1959 (3) TMI 64 - HC - Indian Laws

Will Revocation Limited to Own Property: Court Grants Partial Appeal for Letters of Administration

Bhawani Prasad Versus Smt. Surendra Bala W/o Subodh Chandra and Anr.

Bhawani Prasad Versus Smt. Surendra Bala W/o Subodh Chandra and Anr. - AIR 1960 All 126 Issues Involved:1. Grant of letters of administration or probate.2. Validity and revocation of the will dated 15th November 1941.3. Ownership and disposition of property under the will.4. Effect of the deed of gift dated 14th November 1942.5. Interpretation of joint and mutual wills.Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Grant of Letters of Administration or Probate:The petitioners, Surendra Bala and Suresh Chandra, sought letters of administration or probate for the will executed by Pandit Kuar Lal and his wife, Smt. Ram Pyari, dated 15th November 1941. The court initially noted that the petitioners had only prayed for probate but later amended their plea to include an alternative prayer for letters of administration.2. Validity and Revocation of the Will Dated 15th November 1941:The primary contention in the appeal was whether the will dated 15th November 1941 was revoked by a subsequent deed of gift executed by Smt. Ram Pyari on 14th November 1942. The court below had found that the will was duly executed without coercion or undue influence and was not barred by Order II, Rule 2, CPC, or by estoppel. It also held that the will could not be revoked by the deed of gift.3. Ownership and Disposition of Property Under the Will:The will specified that Smt. Ram Pyari was the owner of a house and that both executants had money deposited in banks. The will stated that after the death of either executant, the surviving executant would have a life interest in the property, and after the death of both, the property would go to Surendra Bala and Suresh Chandra. The court noted that the will recognized the joint ownership of the bank deposits and that each executant had a moiety.4. Effect of the Deed of Gift Dated 14th November 1942:The appellant argued that the will was revoked by the deed of gift. The court examined the language of the will and the deed of gift and concluded that there was no evidence of a reciprocal arrangement that would prevent revocation. The court found that the will contained two independent wills, one by each executant, and that Smt. Ram Pyari could revoke her own will but not that of her husband.5. Interpretation of Joint and Mutual Wills:The court referred to the case of Dufour v. Pereira and other authorities to determine whether the will was mutual. It concluded that mutuality based on reciprocity of benefits was essential for a will to be considered mutual. The court found no evidence of a reciprocal arrangement or agreement not to revoke the wills. It held that the will of 15th November 1941 was not mutual and that each executant had reserved the power to revoke their own will.Conclusion:The court concluded that the will dated 15th November 1941 was revoked by Smt. Ram Pyari's deed of gift only in relation to her own property. The will remained effective concerning the dispositions made by Pandit Kuar Lal. Consequently, letters of administration could only be granted concerning Kuar Lal's estate. The appeal was partly allowed, and the letters of administration were directed to be amended accordingly. The parties were ordered to bear their own costs, and the administration bonds were to be reduced in amount according to the value of Kuar Lal's estate.