Balrang Factory Ltd. v. University of Calcutta

Citation: (2007) 7 SCC 183

Name of parties:

Appellants: Balrang Factory Ltd. & Another

Respondent: University of Calcutta & Ors.

Bench:

Hon’ble Justice S.B. Sinha and Markandey Katju, JJ

Date Of Appeal: 2006

Date Of Judgement: Fri May 18 2007

Facts of Case

Nerode Chandra Vasu Mullick executed a will on 04.03.1932, transferring all his immovable property and debentures to his son for his lifetime, after which it would pass to his male descendants, and in their absence, to his daughters or their sons. However, in a codicil (amendment or changes made in the Will) executed the same day, he specified that if his son had no heirs, the property would go to the University of Calcutta for educational purposes. After Nerode Chandra Vasu’s death, his son, became the sole executor of the Will, leased the property to the appellant company (Chamong Tea Company Ltd) for 10 years, with an option to renew the lease, and later sold it to them. The beneficiary (the testator’s son) died in 1976 without any heirs, after which the University of Calcutta claimed ownership based on the Will terms, obtained a Letter of Administration, and took possession in 1977. The Appellant, Chamong Tea Company, and others filed suits to claim the property, but the Court ruled that the son only had a life interest (right to be in possession of the property during the lifetime) and could not transfer ownership. The decision favoured the university, leading to appeals before the Calcutta High Court's Division Bench and later to the Supreme Court.

Issues Before Court

• Whether the dispositions in regard to the residuary estate made by the said will are void save and except the life interests given thereby to the plaintiffs and the defendant Susan Sopher ?
• Whether subject to the life interests given in the residuary estate to the plaintiff and the defendants Susan Sopher, the said plaintiffs and the defendant Susan Sopher have succeeded to the residuary estate of the testator (person who made the Will) as on an inheritance without a Will ?

Judgement

The Court considered the intention of the person who made the Will by examining all the surrounding circumstances. They reviewed the entire Will and decided that the beneficiary (the testator’s son) only had rights to the property during his lifetime (life interest) and did not have absolute ownership. After his death, the property was meant to go to his male children. The Court also ruled that the codicil (a later addition to the Will) would prevail over any conflicting parts of the original Will and should be read as part of it. The codicil showed that the testator (the person who made the Will) wanted to honour his ancestors' memory, and the bequest (transfer of property through Will) to Calcutta University was intended for a specific purpose, as stated in Clause 12 of the codicil. Finding no merit in the appeal, the court ruled in favour of the University of Calcutta.

Key Takeaways

The Court gave a commendable order stating that codicil prevailed over the Will, reinforcing the testator’s intent to honour his ancestors and ensure the property passed to Calcutta University if the legatee (beneficiary in the Will) had no male heirs. Further, it clarified that the codicil must be read as a part of the Will.  The appeal lacked merit, and the ruling favoured the university.