Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.20 seconds)Madhuri Ghosh & Anr vs Debobroto Dutta & Anr on 9 November, 2016
The Section as well as its illustrations are clear. Where two
clauses of bequests made in a Will are irreconcilable each
other, and when they cannot possibly stand together, the
last bequest shall prevail. The aforesaid illustrations make
the above very clear. The illustrations clearly show its
applicability to the facts and circumstances of the present
case. The learned counsel for the appellant has invited the
attention of this Court to the decision in Madhuri Ghosh's
case (Supra) and argued that where an absolute bequest
has been made in respect of certain property to certain
persons, then a subsequent bequest made qua the same
property later in the same Will to other persons will be of no
effect. It seems that there is no discussion in the judgment
in Madhuri Ghosh's case (Supra) rendered by a Two
judges' Bench, regarding the true interpretation of Section
88 of the Indian Succession Act.
Navneet Lal Alias Rangi vs Gokul And Others on 9 December, 1975
14. In construing a Will, when repugnant clauses are
there, all efforts should be given to reconcile the clauses so
that the courts shall give effect to the intention of the testator
to make a testamentary disposition. At the same time, it
was held that if the first interest created is valid, the
subsequent interest cannot take effect. In view of Section
88 of the Indian Succession Act, the bequest created in
favour of the 1st defendant has become invalid and
inoperative, in the light of the latter bequest created in
favour of Martinmon. Therefore, it has to be held that the
first interest created is not valid in the eye of law. Only when
the first bequest is valid, it has to be preferred in view of the
decision in Navneet Lal alias Rangi's case (Supra).
The Hindu Succession Act, 1956
1