Wills – Bequest made under the Will – Nature of – Testator executed Will (in respect of property) in favour of his wife (plaintiff no.1) who in turn gifted the property in question to appellant (plaintiff no. 2) – Contention of defendants that the gift deed executed by plaintiff no.1 was null and void in view of a limited life estate conferred upon her under the Will – Held: While the trial Court took the view that under the Will, the testator’s wife was given only a limited right of enjoyment for life, the First Appellate Court held that what was bequeathed was full rights of enjoyment, including the right to transfer – High Court did not overturn the finding of fact recorded by the First Appellate Court – Instead, the High Court wrongly proceeded to analyse sub-sections (1) and (2) of s.14 of the Hindu Succession Act, to come to the conclusion that the limited estate did not get enlarged into full ownership – The question of fact whether what was conveyed under the Will, was only a limited right of enjoyment or full ownership, was settled by the First Appellate Court in favour of the plaintiffs – This finding was not held by the High Court to be perverse – Though the High Court thought that one of the substantial questions of law arising for consideration was whether testator’s wife was full owner or limited owner, the High Court chose to answer this question not on the basis of the recitals contained in the Will but on the basis of the wrong understanding of an inapplicable Judgment of this Court – High Court overlooked the fact that in a civil dispute, the First Appellate Court is a final Court of fact and law and the High Court’s interference u/s.100 is only on a substantial question of law – Once the First Appellate Court had found that the recitals contained in the Will clearly conveyed full ownership, there was no occasion for the High Court to go into s.14 of the Hindu Succession Act at all – Further, the First Appellate Court was concerned with two regular first appeals, one filed by the defendants (R.C.A No. 408 of 1986) and another filed by the appellant / plaintiff no.1 (R.C.A No. 416 of 1986) – First Appellate Court dismissed R.C.A No.408 of 1986 and allowed R.C.A No. 416 of 1986 – The defendants chose to file only one second appeal and that was against the decree in RCA No. 408 of 1986 – Decree in R.C.A No. 416 of 1986 was allowed to attain finality – Even on this ground, the High Court ought to have dismissed the second appeal – Judgment of High Court set aside – Hindu Succession Act, 1956 – s.14 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – s.108.
Sadhu Singh v. Gurudwara Sahib Narike and Ors.
(2006) 8 SCC 75 : [2006] 5 Suppl. SCR 799 – held inapplicable.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.