LexNAVNEET LAL ALIAS RANGI versus GOKUL AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B c D E NA VNEET LAL ALIAS RAN GI v. GOKUL AND OTHERS December 9, 1975 LK. K. MATHEW, P. K. GOSWAMI AND N. L. UNTWALIA, JJ.] Testamentary Wi/l-Co11structio11-Pri11ciples of-Term "Malik" used in a Wi/1---Meiming of for the purposes of construction of the Will, wlze1her it denot- es vesting a "life interes1" or an "absolute interest". One 'BC', governed by the Mitakshra School of Hindu Law, being issueless and apprehending the claim to his property after his death as reversioners by his only brother 'RR' and his nephew 'K' who were inimical to him_ since the partition of their ancestral property in 1899, and possible harassment of his wife and 'G', the respondent, executed a Will on September 21, 1916, in the Urdu script. The respondent 'Gā¢ being the son of the testator's sister married to testator's wife's brother was doubly related. As per the Will, 'G' was to perform the obsequies and other annual death ceremonies etc., being his 'waris' and, the ''Malik Kami!'-absolute owner" having all the proprietary powers and the power of making transfers of all sorts", while his wife was to be in posses- sion and enjoyment of the property during her life time. From the date of death of the testator in 1918 for about 18 years. the widow and 'G' lived in cordiality but got estranged later due to estrangement of feelings resulting in several civil and criminal litigation between them. The widow died in 1948 executing a gift deed and a Will in respect of certain properties in favour of the appellant 'NL'. 'G' filed a civil suit claiming his rights under the Will dated 21 September, 1916, and the appellant defendant contested it on pleas that the widow of 'BC' having an absolute right over the property under the said Will validly made the gift deed and the' Will of 1948 in his favour and that the respondent-plaintiff had no locus standi to file the suit. The suit was decreed. On appeal to the Allahabad High Court, as there was a difference of opinion between the Judges of the Division Bench on the nature of the widow's estate,-one opining :as the Will conferring a "limited estate" and the other opining as conferring an "abso- lute estate" the; appeal was set down to a third Judge who agreed with the view that the WiJJ conferred only a "limited estate" upon the widow and dismissed the appeal. Confirming the, decree of the courts below and dismissing the appeal by certi- F ficate, the Court, G H HELD : ( 1) The following are the established principles for construing the I anguage of the WiJJ. (a) In construing a document whether in English or in vernacular the funda- mental rule is to ascertain the intention from the words used; the surrounding circumstances being considered to find out the intended meaning of such words employed therein. [927F-G] (b) In construing the language, of the Wi!J the court is entitled to put itself into the testator's armchair and is bound to bear in mind also other matters than merely the words used like the surrounding circumstances, the position of the testator, his family relationship, the probability that he would use words in a particular sense-all as an aid to arriving at a right construction of the Will, and to ascertain the meaning of its language when used by that particular testator in that document. [927G-H, 928A] ( c) The true intention of the testator has to be gathered not by attaching importance to isolated expressions but by reading the WiJI as a whole with all its provisions and ignoring none of them as redundant or contradictory. [928B] ( d) The court must accept, if possible, such construction as would give to every expression some effect rather than that which would render any of 1' - .. t NAVNEET LAL V. GOKUL 925 the expresssion inoperative. The court will look at the circumstanc:s un~er A which the testator makes his Will, such as the state of his property, of his. family ahd the like. Where apparently conflicting dispositions can be rec~nciled by giving full effect to every word u>ed in a document, such a construcllon should be accepted instead of a construction which would have the effect of cuttmg down the clear meaning of the words used by the testator. Further, where one of ihe two reasonable constructions would lead to intestacy, that should be discarded in favour of a construction which does not create and such hiatus. [928C-E] B (e) It is one of' the cardinal principles of construction of Wills t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.