Case Brief: ArunKumar and Ors. Vs. Shrinivas and Anr.

Deciding Authority: Supreme Court of India
Date of Judgment: 8th April, 2003
Bench: Justice Doraiswamy Raju & Ashok Bhan
Facts of the Case: The appeals have been filed against the common Judgment and decree passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Bombay, Aurangabad Bench, whereby the learned Judges in affirming the decision of the Trial Court, have chosen to reject the appeals including the cross-objections.
The only question that arose for consideration was as to the construction to be placed on the Will dated 28.1.1969, executed by late Sitabai wife of Ramchandra Ganesh Mudhalwadkar. Indisputably, she is the absolute owner of the property which was the subject matter of the Will in question.
Judgment of the Case: The Supreme Court held that the testament cannot be construed to bequeath the property absolutely in favour of the husband and placing such a construction would amount to not only re-writing the several clauses in the Will but would constitute violence to the language and further defeat the very intention of the testator. Courts have often reiterated the cardinal principle that the intention of the testator should be given the primary importance and construe the words in the background of the intended meaning which the testator himself desired to ascribe to the words used. There are overwhelming intrinsic materials in the document itself which, in our view, necessitate a limited meaning being given to the word ’Malik’ in this case also to construe the bequest in favour of the husband to be a life estate only. We are convinced, on going through the recitals in the Will, that the only possible and reasonable construction that could be placed on the Will by giving full effect to the intention of the testator as found expressed in all relevant portion of the Will would be to construe the bequest made in favour of her husband as one for life interest and remainder bequeathed absolutely in favour of the three minors after the life time of her husband. Strong reliance placed by the learned counsel for the respondents on the decisions of this Court in Mauleshwar Mani and Ors. v. Jagdish Prasad and Ors., [2002] 2 SCC 468 are inappropriate having regard to the vast andradical difference in the language of the document construed therein andthe one before us, in this case. The provisions contained in Section 124 will have no relevance to the case on hand and on the very construction of the Will, the claim of the appellants deserves to be upheld.Consequently, the appeals are allowed, the judgment and decree of the courts below are set aside and the suit filed by the appellants shall stand decreed, as prayed for.
No costs.