Holding

The Will, when read as a whole, shows that the Rs.30,000 was set apart solely for the benefit of the appellant and his mother, and the title to the immovable property vested in the appellant; the High Court's order is set aside.

Summary

The dispute arose from a Will executed by Bishan Sahai Vidyarthi in 1965, which set aside Rs.30,000 for the benefit of his widowed daughter‑in‑law Chandramukhi and her son Narendra Gopal Vidyarthi. Within a month the testator purchased an immovable property with that amount. After the testator's death, the property was mutated in the name of Chandramukhi and later in the name of the appellant. The respondent claimed the house was joint Hindu family property and sought a declaration and injunction. The trial court held it was joint family property; the first appellate court reversed that finding. The High Court, on a second appeal, held the property was joint family property and that the second appeal was maintainable on a substantial question of law. The Supreme Court held that the Will, read as a whole, intended the amount (and any property bought with it) for the appellant and his mother, that the term "wakf" indicated a final dedication, and that the property vested in the appellant. It also held that the question of whether the property was joint Hindu family property was not a substantial question of law under Section 100 CPC, rendering the High Court's order unsustainable.

Issues considered

Whether the High Court correctly framed a substantial question of law under Section 100 CPC for a second appeal.
Whether the property in dispute is joint Hindu family property.
How the Will should be construed under the Indian Succession Act, particularly the effect of the term "wakf" and whether it creates a trust or gift.
Determination of title to the immovable property purchased with the amount set aside in the Will.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s. 100, s. 96
Indian Succession Act, 1925s. 74, s. 81, s. 82, s. 84
Specific Relief Act, 1963s. 41(h)
Transfer of Property Act, 1882s. 122, s. 123

Subjects

Will constructionIndian Succession ActWakfJoint Hindu family propertySecond appealSection 100 CPCSubstantial question of lawTrust vs giftTitle to immovable property

Judgment

[2008) 16 S.C.R. 961

,_1 NARENDRA GOPAL VIDYARTHI A
v.
RAJAT VIDYARTHI
(Civil Appeal No. 7010 of 2008)
DECEMBER 02, 2008
B
[S.B. SINHA AND CYRIAC JOSEPH, JJ]

f Indian Succession Act, 1925 - ss. 74, 81 and 82 - Will
- Interpretation of - Held: Will is to be read as a whole - ,
Intention of testator must be asserted from the words used and c
the surrounding circumstances - On -facts, testator executed
Will and within one month purchased immovable property
from the amount set apart for the benefit of his widowed
daughter in law and her son - Order of High Court that by way
of Will only limited interest bequeathed in favour of D
beneficiary and his mother, not sustainable - From the Will
it can only be concluded that amount was set apart only for
1> benefit of widow and her son - It might have been invested in
immoveable property but only thereby they could not have
been deprived of the amount - Thus, title to said property , E
vested in the son - Though use of word 'wakf' was not
appropriate but it only shows that testator intended to divest
himself of the said property.

Words and Phrases: Wakf - Meaning of - Held Is taking
out of one's ownership and passing it on to God's ownership F
dedicating its usufruct-without regard to indigence or affluence,
perpetually and with the intention of obtaining Divine pleasure
..... It is for persons and individuals, or for institutions or
mosques and graveyards, or for other charitable purposes -
Wakf is neither gift nor trust. G

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - s. 100 - Second appeal
- Maintainability of - Held: Can be entertained if substantial
question of law arises for its consideration and not otherwise
,_ 961 H
962 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 16 S.C.R.

A - Finding of fact arrived at by first appellate court is ordinarily
final - Finding of fact may give rise to a substantial question
of law when the same are based on no evidence or is
otherwise perverse or that correct legal principle§ were not
applied - On facts, question formulated by High <;;ourt
B whether the property in dispute is a Joint Hindu Family
property, per se, not a sqbst~ntial question of law.

BS executed a Will in year 1965. He had five sons.
HS, father of the appellant was the eldest son and RS,
father of the respondent, is the youngest son. BS died
C in 1973. Within a month from the date of the execution of
the said Will, an immovable property was purchased for
a sum of Rs.32,0001- from the. amount set apart for the
benefit of the appellant and his mother C. Respondent
filed suit for declaration and permanent injunction against
D the appellant alleging that he had been making attempts
to dispose of the suit property belonging to the joint
family. Appellant contended that the said prqperty was
bequeathed to his mother, th~~, the respondent dld not
have any right over it. Trial court dismissed the suit
E despite finding that the suit property was a joint family
property. First appellate court reversed the finding that
the suit property was a joint family property. Respondent
filed second appeal. Two substantial questions of law
were formulated that whether after dismissal of suit,
F defendant has right to file appeal and whether the
property in dispute is Joint Hindu Family Property. First
question was answered in favour of appellant. With
regard to second question, High Court held that the
same was a joint family property. Hence the present
G appeal.

