MUNINANJAPPA AND ORS. versus R. MANUAL AND ANR.

Citation: [2001] 2 S.C.R. 1113 · Decided: 11-04-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: AJAY PRAKASH MISRA

Judgment (excerpt)

'I 
MUNINANJAPPA AND ORS. 
v. 
R. MANUAL AND ANR. 
APRIL, 11, 200 I 
[A.P. MISRA AND U.C. BANERJEE, J.l.] 
Hindu I.aw: 
Hindu Succession Act, 1956: Section 14(1). 
Female llindu-Pmpe1ty of-Rights in-Absolute or limited-Suit prop-
erly bequeathed to plaintiff and his brother for enjoyment during their lifetime 
tvithout any right of alienation-Will also stipulated that in case a son lvere 
bon1 to them such son 1vould be a full 01vner1vith right of alienation-flo1veve1; 
A 
B 
c 
the brother died 1vithout any male issue-1Vidow had no pre-existing right of 
maintenance out of her husband's pITiperty-Thereafler, ividolv executed a sale 
D 
deed in favour of the defendants-Validity of-Held: Both the bmther and his 
lvidoiv held the prope1ty, irt trust, for delive1y to their son in case bani out of 
their lVedlock-Such a lilnired right of the tvido1v can never mature into an 
absolute right /Jy virtue of S. 14( I )-However, such a limited right can mature 
into absolute right only 1fthe ivido\v has any pre-existing right of maintenance 
out of her husband's pmperty-Thereafter, the widow has no right to alienate 
the pmpe1ty in favour of the defendants-Hence, sale of property in.favour of 
the defendants is not valid-Succession Act, 1925, Ss. 112 and 115. 
Will-Construing of-Intention of testator-Determination of-Princi-
ples-Held: In construing a Will the intention ~ft he testator shoald be can-ied 
out-Thenfore, diffeirnt pa11s of the \Viii should be c~nstrued hmmonio11sly-
Cou1t may supply the missing words in a Will to implement the intention of the 
testa101~But, where there is no ambiguity and the language of a Will is cleai; 
C'ou11 should neither supplement the ivords nor read it down to give benefit to 
either of the contesting parties. 
The appellant-plaintifrs aunt had bequeatlted the suit property in 
favour of both the appellant and his brother G, who was the son of the 
second wife of the appellant's father. Under the Will the property was 
bequeathed to the appellant and G for enjoying it during their lifetime 
without any right of alienation. The Will also stipulated that in case a son 
1113 
E 
F 
G 
H 
A 
B 
c 
1114 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2001] 2 S.C.R. 
were born to them such son would be the full owner with a right of 
alienation. However, G died without any male issue. 
Subsequently, G's widow sold the suit property to respondents-de-
fendants through a registered sale deed. As a consequence of this the 
respondents filed a petition for eviction of the appellant. The appellant, 
therefore, filed a suit for declaration that the sale deed executed by G's 
widow in favour of the respondents was not binding on him, as she bad no 
right to sell the same. The trial court decreed the suit. The High Court 
dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant on the ground that G's widow 
had become an absolute owner of the suit property under Section 14(1) of 
the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. Hence this appeal. 
On behalf of the appellant it was contended that the Will gave a 
limited right to both the appellant and G; that if G himself had a limited 
right it could not mature into full right in his favour or in favour of his 
'vidow; and that G's widow had no right to execute the impugned sale 
D 
deed. 
E 
F 
On behalfof the respondents it was contended that the interest of the 
testatrix should be taken into account in construing a Will; that even if 
words were missing in the Will the Court should supply the missing words 
to subserve the intention of the testatrix; that even if G had a limited right, 
after his death, his \\idow's right in lieu of maintenance out of any estate of 
her husband would mature into full right by virtue to Section 14(1) of the 
Act and, therefore, G's widow was competent to execute the impugned sale 
deed. 
The following arose before this Court : 
(a) Whether the right given to G, the benefactor under the Will, was 
a limited right? 
(b) IfG had limited right, whether his widow could get absolute right 
G 
under Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 to execute the 
impugned sale deed in favour of respondents Nos. 1 and 2? 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. ltis well settled that while construing a Will the inten-
H 
tion of the testator should be carried out. Keeping this in view, different 
.... 
MUNINANJAPPA v. R. MANUAL 
1115 
parts of the Will should he construed harmoniously. The Courts should 
A 
" 
not reject any part of the Will as being a surplusage, as the 

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