THE BRAHMA VART SANATAN versus KANHYALAL BAGLA AND OTHERS

Citation: [2001] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 311 · Decided: 25-09-2001 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M.B. SHAH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

THE BRAHMA VART SANATAN 
v. 
KANHYALAL BAGLA AND OTHERS 
SEPTEMBER 25, 2001 
[M.B. SHAH AND R.P. SETHI, JJ.] 
Hindu Law: 
Hindu Succession Act, 1956-Section 14-Property o.f female Hindu to 
be her absolute property-Will executed by testator in favour of his w(fe-
lntention of testator and specific words used in the Will makes it clear that 
absolute right of ownership o.f his properties bequeathed to his wife-W(fe 
executes Will in favour o.f third person-Adopted son claims possession o.f 
properties and declaration that Will executed by his mother is null and void-
Trial Court held that the mother had only life estate under the Will and son will 
A 
B 
c 
have no right to obtain possession of the estate of the mother during her l{fe 
D 
time-High Court confirmed the order-On appeal, held even presuming that · 
mother had l(fe estate, she becomes absolute owner of the property under 
Section 14(1 ). 
Wills: 
Interpretation o.f-To be read as whole to gather intention o.f the testator. 
Words and Phrases: 
'Puree Malik'-Meaning o.f. 
' 
Testator-husband executed a Will in favour of his wife. After the 
testator's death his wife adopted respondent No. 1. After few years of 
adoption R-1 initiated proceedings through his natural father for declaration 
that he was adopted son and also for possession over the disputed properties. 
Trial Court decreed the suit. On appeal, High Court upheld the decision of 
Trial Court to the extent that R-1 was the adopted son but set aside the 
decision of trial court for handing over the possession of the suit premises. 
Subsequently, the mother executed a Will and a settlement deed in favour 
of the appellant. After her death R-1 filed another suit for possession and 
for declaration that Will and settlement deed executed by the mother are 
null and void. Trial Court held that the mother had only life estate under 
311 
E 
F 
G 
H 
312 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2001] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 
A 
the Will and it was not enlarged under Section 14(1) of tlte Hindu Succession 
Act into an absolute estate. High Court confirmed the same. Hence the 
present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
B 
HELD : 1.1. The intention of the testator and the specific words used 
in the Will makes it clear that the executant of the Will was to bequeath 
absolute right of ownership of his properties to his wife. [316-C; D] 
1.2. After the death of her husband she would have life interest even 
without Will being executed in her favour. In view of Section 14(1) of the 
C 
Hindu Succession Act, she would be the absolute owner of the said property 
and in such cases, exception provided under Section 14(2) of the Act would 
· not be applicable and presuming that she was having limited estate, she 
became absolute owner of the said property under Section 14(1) of the Act. 
[321-A-B; 322-A-B] 
D 
Thota Sesharathamma and Am: v. Thota Manikyamma (Dead) by Lrs., 
E 
F 
G 
H 
[1991] 4 SCC 3.12 and Beni Bai (Smt.) v. Raghubir Prasad, [1999] 3 SCC 
234, relied on. 
Durgi v. Kanhai]a Lal, AIR (1927) Allahabad 387, disapproved •. 
2. In the Will, the expression used is 'puree malik' i.e. absolute owner 
and the expression 'Malik' has a well-known connotation and has been 
held as "apt to describe a owner possessed of full proprietary rights, 
including a full right of alienation, unless there is something in the context 
or in surrounding circumstances to indicate that such full proprietary 
rights were not intended to be conferred". [317-C; D] 
, 
Pearey Lal v. Rameshwar Das, [1963] Supp. (2) SCR 834, relied on. 
3. While interpreting the Wills, it is settled law to get at the intention 
of the testator by reading the Will as a whole; if possible such construction 
as would give to every expression some effect rather than that which would 
render any of the expression inoperative is to be accepted. Further the 
words occurring more than once in a Will are to be presumed to be used 
always in the same sense unless contrary intention appears from the Will. 
The Court may also consider the circumstances under which the testator 
makes his Will such as the state of his property, or his family and the like. 
Further in the matter of construction of a Will, authorities or precedents 
BRAHMA VART SANATAN v. KANHYALALBAGLA [SHAH, J.] 
313 
would. be of no help as each Will is to be construed in its own terms and in 
A 
the setting in which the clauses occur. [316-G; H; 317-A; BJ 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 916 of 19

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