Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

12. In the case of Sadaram Suryanarayana & Anr. vs. Kalla Surya Kantham & Anr., (2010) 13 SCC 147, dealing with the interpretation of a Will, whereunder the testatrix had bequeathed an immovable property in favour of her two daughters and on their demise, devolved the same on their female children alone, the following observations made by the Supreme Court are instructive:

"8. The English rendition of Clause 6 of the will executed by Smt Kalla Jaggayyamma is as under:

"(6) 2nd item tiled house situated in New Colony out of which eastern wing two rooms shall devolve to my second daughter, Chandaram Appalanarasamma and the western wing two rooms shall devolve upon my elder daughter, Chandaram Ramanamma with absolute rights of sale, gift, mortgage, etc., and this will come into force after my demise. After demise of my daughters the retained and remaining property shall devolve upon their female children only."

9. It is evident from a plain reading of the above that the testatrix had bequeathed in absolute terms the property mentioned in Clause 6 in favour of her daughters Chandaram Appalanarasamma and Chandaram Ramanamma with absolute rights of sale, gift, mortgage, etc. That the bequest was in absolute terms was made abundantly clear by the use of the words "absolute rights of sale, gift, mortgage, etc." appearing in Clause 6 above. To that extent there is no difficulty. What led to a forensic debate at the Bar was the latter part of bequest under which the testatrix has attempted to regulate the devolution of the property in question after the demise of her daughters. The testatrix has desired that after the demise of her daughters the property vested in them would devolve upon their female heirs only.

24. We are not here dealing with a case where the testatrix has in one part of the will bequeathed the property to A while the same property has been bequeathed to B in another part. Had there been such a conflict, it may have been possible for the respondent-plaintiffs to argue that the latter bequest ought to take effect in preference to the former. We are on the contrary dealing with a case where the intention of the testatrix to make an absolute bequest in favour of her daughters is unequivocal. Secondly, the expression "after demise of my daughters the retained and remaining properties shall devolve on their female children only" does not stricto sensu amount to a bequest contrary to the one made earlier in favour of the daughters of the testatrix.

17. From the language used in the subject Will, it is evident that the testator had desired to devolve his movable and immovable properties in favour of the respondent No.1, as an absolute bequest. Respondent No.1 was not only a beneficiary under the Will, she was also made the executor of the Will. The moment the deceased had declared that all his movable and immovable properties would go to devisee, the respondent No.1, inherent in the said declaration was his intention to bequeath an absolute interest in the property in favour of his wife including right to sell, transfer or alienate the same. That being the position, the second part of the relevant para of the Will, where the testator had stated that "....... after her death, shall go to my two sons - Surinder Singh and Jasbir Kumar in equal shares." has to be construed to mean that if any part of the estate was available in the hands of the legatee, then the same would devolve on her two sons in equal share. If so interpreted, the conflict between the first part and the latter part of the para of the Will quoted above, stands reconciled, without any repugnance.