Supreme Court Interprets Will, Grants 1/3rd Share in Property: Sivasankar V.K. vs. V.K. Sivan (2018)

Date of the Judgment: November 2, 2018
Citation: 2018 INSC 1005
Judges: N.V. Ramana, J. and Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, J.
Can a will be interpreted to grant a specific share of property to the legal representatives of a group of individuals, or should the property be divided equally among all the members of that group? This was the core question before the Supreme Court of India in this case. The Court had to interpret a will to determine the rightful ownership of a property. The bench comprised Justices N.V. Ramana and Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, with the judgment authored by Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar.

Case Background

The case revolves around a will (Exhibit B-1) executed by the late Komappan in 1940. The will detailed the distribution of his properties among his family members. Specifically, the dispute concerns the properties listed under ‘Schedule A’ of the will. Komappan had bequeathed specific properties to his sons, Choikutty and Peravakutty, his daughter Perachikutty, his grandson Komappan (Junior), and his daughter-in-law Smt. Thirumala. However, ‘Schedule A’ properties were not specifically bequeathed to any of them. Instead, the testator intended for these properties to be held in common, with his wife having the right to the income and all the legatees having the right to reside there. After their lifetime, the surviving male children of Choikutty, Peravakutty, and Komappan (Junior) were to manage and administer the property.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Court of Subordinate Judge, Kozhikode, in O.S. No. 203 of 1996, decreed the suit for partition, granting a 1/3rd share to the plaintiff. The High Court of Kerala upheld this decision in A.S. No. 1044 of 1998. The other defendants accepted the trial court’s judgment and did not appeal. Only Defendant No. 3 challenged the judgment, first in the High Court and then in the Supreme Court after failing in the High Court. A review petition filed by Defendant No. 3 was also dismissed by the High Court.

Legal Framework

The primary legal framework in this case is the interpretation of the will (Exhibit B-1) itself. The Supreme Court had to determine the testator’s intention regarding the ‘Schedule A’ properties. The court considered the language of the will and the surrounding circumstances to ascertain whether the testator intended to grant a 1/3rd share each to the legal representatives of Choikutty, Peravakutty, and Komappan (Junior). The Court noted that the testator had the power to decide how the property should be held by the male members of the three branches, and this intention had to be inferred from the language of the will and the attending circumstances.

Arguments

The appellant, Defendant No. 3, argued that the male children of Choikutty, Peravakutty, and Komappan (Junior) should be entitled to equal shares in the ‘Schedule A’ properties. The appellant contended that the will did not specify a 1/3rd share for each branch and that the property should be divided equally among all the male descendants of the three named individuals.

The respondents, on the other hand, supported the findings of the Trial Court and the High Court, arguing that the testator intended for the ‘Schedule A’ properties to be enjoyed by the male children of the three branches, with each branch receiving a 1/3rd share. They contended that the will, when read in its entirety and in light of the surrounding circumstances, clearly indicated this intention.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The main issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the testator intended to confer the right over the ‘Schedule A’ properties in favor of the legal representatives of Choikutty, Peravakutty, and Komappan (Junior) to the extent of 1/3rd each, or whether the property should be divided equally among all the male descendants of these three individuals.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Court primarily relied on the interpretation of the will itself and the surrounding circumstances. No specific cases or books were cited in the judgment. The court focused on the language of the will and the testator’s intent as inferred from the document.

Judgment

The Court did not cite any authorities.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the language of the will and the surrounding circumstances. The Court emphasized that the testator’s intention was to grant a 1/3rd share to each of the three branches. The Court noted that while specific bequests were made for other properties, ‘Schedule A’ properties were treated differently, indicating a specific intent to keep them within the three branches. The Court observed that the testator wished that ‘Schedule A’ properties are to be enjoyed by the male children of the aforementioned three persons to the extent of 1/3rd each.

The Supreme Court, after analyzing the will and the circumstances, concluded that the testator intended the ‘Schedule A’ properties to be enjoyed by the male children of Choikutty, Peravakutty, and Komappan (Junior), with each branch receiving a 1/3rd share. The Court stated, “In the instance case, it is abundantly clear from all the attending circumstances, and the reading of the entire will, that the testator wished that ‘Schedule A’ properties are to be enjoyed by the male children of the aforementioned three persons to the extent of 1/3rd each.” The Court also noted that the testator had specifically bequeathed other properties, but had kept ‘Schedule A’ properties in common, which indicated an intent to distribute them differently. The Court further stated, “It is needless to observe that it is within the power of the testator to decide whether he wants the property to be held by the male members of the three branches, has to be inferred from the language of the Will and attending circumstances.” The Court rejected the appellant’s argument that the property should be divided equally among all male descendants, stating, “The contention of the appellant that the male children of Choikutty, Peravakutty and Komappan (Junior) are entitled to equal shares cannot be accepted.”

Key Takeaways

• The interpretation of a will is crucial in determining property rights.
• The testator’s intention, as inferred from the language of the will and surrounding circumstances, is paramount.
• When a will specifies different treatments for different properties, it indicates a specific intention for each.
• The Court upheld the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the High Court, emphasizing the importance of consistent interpretation of legal documents.

Directions

No specific directions were given by the Supreme Court.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that when interpreting a will, the testator’s intention, as derived from the language of the will and the surrounding circumstances, is paramount. This case reinforces the principle that the courts must give effect to the testator’s wishes as clearly expressed in the will. There is no change in the previous position of law.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the decisions of the Trial Court and the High Court. The Court found that the testator intended for the ‘Schedule A’ properties to be enjoyed by the male children of Choikutty, Peravakutty, and Komappan (Junior), with each branch receiving a 1/3rd share. This judgment reinforces the importance of interpreting wills according to the testator’s intent, as evidenced by the language of the will and the surrounding circumstances.