Facts of the case
Sankunni owned a residential house and had two daughters, Uma Devi Nambiar (the Appellant) and Rani Sidhan (the respondent’s wife). After Sankunni and Rani passed away, the Appellant filed a case under Sections 192-195 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, claiming that the respondent had wrongfully taken possession of the property and that she was the rightful heir. However, the respondent argued that he was the sole heir based on a Will executed by him and Rani. The Appellant challenged the Will, calling it a forgery, and also argued that the District Court had no authority under these sections to decide on the Will’s validity. Despite this, the District Court ruled that the Will was genuine. When the Appellant approached the Kerala High Court, it refused to interfere, stating that the District Court’s jurisdiction was discretionary under Section 115 CPC, 1908. The Appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court by Special leave.
Issue before the court
- Whether the appellant was entitled to possession of the property in question ?
- Whether the lower courts erred in delivering justice to the parties ?
- Which clause should be followed when a will contains an inconsistency ?
Judgement
The Supreme Court held that the rule of interpretation contained in Section 88 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, can be invoked when two clauses of a Will are inconsistent. If there is an inconsistency between an earlier or subsequent part, the latter clause or portion prevails over the earlier part, based on the principle that a testator can always change their mind and create a new interest in place of the previously made bequest (disposition of assets through a Will). The intention of the testator should be interpreted by reading the Will as a whole.
The Court stated that a Will is executed to alter the ordinary mode of succession, and it is bound to reduce or deprive the share of natural heirs. If a person intends to pass their property to natural heirs, there is no need to execute a Will.
The Supreme Court held that half of the share in the property indisputably belonged to the Appellant, and the District Court could not have taken a summary decision or granted possession of the entire property to the respondent. The High Court, by dismissing the revision petition, committed a serious error resulting in a miscarriage of justice.
The Court further stated that the genuineness of the Will must be established by the respondents in an appropriate proceeding, and thereafter, they may seek possession and any mesne profits (compensation for unlawful possession). Possession should be delivered to the Appellants, and the mesne profits (compensation for unlawful possession) should be deposited in court pending final adjudication.