2007 (5) TMI 693 - SC - Indian Laws

Appeal Dismissed: Bequest to University Upheld; Respondents' Locus Validated; Will Interpretation Affirmed; HC to Expedite Cases.

Bajrang Factory Ltd. and Ors. Versus University of Calcutta and Ors.

Bajrang Factory Ltd. and Ors. Versus University of Calcutta and Ors. - TMI Issues Involved:1. Construction/interpretation of a Will vis-`a-vis Sections 113, 116, and 129 of the Indian Succession Act.2. Validity of the bequest to the University of Calcutta.3. Whether the respondents had the locus to file the suit.4. Effect of Clauses 5, 6, and 7 of the Will and Clause 12 of the Codicil.5. Impact of non-compliance with Clause 6 of the Will.6. Applicability of Section 88 of the Indian Succession Act.Detailed Analysis:Construction/Interpretation of the Will vis-`a-vis Sections 113, 116, and 129 of the Indian Succession Act:The primary issue was the interpretation of the Will executed by Nerode Chandra Vasu Mullick, particularly Clauses 5, 6, and 7, in light of Sections 113, 116, and 129 of the Indian Succession Act. The Court examined whether the bequest to the unborn son of Hamir Chandra Vasu Mullick was valid and whether the subsequent bequest to the University of Calcutta was enforceable.Validity of the Bequest to the University of Calcutta:The Court held that the bequest to the University of Calcutta was valid. Clause 12 of the Codicil provided that if the legatee, Hamir Chandra Vasu Mullick, had no issue, the estate would go to the University of Calcutta. The intention of the testator was to perpetuate the memory of his ancestors, and the bequest to the University was meant to achieve this purpose.Whether the Respondents Had the Locus to File the Suit:The Court affirmed the respondents' locus to file the suit, stating that the University of Calcutta was entitled to proceed with the suit. The preliminary issue raised by the appellants regarding the respondents' locus was answered in the negative.Effect of Clauses 5, 6, and 7 of the Will and Clause 12 of the Codicil:The Court analyzed Clauses 5, 6, and 7 of the Will and concluded that Clause 12 of the Codicil did not substitute these clauses but was to be read as part of the Will. Clause 5 provided a life estate to Hamir Chandra Vasu Mullick, and upon his death without issue, the property would vest in the University of Calcutta. Clause 6 allowed the legatee to sell the property but required reinvestment in immovable properties in Calcutta. Clause 7 was interpreted as a directory clause expressing the testator's desire rather than a dispositive provision.Impact of Non-Compliance with Clause 6 of the Will:The Court noted that non-compliance with Clause 6, which required reinvestment of sale proceeds in immovable properties, would not invalidate the transfer but might render it voidable. The High Court was directed to consider the validity of the sale and lease transactions executed by the legatee.Applicability of Section 88 of the Indian Succession Act:The Court held that Clause 7 of the Will, which provided for a bequest to an unborn person, was not inconsistent with Clause 5. Therefore, Section 88, which states that the last of two irreconcilable clauses shall prevail, was not applicable. The Court emphasized the need to reconcile the clauses to give effect to the testator's intention.Conclusion:The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the validity of the bequest to the University of Calcutta and affirming the respondents' locus to file the suit. The Court requested the High Court to expedite the disposal of the pending suits. The decision was based on a thorough interpretation of the Will, the Codicil, and relevant provisions of the Indian Succession Act, ensuring that the testator's intentions were honored.