Definitions

Related judgements & precedents

These are some judgments that construed this section, and hold precedence value. They hold authority on how to read, interpret and use this section.

1. Shailadevi Pooranraj vs The State of Gujarat State of Gujarat Secretary

   Supreme Court of India 15 Jun 2020 Binding (SC) Reportable

   Court's Decision & Legal Precedent

   Sections 43 and 63 of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act, 1948 bar transfer of agricultural land to non-agriculturists through testamentary disposition (will). The expression 'assignment' in Section 43 includes testamentary disposition. Although Section 63 does not contain the word 'assignment', it bars testamentary disposition of agricultural land to non-agriculturists because such disposition would defeat the legislative intent to preserve agricultural lands for actual tillers and prevent concentration of holdings. A testamentary disposition of agricultural land to a non-agriculturist is opposed to public policy and void ab initio. The State Legislature has competence under Entry 18 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to restrict testamentary disposition of agricultural land, and such restriction does not violate the Indian Succession Act, 1925.

   On this section: Cited to define 'Will' as a legal declaration of intention regarding property to be carried into effect after death. The Court considered whether restrictions on inter vivos transfers should apply to testamentary dispositions.

   Read the full order on eCourts India

2. Krishna Kumar Birla vs Rajendra Singh Lodha

   Supreme Court of India 31 Mar 2008 Binding (Supreme Court) Reportable (2008) 4 SCC 254

   Court's Decision & Legal Precedent

   To sustain a caveat, a caveatable interest must be shown. The test required to be applied is: does the claim of grant of probate prejudice the caveator's right because it defeats some other line of succession in terms whereof the caveator asserts his right. A fundamental characteristic of probate proceedings is that whatever would be the interest of the testator, the same must be accepted and the rules laid down must be followed. Consequently, any person questioning the existence of title in respect of the estate or the capacity of the testator to dispose of the property by will on grounds outside the law of succession would be a stranger to the probate proceeding, inasmuch as none of such rights can effectively be adjudicated therein. A caveatable interest is an interest in the estate of the deceased to which the caveator would otherwise be entitled, subject to having a special interest therein. After coming into force of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the concept of reversioner, agnate, and cognate interest in succession has been fundamentally altered. Only heirs specified in Classes I and II under the Act can claim succession. Distant relatives, family members, and executors of an earlier unprobated will do not have caveatable interest in the estate unless they are named as beneficiaries or have direct stake in the distribution. The existence of mutual wills or filing of suit to enforce mutual wills does not create caveatable interest in the original probate proceedings; such enforcement is remedy in equity through specific performance, not in probate court. A later will, even if in breach of mutual will agreement, is valid and probatable as probate court is concerned only with last will of testator.

   On this section: Executor is person to whom execution of last will is confided by testator's appointment. Rights and obligations of executor arise only upon death of testator, not before.

   Read the full order on eCourts India

3. Bajrang Factory LTD vs University of Calcutta

   Supreme Court of India 18 May 2007 Binding (SC)

   Court's Decision & Legal Precedent

   Where a will contains apparently conflicting clauses that can be reconciled by giving full effect to every word used by the testator, such construction should be accepted instead of one cutting down the clear meaning of words. In construing a will, the court must ascertain the testator's dominant intention from the entire instrument read as a whole, including any codicils. A bequest to an unborn person is void under Section 113 only if it constitutes an actual bequest; a mere expression of desire or enabling clause does not constitute such a bequest. When a codicil confirms and amends a will, it brings the will down to the date of the codicil, and the testator's intention as expressed in both documents must be given effect. Upon the failure of a prior bequest due to non-occurrence of contingencies, a subsequent bequest takes effect under Section 129 of the Indian Succession Act, provided the prior bequest is valid.

   On this section: Definition of Codicil as an instrument explaining, altering or adding to dispositions of a will and forming part thereof

   Read the full order on eCourts India

The holding above is the ratio decidendi as extracted from the judgment by eCourts India, reproduced unaltered — it is a rendering of the court's reasoning, not a substitute for its words. Read the order itself before relying on it.