LexSIDDAMURTHY JAYARAMI REDDY (D) BY LRS. versus GODI JAYA RAMI REDDY & ANR.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2011] 4 S.C.R. 176 SIDDAMURTHY JAYARAMI REDDY (D) BY LRS. v. GODI JAYA RAMI REDDY & ANR. (Civil Appeal No. 2916 of 2005) APRIL 1, 2011 [AFTAB ALAM AND R.M. LODHA, JJ.] WILL: c Construction of will - Defeasance clause in the will - Effect of- Testator bequeathing all his properties to his grand- daughter by a will - Further clause in the will that if his daughter did not take a son in adoption and if that son did not marry his grand-daughter, then he intended to give 113 D share in the property to his daughter and son-in-law together - Held: The will must be read and construed as a whole to gather the intention of th.e testator and the endeavor of the court must be to give effect to each and every disposition - In ordinary circumstances, ordinary words must bear their ordinary construction and every disposition of the testator E contained in will should be given effect to, as far as possible consistent with the testator's desire - The legacy vested in the grand-daughter, albeit, defeasibly to the extent of 113 share upon happening of any of the events mentioned in the will - The clause in the will is not a repugnant condition that F invalidates the will, but a defeasance provision - Hindu Wills Act, 1870 - s. 2 - lnian Succession Act, 1865 - Indian Succession Act, 1925 - ss. 57(a), (b), 147 and 74 to 111. G H WILL Will in favour of minor - Obligation cast upon the guardian/executor - Failure to perform the obligation - Effect of - Explained. One 'BS' who had his dependents and other 176 SIDDAMURTHY JAYARAMI REDDY (D) BY LRS. v.. 177 GODI JAYA RAMI REDDY & ANR. relations, namely, his wife 'S', daughter 'P', son-in-law ,A 'RR', widowed daughter-in-law, grand-daughter 'LX' (daughter of predeceased son) and a widowed sister, executed a will on 21.5.1920 bequeathing all his movable and immoveable properties to his grand- daughter 'LX'. As 'LX' was a minor, the testator appointed his son-in-law B (.RR) as executor of the will. As 'P' and 'RR' had no issue, the testator expressed his desire in the will that 'P' would take a son in adoption with the consent of her husband 'RR' and that his grand -daughter 'LX' be married to such adopted son of·~·. It was further provided in the will that c 'RR' and 'LX' would look after all the other female members in the family; that in case his daughter 'P' did not take any boy in adoption or if the boy so adopted did not accept to marry 'LX', then 1/3 share of the property would go to 'P' and her husband 'RR' and 2/3 to 'LX'. After D . few years of death of 'BS', 'P' wanted to adopt a boy namely 'GVR' but 'RR' did not agree and left the village and his wife 'P', and settled in a different village where he performed a second marriage out of which two sons 'JR' and 'SR' were born. In due course "LX' married 'GVR' E and a son 'GJR' was born to them. Soon thereafter 'GVR' died and with the passage of time 'RR' and 'P' also died. 'LX', the legatee, also died in 1971. In 1980, the two sons of 'RR' born out of the second marriage filed a suit for partition claiming 1/3 share in the F property bequeathed by 'SB' as also for rent and profits. The suit was contested by the defendants stating that after 'RR' abandoned 'P' and his rights to the property, 'P' bequeathed her share in the property to 'LX' in 1953. The trial court passed a preliminary decree in favour of G the plaintiffs. On appeal by the defendants, the High Court held that 'RR' failed to discharge both the obligations - in maintaining the dependants of the testator and in acting as the executor - and, therefore, he could not claim any property under the will; and that the will executed by H 178 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 4 S.C.R. A 'P' in 1953 was genuine. The High Court allowed the appeal and dismissed the suit. Aggrieved, the plaintiffs filed the appeal. Dismissing the appeal, the Court B HELD: 1.1. By the Hindu Wills Act, 1870, statutory provisions were made to regulate the wills of Hindus, Jainas, Sikhs and Buddhists in the Lower Provinces of Bengal and in the towns of Madras and Bombay. Inter alia, by virtue of s. 2 thereof certain provisions of the c Indian Succession Act, 1865 were made applicable to all such wills and codicils. Clauses (a) and (b) of s.57 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 are pari materia to clauses (a) and (b) of s. 2 of the 1870 Act. [Para 21.-22] [191-E; 193- D] D 1.2. In the instant case, the will dated 21.5.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.