Supreme Court Upholds Absolute Ownership of Property Bequeathed in Will: M.S. Bhavani & Anr. vs. M.S. Raghu Nandan (2020)

Date of the Judgment: March 5, 2020

Citation: Not Available

Judges: Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, J. and R. Subhash Reddy, J.

Can a person who inherits property through a will be compelled to share the proceeds from its sale with their children, even if the will grants them absolute ownership? The Supreme Court of India addressed this crucial question in a recent case concerning a property dispute. The core issue revolved around interpreting a will to determine whether the testator’s wife had absolute rights over the property, or if her rights were limited by the testator’s desire to have the property sold and the proceeds shared between his children. The Supreme Court, in this case, clarified the extent of ownership granted by a will, emphasizing the importance of the language used by the testator. The judgment was delivered by a two-judge bench comprising Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar and Justice R. Subhash Reddy.

Case Background

The case revolves around a property originally owned by M. Srinivasa Murthy, who purchased it in 1974. He had two children: a daughter, M.S. Bhavani (Appellant No. 1), and a son, M.S. Raghu Nandan (Respondent No. 1). M.S. Bhavani initially married in 1983, had a son named Sameera, and later divorced. She remarried Suresh Babu (Appellant No. 2) in 1994.

In 2002, M. Srinivasa Murthy passed away, leaving behind a registered will dated June 7, 1995. In this will, he bequeathed the property to his wife, Nirmala Murthy (Respondent No. 2). Nirmala Murthy, exercising her rights under the will, sold the property to her daughter and son-in-law (the Appellants) on February 25, 2004, for ₹16,42,000, which was allegedly paid in cash.

M.S. Raghu Nandan (Respondent No. 1) filed a suit (O.S. No. 6341/2006) against his mother and sister, claiming that the will only granted his mother a life interest in the property and that he also had a share in it. Subsequently, the Appellants filed a suit (O.S. No. 1845/2008) seeking Nirmala Murthy’s eviction, asserting she was merely a licensee after the sale. The Trial Court partly decreed O.S. No. 6341/2006, stating that though Nirmala Murthy had absolute rights, the sale was vitiated by fraud, as she never intended to sell the property. The Trial Court also dismissed the ejectment suit. The High Court modified the Trial Court’s findings on fraud, stating there was no evidence of coercion, but upheld the relief that the sale deed was not binding on Respondent No.1 because it was against the intention of the testator, as it should have been executed transparently with the concurrence of Respondent No. 1. The Appellants then appealed to the Supreme Court.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court partly decreed the suit for declaration (O.S. No. 6341/2006), stating that while Nirmala Murthy had absolute rights over the property as per the will, the sale to the Appellants was vitiated by fraud. The Trial Court also dismissed the ejectment suit (O.S. No. 1845/2008). The High Court, in appeal, modified the findings on fraud, observing there was no material to show that Nirmala Murthy was coerced into executing the sale deed. However, the High Court confirmed the relief that the sale deed was not binding on Respondent No. 1, stating it was against the testator’s intention because it was done without his concurrence. The Appellants then approached the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the interpretation of a will. The key legal concepts are:

• Absolute Ownership: The will uses the phrase, “my wife Smt. Nirmala shall be sole legal and rightful heir over my immovable and movable property and she will have every right and authority to sell, mortgage and lease my house or totally bequeath it to anybody who take care of her in her last days, and old age also.” This indicates the testator’s intention to grant absolute ownership to his wife, Nirmala Murthy.
• Testator’s Intention: The Court emphasized that the primary objective in interpreting a will is to ascertain the testator’s intention from the language of the will, reading it as a whole.
• Repugnant Bequests: The Court referred to the principle that if a testator bequeaths absolute interest in a property to one person, any subsequent bequest that is repugnant to the first would be invalid.

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

• The will granted Nirmala Murthy absolute ownership of the property, giving her the unfettered right to sell it without consulting her children.
• The use of the word “desire” in the will regarding the division of sale proceeds among the children does not create a binding obligation on Nirmala Murthy.
• Relying on Mauleshwar Mani v. Jagdish Prasad, (2002) 2 SCC 468, Madhuri Gosh v. Debobroto Dutta, (2016) 10 SCC 805, and Siddamurthy Jayarami Reddy (dead) by LRs. v. Godi Jayarami Reddy, (2011) 5 SCC 65, the Appellants argued that once an absolute right was vested with Nirmala Murthy, any subsequent right in favor of the children would be invalid.
• The validity of the sale deed and payment of consideration were beyond the scope of the suit filed by Respondent No. 1.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The will should be read holistically, indicating the testator’s intention to grant Nirmala Murthy only a life interest in the property, not absolute ownership.
• The testator intended to settle the properties on his two children, particularly by disposing of the property and providing them a share in the sale proceeds.
• Relying on Ramachandra Shenoy v. Mrs. Hilda Brite, AIR 1964 SC 1323 and Kaivelikkal Ambunhi (dead) by LRs. v. H. Ganesh Bhandary, (1995) 5 SCC 444, the Respondent argued that in case of conflict between two clauses of a will, the latter should prevail.
• The sale deed was executed under suspicious circumstances and without consideration, therefore, no title passed to the Appellants.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issues for consideration:

