Emerging startup of 2023 by Headstart
Emerging startup of 2023 by Headstart
Appellants: Uma devi Nambiar
Respondent: T.C. Sidhan
Hon’ble Justice Doraiswamy Raju and Arijit Pasayat, JJ
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.
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.
The Supreme Court highlighted that when a Will contains conflicting clauses, the latter clause prevails over the former as per Section 88 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, as a testator (the person making the Will) can always change their mind. It reaffirmed that a Will is meant to alter natural succession, and courts must interpret it as a whole to determine the testator’s true intent. Additionally, the Court ruled that title of the property cannot be decided summarily, and the genuineness of a will must be properly adjudicated before granting possession. Since half of the property legally belonged to the appellant, the Court rectified the High Court’s error and ordered possession to be restored to her while directing that the compensation for unlawful possession should be deposited in court until final judgment.
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.