Case Brief (Rewritten): M.S. Bhavani v. M. S. Raghu Nandan

Citation: (2020) 5 SCC 361

Name of parties:

Appellants: M.S. Bhavani

Respondent: M.S. Raghu Nandan

Bench:

Hon’ble Justice Shantanagoudar and R. Subhash Reddy, JJ

Facts of Case

M. Srinivasa Murthy passed away in 2002, leaving a Will dated 07.06.1995 that gave his property to his wife, Nirmala Murthy. In 2004, she sold the property to the Appellants. However, Respondent 1 claimed he had a share and that Nirmala only had life interest (the right to live there and not to sell it). Later, the Appellants filed a suit and tried to evict Nirmala, saying she was a mere licensee and was only permitted to stay after the sale in 2004. The Trial Court found that while the Will gave Nirmala full ownership, the sale was unfair because the Appellants tricked her into signing the documents and never she intended to sell the same ti the Appellants. So, the Court cancelled the sale and dismissed the eviction case. The High Court agreed that there was no proof of force but still ruled the sale invalid because it was not done properly with Respondent 1’s consent. Nirmala Murthy passed away while the case was still in Court.

Issues Before Court

• Whether the testator of the Will dated 07.06.1995 intended to vest Nirmala Murthy with an absolute interest in the suit property?
• If yes, whether the sale deed dated 25.02.2004 was against the Will dated 07.06.1995, and therefore unenforceable as against Respondent ?

Judgement

The Supreme Court ruled that a Will should be understood based on its clear language and the testator’s intent, without making assumptions. It noted that since the Will allowed Nirmala Murthy to sell, mortgage, lease, or give the property to someone who cared for her, the testator intended to give her full ownership, not just a life interest. This meant his children had no claim to the property. The Court also confirmed that the sale was valid and followed the Will’s terms. As a result, it ruled that the Appellants had rightful ownership and ordered that the property to be handed over to them within three months. 

Key Takeaways

The Supreme Court reaffirmed that the intention of the testator (the person making the Will) must be determined from the plain language of the Will without any speculations. If a Will grants absolute ownership, then the beneficiary is said to have the right to transfer the property, and no one can later claim a share against such rights when exercised rightly. The case also highlights that sale transactions executed as per the Will are valid, and allegations of fraud must be proved with strong evidence.