MAULESHWAR MANI AND ORS. versus JAGDISH PRASAD AND ORS.

Citation: [2002] 1 S.C.R. 423 · Decided: 23-01-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: V.N. KHARE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

MAULESHWAR MANI AND ORS. 
A 
V. 
JAGDISH PRASAD AND ORS. 
JANUARY 23, 2002 
[V.N. KHARE AND ASHOK BHAN, JJ.] 
B 
Hindu Succession Act, 1956 : 
Will-Execution of-Rule of construction-it has to be read in its 
"' 
entirely-No part of it is excluded or made redundant-Court to reconcile any c 
inconsistency in it-Absolute estate-Conferment o,f-Where testator has given 
the property to devisee with a right of alienation-The Testator cannot be 
allowed to bequeath the same property in favour of second set of persons in 
,,.. 
'the same Will. 
D 
U.P. Zamindari Abolition and Land Reforms Act 1950---Ss. 169, 172 
and 174-Law does not permit a Bhumidhar to create successive legatees 
,,._ 
under a Will-He can bequeaJh his property to any one but he cannot create 
ji1rther succession contrary to the provision of the Act. 
One 'J' executed a Will bequeathing his entire property in favour E 
of his second wife (whom he married after the death of his first wife), and 
after her death in favour of his daughters' sons from both the wives. He 
had three daughters from each wife. He died in 1961 and his second wife 
' 
died in 1964. 
' 
Plaintiffs-respondents purchased the property from the grandsons F 
of the first wife. On 1.6.1966 the plaintiffs-respondents filed a suit alleging 
that defendants had cut the crops wrongfully and prayed for a decree for 
a sum of Rs. 1946.66 and in the alternative for mesne profit and for just 
possession to the extent of their share in the properties. Trial Court held, 
the second wife having obtained an absolute estate under the Will, the G 
't 
subsequent bequeath in the said Will in favour of daughter's sons was 
lo 
invalid and, therefore, the grandsons of first wife were not entitled to 
inherit the property. Appeal preferred by the plaintiffs-respondents was 
dismissed by the fir~t appellate Court. On second appeal High Court held 
that under the Will the second wife got only restricted or limited right H 
423 
424 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2002) I S.C.R. 
A and, therefore, after her death, all the grandsons of the first wife as well 
as the second wife were entitled to inherit the property. Hence this appeal. 
"\ 
It was contended for the appellants that under the Will, the second 
-, 
B 
wife acquired an absolute estate and any subsequent bequeath in the same 
\Viii was repugnant to the absolute interest created in her favour. 
It has contended for the respondents that Will has to be read as a 
whole and effort should be made to give effect to the wishes of the testator 
and therefore, all the sons of daughters of the testator would inherit the 
property. 
C 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
D 
HELD : I.I. Ordinarily, the rule of construction of a Will is that a 
Will (bequeath) has to be read in its entirely and effort should be made 
that no part of it is excluded or made redundant. It is the duty of the Court 
to reconcile if there is any inconsistency in the Will. (427-F] 
Radha Sundar Dutta v. Mohd Jahadur Rahim and Ors., (1959] SCR 
1309, relied on. 
1.2. Where the property has been give11 by a testator to the devisee 
-4 
with a right of alienation, such bequeath is a conferment of an absolute 
E estate. In the instant case, the Will gave in express terms the inheritable 
estate with power of alienation to the second wife. Thus what was given 
to her was an unlimited and an absolute estate. (428-E-F-G] 
2. Once the testator has given an absolute right and interest in his 
entire property to a devisee it is not open to the testator to further 
F bequeath the same property in favour of second set of persons in the same 
Will. A testator cannot create successive legatees in the Will. The object 
behind is that once an absolute right is vested in the first devisee, the 
testator cannot change the line of succession of first devisee where a 
testator having conferred an absolute right on any one the subsequent 
G bequeath for the same property in favour of other persons would be 
repugnant to the first bequeath in the Will and has to be held invalid. 
(429-F-G( 
Ramkishorelal and Anr. v. Kamalnarayan, (1963( Suppl 2 SCR 417 ; 
Radha Sunder Dutta v. Mohd Jahadur Rahim and Ors., (1959( SCR 1309 
H and Rameshwar Bakhsh Singh and Ors. v. Balraj Kaur and Ors., AIR Privy 
MAULESHWAR MANI v. JAGDISH PRASAD [V.N. KHARE, J.] 
425 
Council 187, relied on. 
3. Law does not permit a Bhumidhar to create a successive legatees 
under a Will. In the present case, the second wife having obtained an 
absolut

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