Court in F.A. No. 233 of 1976. 
S.K. Gambhir for the Appellants. 
H 
18 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1994) 1 S.C.R. 
A 
V.A. Bobde and Shyam Mudaliar for AK. Sanghi for the Respon-
dent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
DR. ANAND, J. 1. This appeal by special leave is directed against 
B 
the Judgment and Decree of the High Court of Mad

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