P.K. MOHAN RAM versus B.N. ANANTHACHARY AND ORS.

Citation: [2010] 3 S.C.R. 401 · Decided: 15-03-2010 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.S. SINGHVI · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

·'· 
[2010] 3 S.C.R. 401 
P.K. MOHAN RAM 
v. 
B.N. ANANTHACHARY AND ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 6412 of 2002) 
MARCH 15, 2010 
[G.S. SINGHVI AND ASOK KUMAR GANGULY, JJ.] 
Deeds and Documents - Deed executed in respect of 
A 
B 
suit property - Will or Settlement Deed - Held: The form, or 
nomenclature of the deed is not conclusive - Court has io 
C 
vel}' carefully examine the document as a whole, look into the 
substance thereof, treatment of the subject by setUorl 
executant, .. intention appearing both by the expressed 
language employed in the document and by necessary 
implication and prohibition, if any, contained against D · 
revocation thereof - On facts, by executing .the deed in 
question, the original owner expressed his intention, in no · 
uncertain terms, to settle the suit property in favour of 16 
persons, in praesenti - The language of the deed clearly 
shows that all the beneficiaries were to enjoy the property 
E 
· along with original owner during his lifetime and affer his . 
death, each of the beneficiaries was to get a specified share 
- In the concluding portion of the deed, the original owner also 
made it clear that he will have no right to ca~cel the Deed for · 
any reason whatsoever or to alter the terms thereof.- Read 
F 
as a whole, it is clear that the deed in question. was a 
'Settlement Deed' and not a 'Will'. 
Transfer of Property Act, 1882- ss.19 and 21 - "Vested 
interest" and "contingent interest" - Difference between -
Discussed. 
G 
The original owner of the suit property executed 
document Ex. A-2, titled and described as "Settlement 
Deed", in favour of the appellant, respondent nos.1 and 
401 
H 
402 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2010] 3 S.C.R. 
A 2, and 13 others i.e. in total 16 beneficiaries. 
After the death of the original owner, the appellant 
filed suit for partition of his share in the suit property. 
Respondent nos.1 and 2 filed written statement 
8 contending that the appellant obtained the 'Settlement 
Deed' by playing fraud, and on discovery thereof, the 
original owner executed 'Revocation Deed' Ex. B-2 and 
then executed a 'Will' Ex. B-3 whereby he bequeathed the 
property in their favour. 
C 
Th~ trial Court passed preliminary decree in favour 
of appellant holding that Ex. A-2 was "Settlement Deed" 
and the same was not executed as a result of fraud or 
misrepresentation and that the settlor did not have the 
right to execute 'Revocation Deed' Ex. B-2 and 'Will' Ex. 
D B-3. The judgment was upheld by the first appellate court. 
On second appeal, the High Court held that even 
though Ex.A-2 was titled and described as 'Settlement 
Deed', in reality it was a 'Will' and that the appellant had 
E no right in the suit property because the settlor had 
bequeathed the same in favour of respondent Nos.1 and 
2. 
In appeal to this Court, it was contended by the 
appellant that the High Court misinterpreted Ex.A-2 as a 
F 'Will' ignoring the specific stipulation contained therein 
that it was a 'Settlement Deed'. With reference to s.19 of 
the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, it was contended that 
the transfer of the property rights was in praesenti, which 
coupled with an unequivocal inhibition in Ex.A-2 against 
G cancellation/amendment thereof, clearly shows that Ex.A-
2 was a 'Settlement Deed' and not a 'Will'. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. 1. Sections 19 and 21 of the Transfer of 
H 
P.K. MOHAN RAM v. B.N. ANANTHACHARY AND 
403 
ORS. 
Property Act, 1882 elucidate the expressions "vested A 
interest" and "contingent interest" in the context of 
transfer of property. A reading of the plain language of 
the above sections makes it clear that an interest can be 
said to be a vested interest where there is immediate right 
of present enjoyment or a present right for future B 
enjoyment. An interest can be said to be contingent if the 
right of enjoyment is made dependent upon some event 
which may or may not happen. On the happening otthe 
event, a contingent interest becomes a vested interest. 
[Para 10] [412-G; 413-H; 414-A-B] 
c 
1.2. Although, no strait-jacket formula has been 
evolved, while interpreting an instrument to find out 
whether it is of a testamentary character, which will take 
effect after the life time of the executant or it is an 
instrument creating a vested interest in praesenti in D 
favour of a person, the Court has to very carefully 
examine the document as a whole, look into the 
substance thereof, the treatment of the subject by the 
settlor

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