Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Mr.J.S.Wasu, appearing for the petitioner, in both the revision petitions, would refer to the relevant part of the will, to urge that respondent Malwinder Kaur by no stretch of imagination can be taken to have been appointed as Executor of the will in view of the clear intention expressed by the testator to appoint Lakhbir Singh as the Executor. The counsel has referred to Para 14 of the will dated 5.7.1992 and this reads as under:-

"I hereby appoint Lakhbir Singh Wasu Advocate, my youngest son, as the executor of this WILL and he will be entitled to meet all the legitimate expenses incurred in implementation and in the execution of this WILL out of my assets as in main Para 7 above. God forbid, if Lakhbir Singh is no more at the time of my death, his wife Malwinder Kaur will act as executor of the Will."
CIVIL REVISION NO.1839 OF 2008 :{ 4 }:
Mr.J.S.Wasu would highlight part of the contents of Para 14 of the will starting from `God forbid, if Lakhbir Singh is no more at the time of my death, his wife Malwinder Kaur will act as executor of the Will' to say that the intention is clearly made out to appoint Lakhbir Singh Wasu as the Executor of the will. He would then highlight the fact that Malwinder Kaur could act as an Executor of the will only in a situation if Lakhbir Singh was no more alive at the time of the death of testator. The counsel would then refer to the date of death of Lakhbir Singh Wasu to say that he was alive when the testator died and as such, the situation which was visualized by the testator to appoint Malwinder as Executor of the will would not arise in this case. He then relies on the provisions of Section 222 of the Act to say that probate can only be granted to an executor appointed by the will. Malwinder Kaur could have taken over as executor of the will only if Lakhbir Singh had died prior to the death of the testator and hence, it can not be said that she is appointed as executor of the will by implication.
testator. It may be a worth consideration that if Lakhbir Singh had in fact died during life time of Testator, he even would have been available to change the will, what to talk of executor. The testator had recorded his intention by expressing his clear intention, when he says that God forbid if Lakhbir Singh Wasu is no more then his wife Malwinder Kaur would act as executor of the will. The words at the time of my death would not convey this intention that Malwinder Kaur was to act as an executor only if Lakhbir Singh had pre-deceased the testator. In that eventuality the testator would have otherwise handled. The intention of the testator as can be gathered is to appoint Malwinder Kaur as executor of the will in the event of the death of Lakhbir Singh.
recitals in the will. Sub Clause (VII) the intention of testator is clear that he wanted Malvinder Kaur to act as executor in the absence of Lakhbir Singh. Even the illustration under Section 222 of the Act highlighted by counsel for the petitioner would lend support to the contention of counsel for the respondents. Intention to appoint Malwinder Kaur as Executor of the will by implication is clearly not made out and she was to so act in the event of death of Lakhbir Singh. His pre-deceasing the testator is not an essential condition which can be inferred from the wording to say that she could act as executor only if Lakhbir Singh had pre-deceased the testator. It can reasonably be construed that the testator meant to substitute Malwinder Kaur as executor in the event of death of his son as he has very aptly described by words `if God forbid Lakhbir Singh is no more', then Malwinder Kaur is to act as executor. The words are not required to be construed in a technical spirit but is to see what was the real object of the testator. It can reasonably be assumed that testator has intended his son Lakhbir Singh to act as executor as long as he could and in the event of his death he substituted Malwinder Kaur as an executor. The action of the Trial Court in dismissing the application of the petitioner and allowing the prayer made on behalf of the respondents, thus, is sound and reasonable.