1. Whether the testator of the Will dated 07.06.1995 intended to vest Nirmala Murthy with an absolute interest in the suit property?
2. If yes, whether the sale deed dated 25.02.2004 was against the Will dated 07.06.1995, and therefore unenforceable as against Respondent No. 1?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

Cases Relied Upon by the Court:

• Shyamal Kanti Guha (dead) through LRs v. Meena Bose, (2008) 8 SCC 115: The Court referred to this case to emphasize the principles of interpreting a will. The Court stated that the intention of the testator has to be gathered primarily from the language of the will, reading the entire document as a whole.
• Mauleshwar Mani v. Jagdish Prasad, (2002) 2 SCC 468: The Court relied on this case to state the legal principle that where a testator has bequeathed his absolute interest in the property in favor of his wife, any subsequent bequest which is repugnant to the first bequest would be invalid.
• Madhuri Gosh v. Debobroto Dutta, (2016) 10 SCC 805: This case was cited to reaffirm the principle that once a testator gives an absolute right and interest in his property to a devisee, it is not open to the testator to further bequeath the same property in favor of another set of persons.
• Siddamurthy Jayarami Reddy (dead) by LRs. v. Godi Jayarami Reddy, (2011) 5 SCC 65: This case was also used to support the principle that a testator cannot create successive legatees in his will after granting an absolute right to the first devisee.
• Kaivelikkal Ambunhi (dead) by LRs. v. H. Ganesh Bhandary, (1995) 5 SCC 444: The Court distinguished this case by stating that the rule of last intention is only applicable when there is inconsistency in the bequests.
• Ramachandra Shenoy v. Mrs. Hilda Brite, AIR 1964 SC 1323: The Court distinguished this case by stating that the clauses in the will were significantly different from the present case.

Legal Provisions Considered by the Court:

• The Court considered the language of the will itself, focusing on the clauses that granted rights to Nirmala Murthy and expressed the testator’s desire regarding the sale of the property and distribution of proceeds.

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Supreme Court relied on Shyamal Kanti Guha (dead) through LRs v. Meena Bose, (2008) 8 SCC 115* to emphasize the principles of interpreting a will, stating that the intention of the testator has to be gathered primarily from the language of the will.
• The Supreme Court relied on Mauleshwar Mani v. Jagdish Prasad, (2002) 2 SCC 468* to support its conclusion that once an absolute right is vested in a devisee, any subsequent bequest that is repugnant to the first bequest would be invalid.
• The Supreme Court relied on Madhuri Gosh v. Debobroto Dutta, (2016) 10 SCC 805* to reaffirm the principle that once a testator gives an absolute right and interest in his property to a devisee, it is not open to the testator to further bequeath the same property in favor of another set of persons.
• The Supreme Court relied on Siddamurthy Jayarami Reddy (dead) by LRs. v. Godi Jayarami Reddy, (2011) 5 SCC 65* to support the principle that a testator cannot create successive legatees in his will after granting an absolute right to the first devisee.
• The Supreme Court distinguished Kaivelikkal Ambunhi (dead) by LRs. v. H. Ganesh Bhandary, (1995) 5 SCC 444*, stating that the rule of last intention is only applicable when there is inconsistency in the bequests.
• The Supreme Court distinguished Ramachandra Shenoy v. Mrs. Hilda Brite, AIR 1964 SC 1323*, stating that the clauses in the will were significantly different from the present case.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the clear language of the will, which granted absolute ownership to Nirmala Murthy. The Court emphasized that the testator’s intention, as expressed in the will, was to give his wife complete control over the property, including the right to sell it without any obligation to consult her children. The Court also noted that the testator’s “desire” to have the property sold and the proceeds shared was not a binding obligation, but merely an expression of his wish. The Court also took into account the strained relationship between the testator and his son, as reflected in the evidence.

Fact:Law Ratio

Logical Reasoning:

Key Takeaways

• A will granting absolute ownership gives the beneficiary full rights to deal with the property as they see fit, including selling it without consulting others.
• A testator’s “desire” expressed in a will is not a binding obligation unless it is clearly stated as a mandatory direction.
• Courts prioritize the clear language of the will when interpreting the testator’s intentions.
• Subsequent bequests that are repugnant to an earlier absolute bequest are invalid.

Directions

The Supreme Court directed that the possession of the suit property be handed over to the Appellants within a period of 3 months from the date of the order.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that a will granting absolute ownership gives the beneficiary full rights to deal with the property as they see fit, without any binding obligation to consult or share proceeds with others, unless explicitly stated in the will. This judgment reaffirms the existing principles of testamentary law, emphasizing the importance of the language used in a will to determine the testator’s intention. There is no change in the previous position of law, but this case provides a clear application of established principles to a specific factual scenario.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, setting aside the High Court’s judgment. The Court held that Nirmala Murthy had absolute ownership of the suit property under the will and that the sale deed executed by her was valid and binding on all parties. The Court dismissed the suit filed by Respondent No. 1 and decreed the ejectment suit filed by the Appellants. This judgment clarifies that an absolute bequest in a will grants the beneficiary full rights over the property, and a mere desire to share proceeds is not a binding obligation.