Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 5 of 5 (0.20 seconds)Ram Gopal vs Nand Lal And Others on 14 November, 1950
Even in the case of Ram Gopal, (supra), the Court had
only emphasized the fundamental rule to ascertain the intention from
the words used and for taking into consideration the surrounding
circumstances for the purpose of finding out intended meaning of
words. The observations referred to and relied upon by counsel for
the petitioner in the case of M/s Bay Berry Apartments Pvt. Ltd.
M/S. Bay Berry Apartments Pvt. Ltd. & Anr vs Shobha & Ors on 19 October, 2006
would say that the action of the Court in appointing Malwinder Kaur
as Executor of the will by implication can not be sustained. The
learned counsel would further say that the contents of the document
are certain and not ambiguous in any manner and so should be given
its literal meaning. He would refer to the observations made in M/s
Bay Berry Apartments Pvt. Ltd. & Anr. Vs. Shobha & Ors., AIR
2007 Supreme Court 226 to say that when a document is not
uncertain or does not contain an ambiguous expression, it should be
given its literal meaning. It is further observed in this case that only
when the contents are not clear, the question of taking recourse to
the application of principles of construction of a document may have
to be applied.
Veerattalingam And Others vs Ramesh And Others on 18 September, 1990
The judgments relied upon by counsel for the petitioner
really would not strictly apply to the facts of the case. As per
Veerattalingam's case (supra), it is held that
the Court while construing a will should try to ascertain the intention
of the testator to be gathered primarily from the language of the
document; but while so doing, the surrounding circumstances, the
position of the testator, his family relationship and probabilities that
he used the words in a particular sense can also be taken into
account.
Gnanambal Ammal vs T. Raju Ayyar And Others on 21 October, 1950
In fact, the observations
made in the case of Gnambal Ammal (supra) may sound relevant for
deciding the issue. It is held that the cardinal maxim to be observed
by the Courts in construing a will is to endevour to ascertain the
intentions of the testator. This intention has to be gathered primarily
from the language of the document which is to be read as a whole
without indulging in any conjecture or speculation as to what the
testator would have done if he had been better informed or better
advised. In construing the language of the will, the Courts are entitled
and bound to bear in mind other matters than merely the words used.
1