Interpretation of Will: The Supreme Court of India has laid down key principles for interpreting wills under the Indian Succession Act. The court emphasized the need to understand the testator’s intention from the words used and the surrounding circumstances. It also highlighted the importance of giving effect to every provision in the will. The court must strive to avoid redundancy and ensure that conflicting parts of the will are reconciled. If contradictions are unavoidable, the maxim “cum du inter se pugnantia reperiuntur in testament ultimum ratum est” in section 88 of the Act must be applied. These principles aim to give a harmonious meaning and interpretation to the will, upholding the testator’s intentions.
Harmonious Interpretation of Wills in Indian Succession Act
The principle governing the interpretation of will was considered in detail by the Three Judges’ Bench of the Supreme Court of India in Navneet Lal v. Gokul, [(1976) 1 SCC 630] with reference to previous authorities.
It was laid down:
“8. From the earlier decisions of this Court the following principles, inter alia, are well established:
“(1) In construing a document whether in English or in vernacular the fundamental rule is to ascertain the intention from the words used; the surrounding circumstances are to be considered; but that is only for the purpose of finding out the intended meaning of the words which have actually been employed. (Ram Gopal v. Nand Lal [1950 SCC 702 : AIR 1951 SC 139 : (1950) SCR 766, 772] ) (2) In construing the language of the will the court is entitled to put itself into the testator’s armchair (Venkata Narasimha v. Parthasarathy [41 IA 51, 72 : 21 IC 339 : 15 Bom LR 1010] ) 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 senseโฆ 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 case and Gnanambal Ammal v. T. Raju Ayyar [1950 SCC 978 : AIR 1951 SC 103 : (1950) SCR 949, 955] ) (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 [AIR 1953 SC 7 : (1953) SCR 232, 240] ) (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 expressions 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. (Pearey Lal v. Rameshwar Das [AIR 1963 SC 1703 : 1963 Supp (2) SCR 834, 839, 842] ) (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 intention contained in the will. (Ramachandra Shenoy v. Hilda Brite Mrs [AIR 1964 SC 1323 : (1964) 2 SCR 722, 735] ).”
In Sadaram Suryanarayana v. Kalla Surya Kantham, [(2010) 13 SCC 147], the Supreme Court of India examined the provisions of sections 82, 85, 86,87 and 88 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 for interpretation of a will. Referring to the aforesaid provisions and previous authorities, it was observed:
“22. It is evident from a careful reading of the provisions referred to above that while interpreting a will, the courts would as far as possible place an interpretation that would avoid any part of a testament becoming redundant. So also the courts will interpret a will to give effect to the intention of the testator as far as the same is possible. Having said so, we must hasten to add that the decisions rendered by the courts touching upon interpretation of the wills are seldom helpful except to the extent the same recognise or lay down a proposition of law of general application. That is so because each document has to be interpreted in the peculiar circumstances in which the same has been executed and keeping in view the language employed by the testator. That indeed is the requirement of Section 82 of the Succession Act also inasmuch as it provides that meaning of any clause in a will must be collected from the entire instrument and all parts shall be construed with reference to each other.” In this case, the Supreme Court of India referred to and relied upon a decision of the Constitutional Bench in Ramkishorelal v. Kamal Narayan (AIR 1963 SC 890). In that case the Constitutional Bench was concerned with a situation where a conflict arises between what is said in one part of the testament vis-ร -vis what is stated in another part of the same document especially when in the earlier part the bequest is absolute but the latter part of the document gives a contrary direction about the very same property. The Constitution Bench held that in the event of such a conflict the absolute title conferred upon the legatee by the earlier clauses appearing in the will cannot be diluted or taken away and shall prevail over the directions contained in the latter part of the disposition.
In Madhuri Ghosh v. Debobroto Dutta [(2016) 10 SCC 805] relied upon by the Learned Counsel for the Plaintiff, principle of law laid down in Ramkishorelal’s case (supra) was considered. Relying upon the principles of law, enunciated therein, it was observed:
“11. From the decisions referred to above, the legal principle that emerges, inter alia, are:
(1) where under a will, a testator has bequeathed his absolute interest in the property in favour of his wife, any subsequent bequest which is repugnant to the first bequeath would be invalid; and (2) where a testator has given a restricted or limited right in his property to his widow, it is open to the testator to bequeath the property after the death of his wife in the same will.”
In Kalivelikkal Amunhi (Dead) by L.Rs & Ors. Vs. H. Ganesh Bhandary [(1995) 5 SCC 444] while considering application of section 88 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, the Supreme Court of India did not discarded the principles of law discussed above. Rather the case was decided on premises that there existed incongruity in different clauses of the will.
Principles of law as well as the relevant provisions of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 makes it amply clear that a will must be read as a whole to give a harmonious meaning and interpretation. No word should be spared to decipher the intention of the testator.
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 intention contained in the will. In case conflicting parts can be reconciled, the same should be done and the will shall be interpreted accordingly.
When conflicting parts cannot be reconciled and contradictions are inevitable, the maxim “cum du inter se pugnantia reperiuntur in testament ultimum ratum est” enshrined in section 88 of the Act shall be resorted to.
