Case Brief (Rewritten): Pearley Lal v. Rameshwar Das

Girdhari Lal executed a Will stating that his property will be inherited by his wife Kishen Dei and adopted son, who died before Girdhari Lal. After Girdhari’s death, Kishen Dei executed a Will trnasferring the property in dispute to her brother’s grandson Rameshwar Das. Peary Lal, who was in occupation of a portion of the property, refused to execute a lease deed in favour of Rameshwar Das, who later filed a suit before the subordinate judge.

Peary Lal argued that Kishen Dei did not get an absolute interest (complete ownership rights) under her husband’s Will and claimed that Girdhari Lal, during his lifetime, executed a Will dedicating the house to him and appointing him as the trustee. It was found that this Will could not be proved, and Girdhari Lal was not of sound mind on the Will’s date of execution. Thus, the order was made in favour of Rameshwar Das.

On appeal to the District Court, it was held that Kishen Dei only had a limited estate and could not confer any interest on the plaintiff. Consequently, the order of the subordinate judge was set aside. The High Court of East Punjab reversed the District Judge's order and confirmed the subordinate judge's decree.

An appeal to the Division Bench of the High Court resulted in the court holding that Kishen Dei should take an absolute interest in the disputed property, confirming the previous judgment.

The Supreme Court relied on the principles laid out in Sections 86, 84, and 75 of the Indian Succession Act and stated that in constructing a Will, the court should endeavour to discern the intention of the person who is making the Will by reading the same as a whole.

The Court held that when apparently conflicting dispositions can be reconciled by giving full effect to every word used in the document, such a construction should be adopted instead of one that would cut down the clear meaning of the testator's words. Furthermore, where one reasonable construction would lead to intestacy, it should be discarded in favour of a construction that does not create such an interruption.

The Court also held that there were no exceptional grounds to allow the appellants to raise the point of the other Will when they failed to do so in the lower courts and thus dismissed the appeal with costs to be paid.