MATHAI SAMUEL AND ORS. versus EAPEN EAPEN (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS.

Citation: [2012] 10 S.C.R. 1098 · Decided: 21-11-2012 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2012) 10 S.C.R. 1098 
MATHAI SAMUEL AND ORS. 
v. 
EAPEN EAPEN (DEAD) BY LRS. AND ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 8197 of 2012) 
NOVEMBER 21, 2012 
[K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.] 
Deeds and Documents - Testamentary disposition and 
settlement - Difference - Held: The real and the only reliable 
C test for the purpose of finding out whether a document · 
constitutes a Will or a gift is to find out as to what exactly is 
the disposition which the document has made, whether it has 
transfeffed any interest in praesenti in favour of the settlees 
or it intended to transfer interest in favour of the settlees only 
D on the death of the sett/ors. 
Deeds and Documents -
Composite document -
Interpretation of - Held: The composite character of a 
document is to be examined and interpreted in accordance 
E with the normal and natural meaning discernible from that 
document - A composite document is severable and if in part 
clearly testamentary, such part may take effect as a Will and 
other part if it has the characteristics of a settlement and that 
part will take effect in that way. 
F 
Deeds and Documents - Composite document having 
characteristics of a Will as well as a gift - Registration of such 
document, if necessary - Held: In a composite document, 
which has the characteristics of a Will as well as a gift, it may 
be necessary to have that document registered otherwise that 
G part of the document which has the effect of a gift cannot be 
given effect to - Therefore, it is not unusual to register a 
composite document which has the characteristics of a gift as 
well as a Will - Consequently, mere registration of document 
cannot have any determining effect in arriving at a conclusion 
H 
1098 
MATHAI SAMUEL AND ORS. v. EAPEN EAPEN 
1099 
(DEAD) BY LRS. 
that it is not a Will - A Will' need not necessarily be registered A 
- But the fact of registration of a 'Will' will not render the 
document a settlement - Registration Act, 1908 - s. 17. 
Deeds and Documents - Rule of construction - Intention 
- Golden rule - Held: The primary rule of construction of a 
8 
document is the intention of the executants, which must be 
found in the words used in the document - The question is 
not what may be supposed to have been intended, but what 
has been said - There is a need to carry on the exercise of 
construction or interpretation of the document only if the C 
document is ambiguous, or its meaning is uncertain - If the 
language used in the document is unambiguous and the 
meaning is clear, evidently, that is what is meant by the 
executants of the document - The expressed intentions are 
assumed to be actual intentions - Contemporary events and 
circumstances surrounding the execution of the document are 
D 
not relevant in such situations. 
Deeds and Documents - Subsequent events or conduct 
of parties - Effect - Held: Subsequent events or conduct of 
parties after execution of the document not to be taken into 
E 
consideration in interpreting a document especially when 
there is no ambiguity in the language of the document - But 
those events a/so may be referred to, only to re-enforce the 
fact that there is no ambiguity in the language employed in 
the document. 
F 
Will - Essentials of - Discussed. 
Will - Interpretation of - Held: In the interpretation of Will 
in India, regard must be had to the rules of law and 
construction contained in Part VI of the Indian Succession Act G 
and not the rules of the Interpretation of Statutes - Indian 
Succession Act, 1925 - s.2(h) and Part VI. 
Transfer of Property Act, 1882 - s. 122 - Gift - Meaning 
of. 
H 
1100 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2012) 10 S.C.R. 
A 
In the instant appeal, the question which arose for 
consideration was whether in the suit in question filed for 
partition and separate possession of various items of 
properties, the recitals in exhibit A1 document (written in 
Malayalam language) concerning item No.1 of schedule 
B No. 8 therein (item No. 1 of the plaint schedule) disclosed 
a testamentary disposition or a settlement creating 
vested rights in favour of the plaintiffs and defendant Nos. 
1 to 3, though possession and enjoyment stood deferred 
until the death of the executants (who were Indian 
c Christians). 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD:1. Exhibit A1 is written in Malayalam language. 
From the English version of that document, it is clear that 
D Exhibit A1 document is composite in character and has 
both the characteristics of a sett

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