Legal Interpretation of Wills in Property Disputes: A Landmark Judgment

The case in question revolves around a legal dispute over the interpretation of a Will executed by the late Komappan in 1940, involving the property described in ‘Schedule A’. The matter was initially decided by the Court of Subordinate Judge, Kozikode in O.S. No. 203 of 1996, which ruled in favor of the plaintiff, granting a 1/3rd share in the suit property. This decision was upheld by the High Court of Kerala in A.S. No. 1044 of 1998. However, Defendant No. 3 challenged the judgment, leading to the present appeal before the Supreme Court.

Arguments by the Petitioner

The petitioner, Defendant No. 3, contended that the Will (Exhibit B-1) did not confer a 1/3rd share to the plaintiff and that the property under ‘Schedule A’ should be equally divided among the male children of Choikutty, Peravakutty, and Komappan (Junior). He argued that the testator’s intention was to keep the property within the male lineage, and the High Court’s interpretation was erroneous.

Arguments by the Respondent

The respondent, on the other hand, maintained that the language of the Will clearly demonstrated the testator’s intention to grant a 1/3rd share to the plaintiff. They argued that both the Trial Court and the High Court had correctly interpreted the Will and that there was no ambiguity in the testator’s intent.

Observations by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court, after carefully analyzing the provisions of the Will, held that “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 further noted 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, and this has to be inferred from the language of the Will and attending circumstances.”

Final Judgment

Based on these observations, the Supreme Court upheld the findings of the Trial Court and the High Court, concluding that the plaintiff rightfully holds a 1/3rd share in the suit property. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the High Court’s interpretation of the Will.

Petitioner Name: Sivasankar V.K..
Respondent Name: V.K. Sivan and Others.
Judgment By: Justice N.V. Ramana, Justice Mohan M. Shantanagoudar.
Place Of Incident: Kozhikode, Kerala.
Judgment Date: 02-11-2018.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Sivasankar V.K. vs V.K. Sivan and Other Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 02-11-2018.pdf