//
you're reading...
legal issues

family settlement – advantages – will deed – When there is a family settlement, evidently, technicalities in the matter of construction should not be insisted upon. The effect of a family settlement fell for consideration in Ramdev Food Products (P) Ltd. v. Arvindbhai Rambhai Patel and Others [2006 (8) SCC 726], wherein it was categorically held : “The MoU, for the purpose of these appeals, may be treated to be a family settlement. It is, however, well known that the intention of the parties to an instrument must be gathered from the terms thereof examined in the light of the surrounding circumstances (See Sohan Lal Naraindar v. Laxmidas Rahgunath). XXX XXX XXX We may proceed on the basis that the MoU answers the principles of family settlement having regard to the fact that the same was actuated by a desire to resolve the disputes and the courts would not easily disturb them as has been held in s. Shanmugam Pillai v. K. Shanmugam Pillai, Kale v. Dy. Director of Consolidation and Hari Shankar Singhania v. Gaur Hari Singhania.”

India Gate, Delhi

Image via Wikipedia

 REPORTABLE

 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

 CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

 CIVIL APPEAL NO.1186 2009
 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 5272/2008)

Bhagwan Krishan Gupta ...Appellant

 Versus

Prabha Gupta & Ors. ...Respondents

 JUDGMENT

S.B. Sinha, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Interpretation of a Will executed by one Shri Murari Lal Gupta,

predecessor-in-interest of the parties herein falls for consideration in this

appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 20th December, 2007

passed by a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in F.A.O. (OS)

No.268/2006.
 2

3. Murari Lal Gupta and Girdhari Lal Gupta were brothers. A property

bearing No.C-11, Green Park Extension, New Delhi stood in the name of

Murari Lal Gupta (the testator). A double storeyed building and a barsati

were constructed thereon. The said property was the subject matter of the

Will.

 Appellant herein is one of the heirs and legal representatives of the

testator. He filed a suit for partition in the original side of the Delhi High

Court. The said suit was, in view of the issues involved, namely,

interpretation of the will, taken up for hearing on the basis of pleadings of

the parties. A preliminary decree was passed, directing :

 "(i) The plaintiffs together will get 1/4th of the half
 share of the branch of Late Murari Lal Gupta;

 (ii) The defendants Nos. 1 (a) and 1(b) shall together
 get 1/4th out of the half share of Late Murari Lal
 Gupta;

 (iii) The defendants 2 & 3 shall each get 1/4th of the
 half share of Late Murari Lal Gupta;

 (iv) The defendant Nos. 5 and 6 will each get 1/3rd of
 the half share of Late Girdhari Lal Gupta; and

(v) The defendant Nos. 7 (a to f) together get 1/3rd of the half
 share of Late Girdhari Lal Gupta."

4. The aforementioned order was passed on the following premise:
 3

 "Considering the contents of paragraph 3 as also
 the contents of paragraph 5, I am of the opinion
 that the tenor of the will suggests that the property
 should be divided equitably. The testator has
 attempted to divide it equitably and to put such
 division beyond the pale of controversy.
 However, for some odd reason, the division of the
 Second Floor (Barsati Floor) has not been made
 out in clear terms and this has resulted in the
 present dispute."

5. An intra court appeal was preferred thereagainst. It was dismissed in

limine. However, a special leave petition was filed before this Court which

was marked as Special Leave Petition (C) No.12350 of 2006. Upon

hearing the parties, the appeal was allowed and the matter was remitted by

this Court by an order dated 27.04.2007, directing :

 "The Division Bench of the High Court, in our
 opinion has not dealt with the matter fully and in
 particular the construction of the Will executed by
 Shri Murari Lal Gupta which in our opinion,
 deserved serious consideration. We, therefore, set
 aside the impugned Judgment and remit the matter
 back to the High Court. We would request the
 Division Bench of the High Court to consider the
 desirability of disposing the appeal, keeping in
 view the nature of the dispute between the parties,
 as expeditiously as possible and preferably within
 a period of three months from the date of
 communication of this order."
 4

6. By reason of the impugned Judgment, the High Court has dismissed

the said appeal.

