Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 6 of 6 (0.21 seconds)
S.Krishnankutty Nair vs Seethalekshmi Amma on 12 April, 2024 cites

Gnanambal Ammal vs T. Raju Ayyar And Others on 21 October, 1950

Parthasarathy [1913 (41) Ind App 51 at p.73 (PC)]) and is bound to bear in mind also other matters than merely the words used. It must consider the surrounding circumstances, the position of the testator, his family relationship, the probability that he would use words in a particular sense....But all this is solely as an aid to arriving at a right construction of the Will, and to ascertain the meaning of its language when used by that particular testator in that document. Venkata Narasimha's case supra and Gnanambal Ammal v. T. Raju Ayyar and Others [1950 SCR 949 AT P.955: AIR 1951 SC 103 AT PP 105-6] RSA.1016/2005 6 (3) The true intention of the testator has to be gathered not by attaching importance to isolated expressions but by reading the will as a whole with all its provisions and ignoring none of them as redundant or contradictory (Raj Bajrang Bahadur Singh v. Thakurain Bakhtraj Kuer [1953 SCR 232 AT P.240 -(AIR 1953 SC 7 AT P 9]) (4) The court must accept, if possible, such construction as would give to every expression some effect rather than that which would render any of the expression inoperative. The court will look at the circumstances under which the testator makes his will, such as the state of his property, of his family and the like. Where apparently conflicting dispositions can be reconciled by giving full effect to every word used in a document, such a construction should be accepted instead of a construction which would have the effect of cutting down the clear meaning of the words used by the testator. Further, where one of the two reasonable constructions would lead to intestacy, that should be discarded in favour of a construction which does not create any such hiatus.
Supreme Court of India Cites 1 - Cited by 119 - B K Mukherjea - Full Document

Raj Bajrang Bahadur Singh vs Thakurain Bakhtraj Kuer on 7 November, 1952

Parthasarathy [1913 (41) Ind App 51 at p.73 (PC)]) and is bound to bear in mind also other matters than merely the words used. It must consider the surrounding circumstances, the position of the testator, his family relationship, the probability that he would use words in a particular sense....But all this is solely as an aid to arriving at a right construction of the Will, and to ascertain the meaning of its language when used by that particular testator in that document. Venkata Narasimha's case supra and Gnanambal Ammal v. T. Raju Ayyar and Others [1950 SCR 949 AT P.955: AIR 1951 SC 103 AT PP 105-6] RSA.1016/2005 6 (3) The true intention of the testator has to be gathered not by attaching importance to isolated expressions but by reading the will as a whole with all its provisions and ignoring none of them as redundant or contradictory (Raj Bajrang Bahadur Singh v. Thakurain Bakhtraj Kuer [1953 SCR 232 AT P.240 -(AIR 1953 SC 7 AT P 9]) (4) The court must accept, if possible, such construction as would give to every expression some effect rather than that which would render any of the expression inoperative. The court will look at the circumstances under which the testator makes his will, such as the state of his property, of his family and the like. Where apparently conflicting dispositions can be reconciled by giving full effect to every word used in a document, such a construction should be accepted instead of a construction which would have the effect of cutting down the clear meaning of the words used by the testator. Further, where one of the two reasonable constructions would lead to intestacy, that should be discarded in favour of a construction which does not create any such hiatus.
Supreme Court of India Cites 0 - Cited by 104 - B K Mukherjea - Full Document

Pearey Lal vs Rameshwar Das on 10 December, 1962

Paerey Lal v. Rameshwar Das[1963 Supp (2) SCR834 at pp.839-842: AIR 1963 SC 1703 at pp.1705-1706] (5) It is one of the cardinal principles of construction of wills that to the extent that it is legally possible effect should be given to every disposition contained in the will unless the law prevents effect being given to it. Of course, if there are two repugnant provisions conferring successive interests, if the first interest created is valid the subsequent interest cannot take effect but a Court of construction will proceed to the farthest extent to avoid repugnancy, so that effect could be given as far as possible to every testamentary RSA.1016/2005 7 intention contained in the Will.
Supreme Court of India Cites 7 - Cited by 96 - Full Document
1