PEAREY LAL versus RAMESHWAR DAS

Citation: [1963] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 834 · Decided: 10-12-1962 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SYED JAFFER IMAM · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

sa4 SUPREME;couRT REPORTS [l!J63] SUPP 
1962 
PEAREY LAL 
D1t1mhtr, JO. 
v. 
RAMESHWAR DAS 
(S. J. IMAM, J.~L. KAPUR, K. SuBBA RAo and 
j. R . .l\:IuDHOLKAR, JJ.) 
Hindu IVill-IVidow devi.see-Oo11structio11 of will-U8e 
of word •Malik', if convey"! absolute ownership-Indian Succes-
sion Act, 1925 (39 of 1925), 88. 75, 82, 86. 
In the year 1897, one Girdhari Lal executed a will 
bequething his property to his wife Mst. Kishen Dei and 
adopted son. The adopted son predeceased Girdhari Lal. 
After the death of Girdhari Lal his wife executed a will be· 
qucthing the property in dispute i. e. the house to her brother's 
grandson, the respondent. The appellant who wa• in occupa· 
tion of a portion of the said house refused to execute a lease 
deed in favour of the respondent or pay him the rent after the 
death of Mst. Kishen Dei. The respondent filed a suit for 
eviction against the appellant. The appellant denied the title 
of the respondent as Mst. Kishen Dei did not get an absolute 
interest under the will of her husband and pleaded that 
Girdhari Lal dedicated the said house to one Shiv Temple by 
executing a will and appointed him a• a trustee. The Subordi-
nate Judge decreed the plaintiff.respondent suit. On appeal 
the District Judge set aside the decree of the Subordinate Judge 
and dismissed the suit, holding that under the will of 1897, 
Kishen Dei got only a limited estate. The plaintift-respondent 
preferred a second appeal to the High Court and the decree of 
the District Judge was set aside and that of the Subordinate 
Judge was restored and on construction of the will of 1897 it 
held that as the gift over failed, the life estate became an 
absolute estate and she got an absolute interest in the property. 
The appellant preferred a Letters Patent appeal before the 
Division Bench of the High Court and the judgment of the 
Single Judge was confirmed. 
Held, that in construing a will the court should try its 
best to get at : (i) the intention of the testator by reading the 
will as a whole and if possible, such construction as would give 
to every expression some effect rather than that which could 
render any of the expression inoperative must be accepted; (ii) 
another rule is that the \Vords occurring more than once in a 
will shall be presumed to be used always in the same sense 
2S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
835 
unless a contrary intention appears from the will; (iii) all parts 
of a will should he construed in relation to each other; (iv) (he 
court will look at the circumstances under which the testator 
makes his will, such as the state of his propertv, of his family 
and the like; (v) where apparently conflicting dispositions can 
be reconciled by giving full effect to every word used in a 
document, such a construction should be accepted instead of a 
construction which would have the effect of cutting down the 
clear meaning of the words used by the testator; (vi) where one 
of the t\VO rca~onablc construction \Voul<l lead 
to intcstacy 1 
that should be discarded in favour of a construction which docs 
not create any such I1iatus. 
On the above rule of construction, under the present will 
the gift over in favour of the son was only by way of defeasance 
and the widow had got an obsolute interest in the property. 
Subbamma v. Ranutnaidu, A. I. R. 1937 Mad. 476, dis· 
tinguished. 
Ileld, further, that the expression 'Malik' has been con-
sistently understood by courts as .-onveyino; the idea of absolute 
ownersliip and therefore, the testator used the word 'Malik' to 
describe his absolute interest in the property. 
Sasiman Olwwdlturain v. Shiv Narain O!taudhury, (1921) 
L. R. 49 I. A. 25 and Ram Gopal v. Nand Lal, [1950] S. C.R. 
766, relied on. 
CIVIL APPELLATE juRISDICTIUN : Civil Appeal 
No. 338/1960. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and 
order dated August 31, 1951, of the Punjab High 
Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 64 of 1949. 
S. P. Verma, for the appellant. 
Bii!Kin Narain and A. D. JJ!atlmr, for the res· 
pondent. 
1962. December 10. The Judgment of the 
Court was delivered by 
SUBBA RAO, J.-This appeal raises the question 
of the construction of a will executed by one Girdhari 
Lal in the year 1897. 
1962 
l't•rty Lal 
•. 
R1»ushw•r D•s 
Subha R,w, J, 
1962 
'earey Lal 
•• 
ll.ameslrwar Das 
Suiba Rao, J, 
836 SUPREME COURTREPORTS [1963] SUPP. 
Girdhari Lal, a resident of Delhi, executed a 
will dated February 8, 1897, bequeathing his pro-
perty, both movable and immovab

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