7. Mr. Chinnasamy, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the

appellant, would submit :

(i) Both the learned Single Judge as also the Division Bench of the High

 Court committed a serious error in passing the impugned judgment in

 so far as they failed to notice the distinction between a `declaration'

 and `bequest' parts in the Will in mind. Whereas paragraph 3 of the

 Will contains a declaration on the part of the testator in regard to the

 right of the parties, the actual `bequeath' of the house has been made

 in terms of para 4 thereof.

(ii) The property in question being the self-acquired property of the

 testator, the concept of family arrangement was not applicable.

(iii) Right, title and interest in the property as well as the possession

 thereof having remained in the testator throughout and the bequest

 having been made only in respect of the first floor of the said

 property, the learned Single Judge as also the Division Bench

 committed a serious error in constructing the said will by putting
 5

 itself in the purported `arm chair' of the testator, as the said doctrine

 was not applicable in this case.

8. Mr. Dalip Kumar Malhotra, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of

respondent No. 6 supported the contention of the learned counsel.

9. Mr. K.S. Rana, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent

Nos. 4 and 5, Mr. S.N. Bhatt, learned counsel appearing on behalf of

respondent Nos. 7 to 14 and Dr. Kailash Chand, learned counsel appearing

on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 3, on the other hand, would contend :

(1) Both the brothers having contributed equally for acquisition of the

 land as also for the construction of the house thereupon were entitled

 to equal share thereof.

(2) In a case of this nature the High Court having put fair interpretation

 of the will, no interference therewith by this court is warranted

 particularly in view of the stand taken by both the brothers before the

 Revenue Officer as also the affidavits affirmed by them.

(3) `Family settlement' by reason of the said will having not been

 questioned, appellant is estopped and precluded from raising the said

 contention before this court for the first time.
 6

10. From the materials on record, it appears that the property belonged to

two brothers. The land might have been acquired in the name of the testator

but from the declaration made in the will as also the other documents

brought on record by the parties, it is evident that both the brothers

contributed equally thereto.

11. Before, however, we consider the questions relating to interpretation

of the said will, we may notice the relevant part thereof.

 "That at present I am absolute legal owner of
 immovable property consisting of a residential
 house C-11, Green Park Ext. New Delhi.16 which
 was got constructed by me on a plot of land
 purchased by me out of my own income and
 sources.
 I further declare that half of the cost of the plot in
 this land was paid to me by my deceased younger
 brother Sh. Girdhari Lal Gupta. The construction
 of the building on the ground floor and the 1st floor
 and the barasati thereon was got done by me out of
 my own income and sources.
 However, the half of the cost of construction was
 paid to me by my deceased younger brother. As a
 family settlement it has been agreed that the
 ownership of the ground floor of this house shall
 vest in my four sons and they shall have its
 complete possession for their use and similarly the
 ownership of the 1st floor of this building shall
 vest in the members of the family of my deceased
 younger brother Mr. Girdhari Lal Gupta.
 This arrangement has been agreed to by both the
 families and shall not be changed by any one of us
 7

 except when necessary by mutual consent in
 writing by all concerned.
 As regards share of my four sons in my aforesaid
 house I declare that they shall have equal shares of
 ownership of this property and therefore all the
 four sons shall have equal rights for its use and its
 possession for all times.
 I have also cash deposited in my saving A/c in the
 State Bank of India, Green Park, New Delhi and I
 declare that all my four sons share the amount
 equally."

12. A will is required to be construed like any other instrument. Where

however, a doubt arises in regard to the intention of the testator, recourse to

the arm chair rule is invoked. It is neither in doubt nor in dispute that for

the said purpose the conduct of the testator in regard to dealing with the

property in question would be admissible. The fact that the property in

question stood in the name of the testator is not in dispute. It, however,

stands accepted that both the brothers contributed equally not only for

acquisition of the said property but also raising constructions thereupon.

