MR. RANVIR DEWAN versus MRS. RASHMI KHANNA & ANR.

Citation: [2017] 13 S.C.R. 542 · Decided: 12-12-2017 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: R.K. AGRAWAL

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[?Oi 7] Li S.C.R. 542 
MR. RANV!R DEWAN 
v. 
MRS. RASHMI KHANNA & ANR. 
(Civil Appeal No.21784 of2017) 
B 
DECEMBER 12, 2017 
c 
D 
[R. K. A<(;RAWAL AND ABHAY MAHOHAR SAPRE, JJ.] 
Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - s.14(1) ands. 14 (2) r/w s.30-
0ne BRD w<11s the owner of the house in question - Appellant is the 
son of BRD. while respondent no.I is the daughter - Through his 
Will, BRD gpve his wife (mother of appellant) a "life interest" to 
reside in the house till her death - While, the ground floor and first 
floor of the house were given exclusively to appellant and respondent 
no. 1. respectively - Di>putes arose between the parties - Joint suit 
filed by appellanr and his mother against the respondent no. 1. inter 
alia praying/or declaration that appellant's mother Wa> the absolure 
owner of the said house as her "life interest" in the property had 
enlarged and ripened into an absolute interest by virtue of s.14(1), 
on the death of her husband - Suit dismissed by Single Judge of 
High Court ·- Division Bench upheld the judgment of Single 
E 
Judge - On appeal. held: Case of appellant's mother does not fall 
u/s.14 ( l) but it squarely falls uls.14 (2) - It is clear from the contents 
of the Tf!ill that BRD intended to give only "life interest" to his wife 
in the suit house - Such "life interest" neither enlarged nor ripened 
into an absolute interest in the suit house and remained "life 
F 
interest", i.e. "restricted estate" uls.14(2). till her death - It was the 
appellant and the respondent no. I who were given absolute 
ownership of the suil house while appellant:~ mother was given on~v 
"'life interest·· in the suit house - Such disposition was made by 
virtue of s.14 (2) rlw s. 30 of the Act - No error in the impugned 
judgment. 
G 
Hindu Succession Act. 1956 - s.14(2) - Scope and ambit a/-
H 
Discussed. 
Will - intention of testator - Interpretation of - Held: What 
the testator intended to bequeath to any person(s) in his Will. has to 
be gathered primarily by reading the recitals of the Will only. 
542 
MR. RANVIR DEWAN v. MRS. RASHMI KHANNA & ANR. 
543 
Words & Phrases - "Life Interest" - Meaning of - Held: "Life 
A 
interest" means an interest which determines on the termination of 
life - It is incapable of being tramferred to others being personal 
in nature. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 It is not in dispute that the suit house was the 
self-acquired property of late Mr. BDR, appellant's father. It is 
also not in dispute as one can take it from reading the contents of 
Will that Mr. BDR had intended to give only "life interest" to his 
wife (appellant's mother) in the suit house, which he gave to her 
for the first time by way of disposition of his estate independent 
of her any right. It is also not in dispute that it was confined to a 
right of residence to live in the suit house during her lifetime and 
to use the income earned from the suit house to maintain herself 
and the suit house. It is also not in dispute that the testator gave 
B 
c 
to his son (appellant) ground floor of the suit house and first floor 
to his daughter (respondent no.I) with absolute right of ownership. 
D 
The testator also permitted both of them to get their names 
mutated in the municipal records as absolute owners and also 
get them assessed as owners in the wealth tax assessment cases. 
[Para 34] [551-C-E] 
1.2 It is a settled principle of law that what the testator 
intended to bequeath to any person(s) in his Will has to be 
gathered primarily. by reading the recitals of the Will only. On 
facts, reading of the Will would go to show that it does not leave 
any kind of ambiguity therein and one can easily find out as to 
how and in what manner and with what rights, the testator wished 
to give to three of his legal representatives his self acquired 
properties and how he wanted to make its disposition. [Paras 36, 
37] . [551-G-H] 
1.3 The ambit of Section 14(2) of the Hindu Succession 
Act, 1956 must be confined to cases where property is acquired 
by a female Hindu for the first time as a grant without any pre-
existing right, under a gift, will, instrument, decree, order or 
award, the terms of which prescribe a "restricted estate" in the 
property. Where, however, property is acquired by a Hindu female 
at a partition or in lieu of right of maintenance, it is in virtue of a 
E 
F 
G 
H 
544 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2017] 13 S.C.R. 
pre-existing right and such an acquisit

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