M/S BAY BERRY APARTMENTS PVT. LTD. AND ANR. versus SHOBHA AND ORS.

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 7 S.C.R. 738 · Decided: 19-10-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
MIS BAY BERRY APARTMENTS PVT. LTD. AND ANR 
v. 
SHOBHA AND ORS 
OCTOBER 19, 2006 
B 
(S.B. SINHA AND DAL VEER BHANDARI, JJ.] 
Hindu Succession Act, 1956-Section 8-Propounder of will 
bequeathing properties in favour of one of his minor sons creating only a life 
c interest in his favour-On his becoming major, he along with his son executing 
a deed of sale in respect of those properties, but same objected by his 
daughters on the ground that they were also lawfal heirs entitled to properties 
bequeathed by their grand-father-Co"ectness of objection-Held: Son of 
-
the propounder did not succeed to interest absolutely as he was given only 
a life interest; succession under the Will opened only on his death-Prior to 
D that son of propounder of will and his son hod no authority to execute any 
sale deed in respect of those properties-His daughters were entitled to 
inherit their father's share by reason of Section 8 of the Act of 1956; it was 
more so as the will did not exclude them. 
E 
Hindu Succession Act, 1956-Testamentary succession-Word "heir' 
used in will-Meaning of-Held-It means a legal heir and court while 
construing a will cannot assign to it any other meaning. 
Transfer of Property Act, 1882-Section 41-Sale of property by one 
having anly a life interest in his favour-Interest in property of son of seller 
F 
after death of seller-Claim by purchoser-Held- Purchasers of property 
could claim that interest-It was not a case where sale deed had to be 
cancelled or transfer of property set aside, as provided in Articles 59 and 60 
of the Schedule to Limitation Act, 1963-However, if sale deed was void and 
thus not binding, consequences therefor would ensue and it would be 
immaterial that purchase was bonafide. 
G 
Suit-Cause of action arising during pendency of suit-Maintainability 
of suit-Having regard to facts and circumstances of case, keeping in view 
'~ 
subsequent event, if suit could n9t have been dismissed on ground of limitation, 
it is not proper for Supreme Court to interfere in appeal to-It is more so 
as appeal is in continuation of suit, and appellate court may take into 
H 
738 
•,. 
.. 
.· 
BAYBERRY APARTMENTS PVT. LTD. I'. SHOBHA 
739 
consideration subsequent events with a view to mould the relief-Order Vil A 
Rule 7-Civi/ Procedure Code, 1908. 
Will-Construction of-Held-Although parts thereof cannot be read 
in isolation meaning of its really important part wherein manner of distribution 
of properties is delineated cannot be controlled by some words used in its 
~~ 
B 
Will-Construction of-Held-When it is not uncertain or does not 
contain ambiguous expression. it should be given a literal meaning-Only 
when contents are not clear, recourse can be had to principles of construction 
of document-What is necessary for true, proper and effective construction C 
is to give effect to intention of propounder of Will. 
Words and phrases-Children, issue and heirs-Meaning of in context 
of wills and Hindu Succession Act, 1956. 
V.P.N owned a large number of movable and immovable properties. He 
bad five sons and four daughters. He executed a Will on 14. 7.1932. A portion D 
of the properties was bequeathed in favour ofone of his sons, V.D.N, who was 
a minor then. In terms ofthe said Will, the sons ofV.P.N got life interest, and 
only after his death, his heirs and legal representatives could inherit the same. 
In 1975 V.D.N and his son, respondent no. 3, executed a deed of sale in favour 
of appellants. Respondent nos. 1 and 2, daughten of V.D.N., filed a suit on E 
30.7.1982 against their father and appellants for declantion that as lineal 
hein, they were also lawful heirs entitled to the bequests under the aforesaid 
Will executed by their grand-father. They however did not implead respondent 
no. 3 as a party to suit The Trial Court dismissed the suit on the ground that 
it wu barred by limitation as also for aon-joinder of parties. Appeal therefrom 
by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to the High Court was allowed. Hence the present F 
appeal 
Appellants contended that (i) the suit was barred by limitation (ii) as 
the Will refers to 'Putra Poutra Parampara' and used the expression 
'Waristdar' (heirs), which would only be male lineal descendants and not the G 
female ones (iii) respondent no. 3 was deliberately not impleaded as a party in 
the suit as he had also executed the deed of sale along with his father, the 
. original defendant No. I and as such the same was binding on him (iv) they 
wer

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