Emerging startup of 2023 by Headstart
Emerging startup of 2023 by Headstart
Appellants: Shyamal Kanti Guha
Respondent: Meena Bose
Hon’ble Justice S.B. Sinha & L.S. Panta , JJ
Hillol Kanti Guha made a Will stating that 50% of his house would go to his brother, Shyamal Kanti Guha, and the other 50% to his sister, Meena Bose. However, the Will also mentioned that after Meena’s death, Shyamal would get full ownership of her share. Clause 10 stated that if any of the siblings passed away before the testator (the person who is making the Will), the heirs of the deceased would inherit their share as per the Will.
After Hillol Kanti Guha passed away, Meena filed a case for partition of the property. While the case was pending in the High Court, Shyamal passed away.
The appellants (those challenging Meena’s claim) argued that the Will should be read as a whole, and it clearly only gave Meena a life interest in the property, meaning she could live there during her lifetime but cannot own it permanently.
The respondents (supporting Meena’s claim) argued that the words “give, bequeath, and devise” meant the property was fully given to Meena, and she had complete ownership over it.
Both the Trial court and the High Court ruled in Meena’s favour, stating that the Will gave her absolute ownership and that the partition suit should be allowed. Hence, this appeal has been preferred.
The Supreme Court held that the intention of the person making the Will was to create only a life interest in favour of Meena Bose. The Court emphasized that the right to occupy is not the right to own the property. The words “give, bequeath, and devise” indicate vesting of ownership in the property absolutely in favour of the persons. The Court noted that while Section 88 of the Indian Succession Act states that in the event of inconsistency between two parts of a Will, the latter shall prevail, if it is possible to give effect to both clauses, the court should do so. The Court also held that the suit for partition was right to be entertained by the Court to declare that the respondent’s interest was confined to a life interest only and upheld the appeal.
The court emphasized on the point that right to occupy (life interest) is not a right to own the property and effect transfers thereby.
The most effective way to shape your future is by taking action today.
Disclaimer: Please note My Legacy Box ("formerly Oiconomos") is not a law company/firm and does not offer legal advisory. Though materials, software, and services are available to use publicly, they cannot substitute legal counsel by legal practitioners. We do not endorse or solicit the work of any legal counselor.