13. To the Revenue Authority for the purpose of mutation in respect of

the premises in question, the testator issued a letter which reads as under :

 "I, Murari Lal Gupta S/o Late Sri Ganga Ram
 hereby informed that I and late Girdhari Lal Gupta
 are real brothers from late Shri Ganga Ram, House
 No. C-11, Green Park Extension, New Delhi-
 110016 is owned jointly by myself and my
 8

 aforesaid brother Late Sri Girdhari Lal Gupta. My
 share in the aforesaid house is one half i.e. ground
 floor and the other one half share i.e. Ist floor and
 Barsati Floor belongs to my brother late Sh.
 Girdhari Lal Gupta. The completion plan of the
 house showing the details is enclosed herewith.
 The share belonging to me has been shown in red
 whereas the share belonging to my brother Late
 Shri Girdhari Lal Gupta has been shown in green.
 It is requested that the division of property
 be made in my name & in the name of my
 brother's wife Smt. Subz Kali since my brother
 has expired. The house tax bill of the property be
 sent separately in future."

14. An application for mutation was also filed. The said

application was affirmed by an affidavit of the testator which reads

as:

 "I, Murari Lal Gupta son of late Shri Ganga Ram,
 aged about 66 years, r/o C-11, Green park
 Extension, New Delhi, do hereby solemnly declare
 and affirm as under:
 1. That I and Shri Girdhari Lal Gupta are real
 brothers from the late Shri Ganga Ram.
 2. That House No. C-11, Green Park Extension,
 New Delhi, is owned jointly by myself and my
 aforesaid brother, Shri Girdhari Lal Gupta.
 3. That my share in the aforesaid house is one half
 and the other one half share belongs to my said
 brother, Shri Girdhari Lal Gupta."
 9

 To the same effect is the affidavit of the other brother namely Shri

Girdhari Lal Gupta:

15. It is, therefore, evident that a declaration had been made by the

testator himself that for all intent and purport, Girdhari Lal Gupta had half

share in the property and he was entitled thereto. As a declaration in

derogation of his title has been made in the said Will by the testator, the

same would be a relevant factor for the purpose of construction of the Will.

A declaration was specifically made in the will in regard to contribution by

both the brothers in equal proportion not only in respect of Ground Floor

and the First floor but also barsati thereof.

17. Although when a property is a self-acquired one, the doctrine of

family settlement stricto sensu may not be applicable but in a case of this

nature where both the brothers declare each other to be owners of the

property having equal share therein, an arrangement between them by way

of a family settlement is permissible in law. Such a family settlement was

not only in relation to the title of the property but also in relation to the use

and possession thereof. By reason of the said `Will', therefore, whereas

ownership of the ground floor vested in the four sons of the testator, the

ownership of the first floor vested in the members of the family of Girdhari
 10

Lal Gupta. Barsati portion of the said house does not figure in the vesting

part of the said will.

 Paragraph 5 of the said will refers to the use and possession so far as

the share of the sons of the testator is concerned meaning thereby the same

would confine to the ground floor portion only.

18. We may place on record that the learned senior counsel appearing on

behalf of the appellant very fairly stated that so far as the title of the sons of

Girdhari Lal Gupta in the first floor of the building is concerned, the same is

not disputed. A family settlement, therefore, in our opinion, in a situation of

this nature was permissible. The Will should be given a broad construction

keeping in view the special equity principle.

 In Hari Shankar Singhania and Others v. Gaur Hari Singhania and

Others [2006 (4) SCC 658], this court has stated :

 "Another fact that assumes importance at this
 stage is that a family settlement is treated
 differently from any other formal commercial
 settlement as such settlement in the eye of the law
 ensures peace and goodwill among the family
 members. Such family settlements generally meet
 with approval of the courts. Such settlements are
 governed by a special equity principle where the
 terms are fair and bona fide, taking into account
 the well-being of a family."
 11

19. When there is a family settlement, evidently, technicalities in the

matter of construction should not be insisted upon.

