LexPRAMOD KUMARI BHATIA versus OM PRAKASH BHATIA AND ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
• •, >- • • 53 PRAMOD KUMAR! BHATIA v. OM PRAKASH BHATIA AND ORS. November 15, 1979 [R. S. SARKARIA AND 0. CHINNAPPA REDDY, JJ.) Will-Teslamtntary Will, con.struction of-Jurisdiction of the Court in cxercisinR its curial c!raught.~nurnship for the ffl~tator to supply the specific words from the Will,. explained. Evidence-Additional evidence reception of by the High Court-Supre1ne Court cannot interfere with the discretionary power of the Iligh Court, when the application is very much belated. I The lestator Pearcy Lal Singh Bhatia died on 30-3-1952 leaving behind him A c a Will dated 8-4-44, a widow Lakshmi Devi being his second wife, a son Om Praka5b by Lakshmi Devi, and t!;ie widow and daughters (Mamnohini, Raj Kuma!i aDd Pramod Kumari respectively) of a pre-deseased son by a pre- I) dece38Cd fll'St wife. Manmohini, the daughter-in-law of the testator and her daughter Raj Kumari had left the family house and moved away to_ Mathura, V..'hile Pramod Kumari stayed in with her grand father and was brought by up him. Lakshmi Devi, widow of Pearey Lal Singh died in 1958. The "1Jit filed by Om Prakash for title to a sum of Rs. 16,490/- lying in deposit with two banks was dismissed by the trial J udgc, who on a strict and narrow construction of the will came to the conclusion that Om Prakash was not entitled to •ucceed under the will and that on the death of Lakshmi Devi the amount bad to be divided among Om Prakash, Man Mohini, Raj Kumari and Pramod Kumari. On appeal the High Court of Allahabad held that on a true comtruction of the will Om Prakash alone was entitled to the amount. Dismissing the appeal by special leave, the Court, HEID : I. A reading of the whole of the will clearly shows the unambi- guous intention of the testator that his son Om Prakash should succeed to his estate after the death of Lakshmi Devi and none else was to be the owner of the properties. [57 A] The testator noticed the existence of five possible heirs : his wife, Lakshmi E DcVi; his sOill Om Prakash, his deceased son Krishna Chandra's widow, Man- G n1ohini and Krishna Chandra's daughters, Raj Kumari and Pramod Kumari. He was desirous that Pra·mod Kumari Should be brought up by himself and his wife and that they should also perform her marriage. He was also desirous that a sum of Rs. 2000 /- should be set apart for the marriage of Raj Kumari. Apart from that, he did make it clear thait Man Mohini, Raj Kumari and Pramocl Kumari should have no right or interest in any of bis properties under any circumstances. On his death his properties were to go to his wife Lakshmi R Devi who 1llao to have a life interest in them. If his wife Lakshmi Devi pre- decease<l him, the properties were to go to his son Om Prakash. [56 F-HJ 54 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1980] 2 s.c.l!.. A 2. No doubt, the testator while specifying that Om Prakash was to take the properties in case Lakshmi Devi predeceased the testator, did not specify I.bat Om Prakash should take the properties after the death of Lakshmi Devi ·in case Lakshmi Devi survived the testator to enjoy the• life estate given to her under the will. But this is a case where the testator's intention to give the -pro· perties to Om Prakash in case Lakshmi Devi predeceased the testator was so patently and reasonably certain, 'no speculation but a compelling conviction', ·B that the Court would be justified in exercising its curial draughtsmanship for the testator. and supplying th~ specific \VOrds missing from the will. 1be Court bas undoubted jurisdiction to do so. Therefore necessary words to that effect can and must be read into will. [57 A-C, 58 CJ c D E G H William Abbott v. Eliza Middleton, 7 H.L.C. 68 Eden v. Wilson, 4 H.L.C. 284, Re Smith (1947 2 All England Law Reports 708), Re Cory (1955 I W.L.R. 725 Re. Riley's Will Trusts (1962 I W.L.R. 344); quoted with approval. 3. Supreme Court cannot interfere with the discretion exercised by the liigh Court in refusing to receive additional evidence for which an application was made after several years. [58 F-G] CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2577 of 1969. From the Judgment and Order dated 18-7-1967 of the Allahabad High Court in First Appeal No. 166/60. M. V. Goswami for the Appellant. Mohan Beltari Lal and Vishnu Mathur for Respondent No. 1. The Judgment of the Court was delivered· by CHINNAPPA REDDY, J.-The question in the appeal is about thCJ co'nstru
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.