Legal Reference Library

The Supreme Court, in Dr KS Palanisami vs Hindu community in general and citizens of Gobichettipalayam, has observed that courts are not entitled to ignore clear words or add something of its own or dilute the meaning of any clear word used in the Will. In the instant case, a Will was executed mutually and jointly by a husband and wife, wherein they intended to set apart the property for charity. One of the clauses in the Will provided that on the death of any of the spouse, the survivor shall enjoy the entire properties absolutely with all the rights. The husband died and later the wife had alienated some of the properties. The high court, declaring these transfers as null and void, had opined that the expression ‘absolutely’ in the Will should be read to mean that the surviving testator would have only the life interest.  In this context, an apex court bench comprising Justice AK Sikri and Justice Ashok Bhushan observed: “The solemn duty of the court is to find out the i...

The Supreme Court in Madhuri Ghosh vs. Debobroto Dutta, has reiterated the legal position that where an absolute bequest has been made in respect of certain property to certain persons in a Will, then a subsequent bequest made qua the same property later in the same Will to other persons will be of no effect. In his Will, the testator had bequeathed the property in favour of the widow and the elder daughter. Before the court, it was contended that the said bequeath is only a limited interest and that the Will should be read as a whole and that the testator’s intention should be given effect so that the grandchildren are “not on the road”. Though the said argument found favour in the trial court as well as high court, a Supreme Court bench comprising Justice RK Agrawal and Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman rejected the same in view of the dictum laid down in Ramkishorelal and Another vs. Kamal Narayan. In Ramkishorelal case, the apex court held thus: “An attempt should always be made to rea...