 The effect of a family settlement fell for consideration in Ramdev

Food Products (P) Ltd. v. Arvindbhai Rambhai Patel and Others [2006 (8)

SCC 726], wherein it was categorically held :

 "The MoU, for the purpose of these appeals, may
 be treated to be a family settlement. It is,
 however, well known that the intention of the
 parties to an instrument must be gathered from the
 terms thereof examined in the light of the
 surrounding circumstances (See Sohan Lal
 Naraindar v. Laxmidas Rahgunath).
 XXX XXX XXX
 We may proceed on the basis that the MoU
 answers the principles of family settlement having
 regard to the fact that the same was actuated by a
 desire to resolve the disputes and the courts would
 not easily disturb them as has been held in s.
 Shanmugam Pillai v. K. Shanmugam Pillai, Kale
 v. Dy. Director of Consolidation and Hari
 Shankar Singhania v. Gaur Hari Singhania."

 Thus, if family settlement in relation to the property in question was

possible, in our opinion, the doctrine of `arm chair' rule of construction was

applicable.

 In Anil Kak v. Kumari Sharada Raje & Ors. [(2008) 7 SCC 695], this

Court held :
 12

 37. The testator's intention is collected from a
 consideration of the whole will and not from a part
 of it. If two parts of the same will are wholly
 irreconcilable, the court of law would not be in a
 position to come to a finding that the will dated 4-
 11-1992 could be given effect to irrespective of
 the appendices. In construing a will, no doubt all
 possible contingencies are required to be taken
 into consideration. Even if a part is invalid, the
 entire document need not be invalidated, only if it
 forms a severable part. (See Bajrang Factory Ltd.
 v. University of Calcutta.)

 In Narendra Gopal Vidyarthi v. Rajat Vidyarthi [2008 (16) SCALE

122], this Court held :

 "29. The very fact that the testator categorically
 stated that the extent of title in the property will
 depend upon the amount of additional contribution
 required to be made from the fund of Vidyarthi
 and Sons itself is an indication to show that his
 wish was that title should vest in the beneficiaries
 to the extent of the property which represented the
 amount of Rs.30,000/- out of the total amount of
 consideration required to acquire the same. There
 cannot be any doubt whatsoever that his intention
 also was that the entire cash may not be paid to
 Chandramukhi as she was of gullible character.
 She could be made to part therewith by any other
 person by sweet words. A precaution was,
 therefore, required to be taken. The amount was
 required to be spent wisely. The amount which
 was required for their maintenance and education
 of appellant whether derived from the interest or
 from the rental only was to be handed over. It is
 only for the aforementioned limited purpose, the
 trust was created. The sole beneficiary of the
 trust, in our opinion, was merely the appellant and
 13

 his mother. It may be true that the property was
 purchased in the name of the testator himself. The
 High Court commented that the same could have
 been done in the name of the appellant and his
 mother or at least the purchase could have been a
 joint one. But the Will is required to be construed
 on the basis of the terms used therein and not
 otherwise."

 Principles of construction of a Will, inter alia, are laid down in

Sections 74 and 82 of the Indian Succession Act. It is well settled that the

Will should be read as a whole and the surrounding circumstances may be

given effect to for the purpose of ascertaining the intention of the testator

from the words used and the surrounding circumstances wherefor the Court

will put itself in the armchair of the testator. We, therefore, do not find any

legal infirmity in the impugned judgment.

20. For the reasons aforementioned, there is no merit in the case.

Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed with costs. Counsel's fee assessed at

Rs.25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only).

 .........................J.
 [S.B. SINHA]

 ..........................J.
 [V.S. SIRPURKAR]
 14New Delhi;
February 25, 2009

About advocatemmmohan

ADVOCATE

Discussion

Comments are closed.

Blog Stats

  • 2,897,037 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,907 other followers
Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com
%d bloggers like this: