KAILVELIKKAL AMBUNHI (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS. versus H. GANESH BHANDARY

Citation: [1995] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 35 · Decided: 24-08-1995 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KULDIP SINGH · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

KAILVELIKKAL AMBUNHI (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS. 
v. 
H. GANESH BHANDARY 
AUGUST 24, 1995 
[KULDIP SINGH AND S. SAGHIR AHMAD, JJ.] 
Indian Succession Act, 1925 : Section 88. 
Will-Other Instntments-Rules of interpretati01t-Difference in-In-
A 
B 
consistent clauses in will-Later shall prevail over earlier. 
C 
Legal Maxims: 
Maxim "cum duo inter se pugnantia reperiuntur in testamento ultimum 
ratum est''-Meaning of. 
This petition has been filed on the ground that the Kerala High 
Court has not properly interpreted the will in question. 
Dismissing the petition, this Court 
HELD : 1. The rules of interpretation of a 'Will" are different from 
the rules which govern the interpretation of other documents say, for 
example, Sale Deed or a Gift Deed or a Mortgage Deed or, for that matter, 
any other instrument by which interest in immovable property is created. 
While in these documents if there is any inconsistency between earlier or 
the subsequent part or specific clauses inter·se contained therein, the 
earlier part will prevail over the latter as against the rule of interpretation 
a~plicable to a Will under which the subsequent part, clause or portion 
prevails over the earlier part. (37-A·B] 
D 
E 
F 
Ramachandra Shenoy and Anr. v. Mrs. Hilda B1ite and Ors., AIR 
(1964) SC 1323; Navneet Lal v. Golatl and Ors., AIR (1976) SC 794 and G 
Ramakrishore Lal and Anr. v. Kamalnarayan, AIR (1963) SC 890, referred 
to. 
2. A Will may contain several clauses and the latter clause may be 
inconsistent with the earlier clause. In such a situation, the last intention 
of the testator is given effect to and it is on this basis that the latter clause H 
35 
36 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1995) SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A 
is fleld to prevail over the earlier clause. This is regulated by the well 
known maxim "cum duo inter se pugnantia reperiuntur in testamento 
ultimum ratum est" which means that if in a Will there are two inconsistent 
provisions, the latter shall prevail over the earlier. This principle is also 
contained in Section 88 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. However, this 
B 
rule of interpretation can be invoked only if different clauses cannot be 
reconciled. [37-C-E; 38-A] 
Hammond v. Trehame, [1938) 3 All England Reports 308 and 
Rameshwar v. Balraj, AIR (1935) PC 187, referred to. 
C 
CIVIL APPELLATE .JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition No. 
D 
E 
F 
G 
·H 
4597 of 1990. 
From the .Judgment and Order dated 6.11.89 of the High Court of 
Kerala in S.A. No. 750/80-G. 
K.V. Viswana than for M.T. George for the Petitioner. 
S. Balakrishnan and S. Prasad for the Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
S. SAGHIR AHMAD, J. The only t,,rround on which the judgment of 
the High Court is questioned before us is that the will in question was not 
properly interpreted and that the testator having created an absolute estate 
in favour of Kannan, son of his direct sister, Vellachi, it was not open to 
the High Court to rely upon the subsequent recital that Schedule 'A' 
properties which as per the earlier part of the Will had already been 
bequeathed in favour of Kannan, shall be possessed and enjoyed as "Tavaz-
hi". 
In interpreting the Will, the High Court has relied upon a number 
of decisions of this Court including Ramachandra Shenoy and another v. 
Mrs. Hilda Elite and others, AIR (1964) SC 1323, Navneet Lal v. Gokul and 
Others, AIR (1976) SC 794 and Ramak1ishorelal and Another v. Kamal-
narayan, AIR (1963) SC 890 in which the principles of interpretation, as 
also the principles on the basis of which the true intention of the testator 
can be gathered, have been set out. 
) .
' ' 
K. AMBUNHI 1·. H.G. BHANDARY (S. SAGHIR AHMAD, .I.) 
37 
The rules of interpretation of the "Will" are different from the rules A 
which govern the interpretation of other documents say, for example, a Sale 
Deed or a Gift Deed or a Mortgage Deed or, for that matter, any other 
instrument by which interest in immovable property is created. While in 
these documents if there is any inconsistency between the earlier or the 
subsequent part or specific clauses i11ter se contained therein, the earlier B 
part will prevail over the latter as against the rule of interpretation ap-
plicable to a Will under which the subsequent part, clause or portion 
prevails over the earlier part on the principle that in the matter of "Will", 
the testator can always change his mind and create another interest in place 
of the bequest already made in the earlie

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