2008 (12) TMI 724 - SC - Indian Laws

Supreme Court clarifies Will interpretation, establishes trust for appellant and mother.

Narendra Gopal Vidyarthi Versus Rajat Vidyarthi

Narendra Gopal Vidyarthi Versus Rajat Vidyarthi - 2008 (16) SCR 961, 2009 (3) SCC 287, 2008 (13) JT 313, 2008 (16) SCALE 122 Issues Involved:1. Construction of a Will executed by Bishan Sahai Vidyarthi.2. Determination of whether the suit property is a Joint Hindu Family Property.3. The right of the defendant to file an appeal after the dismissal of the suit.Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:1. Construction of the Will Executed by Bishan Sahai Vidyarthi:The central issue revolves around the interpretation of a Will dated 21.11.1965 executed by Bishan Sahai Vidyarthi. The Will set apart Rs. 30,000 for the benefit of the appellant and his mother, Chandramukhi. The appellant contended that the property in question was bequeathed to his mother, thus excluding the respondent from any claim. The High Court, however, opined that the Will only conferred a limited interest to the appellant and his mother. The Supreme Court scrutinized the Will's language and context, noting that the testator intended to divest himself of the property, creating a trust for the appellant and his mother. The Court concluded that the Will set apart Rs. 30,000 specifically for their benefit, and this amount might have been invested in immovable property, but they could not be deprived of it.2. Determination of Whether the Suit Property is a Joint Hindu Family Property:The Trial Judge initially found that the suit property was a joint family property but dismissed the suit based on Section 41(h) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, stating that no injunction can be granted against a co-owner. The first appellate court reversed this finding, concluding that the disputed house was purchased from the amount payable to Chandramukhi, thus not a joint family property. The High Court, however, entertained a second appeal, formulating the question of whether the property in dispute is a Joint Hindu Family Property. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court's approach was erroneous as the question of whether the property is a joint family property per se is not a substantial question of law. The Supreme Court emphasized that findings of fact by the first appellate court are ordinarily final unless based on no evidence or are perverse.3. The Right of the Defendant to File an Appeal After the Dismissal of the Suit:The first question formulated by the High Court was whether the defendant had the right to file an appeal after the dismissal of the suit. This question was answered in favor of the appellant, affirming the defendant's right to appeal. The respondent did not challenge this finding.Conclusion:The Supreme Court concluded that the High Court committed a serious error in misconstruing and misinterpreting the Will, which clearly set apart Rs. 30,000 for the appellant and his mother. The Court emphasized that the intention of the testator was to benefit the appellant and his mother, and the property purchased from this amount should be considered their property. The Supreme Court set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court, allowing the appeal with costs assessed at Rs. 50,000.