Courts should examine a Will from point of view of layman and not lawman: Delhi High Court

The Delhi High Court recently held that a Will has to be looked at from the point of view of layman and all its clauses have to be harmoniously construed, given equal importance, benefit and uniformity [Vikrant Kapila & Anr v Pankaja Panda & Ors]..A division bench of Justices Suresh Kumar Kait and Saurabh Banerjee said that clauses in a Will are like sailors on a ship sailing in the same direction where each clause has an individual value like each sailor on a ship has an individual role to play."In our opinion, for reaching a final culmination with respect to interpretation of a Will it is imperative for the Court to look at it from the eyes of a layman rather than a lawman," the Court said..The Court noted that disputes regarding interpretation of a Will have been knocking the legal doors since time immemorial and though such doors have been successfully closed through numerous pronouncements, but unfortunately the issue will always be burning as there can be no closure to it.“As per basic settled principles of law, it is the foremost duty of the Court to carefully give a purposeful meaning to the words and logical interpretation to the language of a Will to infer and draw the real intention of the testator. As meaning is sought to be given to the intention of the testator to what he must’ve meant, when he was alive, after his demise, due importance has to be given to the surrounding circumstances, the background, the status and relations with the family and society of the testator,” the bench said..The Court further stated that it has to look behind the cloak and lift the veil and that its purpose must be to derive the real intention of the testator and recognize the dispositive rights of the beneficiaries for reaching a conclusion as far as practically possible.It has to be kept in mind that when some clause(s) in the Will are or can be overstepping on each other and as the same cannot be altered or no explanation can be sought from the testator, it should be made sure that such clause(s) do not trample upon each other so as to negate any one of them, the Court added. “In case the clause(s) are inconsistent and a divergent meaning is possible, the order of precedence should be followed, i.e., the more powerful/meaningful clause(s) is to take precedence over the less meaningful clause(s). When there is a clause bequeathing absolute rights then the same cannot be followed by other clause(s) with restricted rights. An absolute right is an outright recognition which cannot be fettered by imposing a condition in the form of a restrictive right,” the judgment said. .The bench held that where words in a clause can be interpreted in more than one way, it would be in the interest of things to choose and give the best possible, plausible, constructive meaning in the overall interest of everybody so as to draw a ‘single straight line’ with no breakers rather than falling back on something which is implausibly destructive against the interest of everybody..“In such situations, the meaning which furthers the cause ought to be chosen rather than which goes against the cause. The Court steps into the shoes of a kapellmeister and at the end of the day as everybody likes a melodious song, it is the duty of the Court to choose the music which is ears to the soul. Word(s) and clause(s) of the same Will ought not be picked or chosen out of context,” the bench said.It added that all words are to be regarded as essential and all the clauses should be reconciled with each other and are to be read together as being part and parcel of the same document.However, if for some reason it is not possible to do the same, then the more beneficial interpretation should be adopted so as to bring a hiatus to the conflicting situation, the bench clarified..The bench was dealing with an appeal challenging the judgement and preliminary decree by a single-judge based upon the Will of one Sheila Kapila which demarcated 25% equal share to all her children and then put the same to sale and distributed the proceeds amongst them.Dispute arose as Sheila Kapila’s son died and left a Will bequeathing all his estate to his second and nothing to his two children. They filed an appeal stating that as per Sheila Kapila’s Will, her four children have a limited bequest whereas they, like other grand-children of the testator, have an absolute bequest..At the outset, the judges said that, “A Will will be a Will only when it will lay to rest the wishes of who is at rest,” and that it will be their endeavour to proceed so that the "will of who lays at rest is put to rest"..After considering the submissions, the bench held that there is nothing cryptic or vague about the words or language used in the Will and that there is an absolute bequest in favour of the four children.“Finding no infirmity, perversity or illegality in the Impugned Judgment dated 10.05.2022 passed by the Learned Single Judge qua the interpretation of the Will in question, we find there are no grounds of interference by this Court.”.Therefore, the appeals were disposed of..Senior Advocate Sudhanshu Batra with advocates Gagan Mathur, Madhu Sehgal and Rishi Sehgal appeared for the appellants.Respondents were represented through Senior Advocates Ashish Dholakia and Arvind Nigam along with advocates Jai Sahai Endlaw, Ashish Kumar, Niharika Ahluwalia, Ishita Deswal, Astha Badoriya and Mansi Sharma. .[Read Judgment]