INTERPRETATION OF WILL

In Kalvelikkal Ambunhi v. H. Ganesh Bhandary (AIR 1995 SC 2491), it was observed that a Will may contain several clauses and the latter clause may be inconsistent with the earlier clause. In such a situation, the last intention of the testator is given effect to and it is on this basis that the latter clause is held to prevail over the earlier clause. As observed in Hammond v. Treharne, (1938 (3) All ER 308), if in a Will there are two inconsistent provisions, latter shall prevail over the earlier clause. This is regulated by the well-known maxim "cum duo inter se pugantia reperiuntur in testamenta ultimum ratum est". This principle is also contained in Section 88 of the Act which together with its illustrations, provides as under:

"88. The last of two inconsistent clauses prevails. - Where two clauses of gifts in a Will are

irreconcilable, so that they cannot possibly stand together, the last shall prevail.

Illustrations

(i) the testator by the first clause of his Will leaves his estate of Ramnagar to "A", and by the last clause of his Will leaves it to "B" and not to A". B will have it.

(ii) if a man, at the commencement of his Will gives his house to A and at the close of it directs that his house shall be sold and the proceeds invested for the benefit of B, the latter disposition will prevail.

This rule of interpretation can be invoked if different clauses cannot be reconciled. (See Rameshwar v. Balraj, AIR 1935 PC 187). It is to be noted that rules of interpretation of Will are different from rules which govern interpretation of other documents like sale deed, or a gift deed, or a mortgage deed or, for that matter, any other instrument by which interest in immovable property is created. While in these documents, if there is any inconsistency between the earlier or the subsequent part or specific clauses, inter se contained therein, the earlier part will prevail over the latter as against the rule of interpretation applicable to a Will under which the subsequent part, clause or portion prevails over the earlier part on the principle that in the matter of Will the testator can always change his mind and create another interest in place of the bequest already made in the earlier part or on an earlier occasion. Undoubtedly, it is the last Will which prevails.

What is the intention of the testator has to be found out on a reading of the Will and there cannot be any hard and fast rule of uniform application to find out as to whether the grant was absolute or it was subject to any condition or stipulation. The true intention of the testator has to be gathered not only by attaching importance to isolated expressions but by reading the Will as a whole with all the provisions and ignoring none of them as redundant or contradictory. As observed in Navneet Lal's case (Supra), although there is no binding rule that the Court should avoid intestacy at any cost, yet the Court would be justified in preferring that construction of the Will which avoids intestacy. Where the words are ambiguous attempt should be made to avoid that construction which leads to intestacy.

It is seldom profitable to compare the words of one Will with those of another or to attempt to find out to which of the Wills, upon which decisions have been given in reported cases, the Will before the Court approximates closely. Cases are helpful only in so far as the purport to lay down certain general principles of construction and at the present these principles seem to be fairy well settled. The cardinal maxim to be observed by Courts in construing a Will is to endeavour to ascertain the intention of the testator. This intention has to be gathered primarily from the language of the document which is to be read as 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 (See Gnanmbal's case (supra). In construing the Will the Court must consider the surrounding circumstances. The testator's position, his family relationship, the probability that he would use his words in a particular sense and many other things summed up in the picturesque phrase. The Court should put itself in the testator's armchair (See Veerattalingam v. Rameth AIR 1990 SC 2201).

Uma Devi Nambiar & Ors vs T.C. Sidhan (Dead) on 11 December, 2003 (SC)

Appeal (civil) 9726 of 2003

Special Leave Petition (civil) 9026 of 2002

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 11/12/2003