Allowing the appeal, the Court

HELD: 1.1. A finding of fact arrived at by the first
appellate court is ordinarily final. Its correctness can be
H questioned if, inter aila, the same was based upon no
NARENDRA GOPAL VIDYARTHI v. RAJAT VIDYARTHI 963

.... evidence or is otherwise perverse or that correct legal A
~
principles were not applied. In terms of Section 100 CPC,
the High Court can entertain a second appeal if a
substantial question of law arises for its consideration
and not otherwise. A finding of fact may give rise to a
substantial question of law, inter alia, in the event the B
findings are based on no evidence and/or while arriving
at the said finding, relevant admissible evidences have
~
not been taken into consideration or inadmissible
evidences have been taken into consideration. [Paras 13,
14 and 15] [971-F-H; 972-A-B] c
1.2. The question formulated, whether the property •
in dispute is a Joint. Hindu Family property, per se, is not
a substantial question of law. High Court, however,
proceeded on the basis that if the judgment is based on
no evidence or is ·otherwise perverse, a substantial D
question of law would arise for consideration. It cannot
i- be understood as to on what basis, the said question of .
law was formulated. Before an additional question is
formulated, the procedure laid down therefor must be
complied with. [Paras 13, 14 and 16] [971-G-H; 972-B-C] E

Krishnan v Backiam & Anr. 2007 (11) SCALE 46 and
Boodireddy Chandraiah & Ors. v Airgela Lazmi & Anr. 2007
(1) SCALE 188, Referred to.
.. 1.2. The recitals in the Will show that he was aware F

~ of the uncertainties of life. He acknowledged that proper
arrangements should be made for maintenance of C-his
widowed daughter-in-law and the appellant. A bare
perusal of the Will would show that he had kept apart
Rs.30 1000/- for the appellant and C. He had also a sum of G
Rs.10,000/- in a firm V. He thought of purchasing an
~ immovable property for the benefit of the appellant and
his mother but the same did not materialize. According
to the testator, it was the duty of the brothers to look after
the widow of his son and.the appellant as they had been H
964 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 16 S.C.R.

A earning well, the child with his mother should live with
them so as to enable him to meet the ups and downs of
life. He did not want that the said amount should be
wasted anci for the said purpose; some sort of
supervision was necessary. Therefore, he wanted to
B make a 'wakr in their favour so as to enable them not only
to maintain themselves but also to spend for the
education and upbringing as well as marriage of
appellant. He declared that apart from himself,· nobody
else had any interest therein nor anybody can raise any
c dispute in regard thereto. He made his sons the
Executors of the wakf. He used the word 'wakf'. [Paras
20 and 22] [979-E; 981-A-C] -

1.3. Some subsequent events took place. The house
property in question was purchased by BS in his own
D name from LK. Aft~r his death, the said property stood
mutated in the name of C and after her death in the name
of the appellant. No other family member objected
thereto. High Court, in fact; recorded that for the purpose
ofobtaining the order of mutation, other family members
E helped C. Admittedly, since the date of death of BS, the
appellant and his mother alone have been in possession
of the property. The suit was filed in 1995 and no other
family member was impleaded. [Para 21] [980-C, D, E, F]

F 1.4. The ordinary meaning of 'wakf' is taking out •
something out of one's ownership- and passing it on to f--
God's ownership dedicating its usufruct - without regard
to indigence or affluence, perpetually and with the
intention of obtaining Divine pleasure - for persons and·
individuals, or for institutians or mosques and
G graveyards, or for other charitable purposes. It is in their
true sense neither gift nor trust. [Para 23] [981-E] t---
1.5. The Will provides that if the sum of Rs.30,00~/-
is found to be inadequate for purchase of an immovable
H property, the amount of Rs.10,000/- which was available
NARENDRA GOPAL VIDYARTHI v. RAJAT VIDYARTHI 965

with the partnership firm V be utilized which would be A
~
determinative factor as regards the extent of title of the
property. The word used in the Will is 'karar'. It may mean
determination; it may also mean agreement. ~ut if the
extent of the title is to be determined, the same will have
a direct nexus with the amount spent from the sum of B
Rs.10,000/- which was with the partnership firm. If
determination of the extent of the title has a nexus with
-l
/
the amount spent from the said sum of Rs.30,000/- vis-a-
vis the said sum of Rs.10,000/-, title was to be passed in1
favour of the beneficiary. [Paras 26 and 27] (981-H; 982- c
A, B, C]

1.6. When a sum is to be invested in the immoveable
property and in the event, any further sum is necessary,
the extent of title is required to be determined, it does
demonstrate the intention on the part of the testator. Wakf D
is a 'final dedication'. It goes out of the control of
dedicator. The use of the said word may not be
i
f appropriate in a situation of this nature but that only goes
to show that the testator intended to divest himself of the
said property. [Para 28] [982-D-E] E

1. 7. The very fact that the testator categorically stated
that the extent of title in the property will depend upon
the amount of additional contribution requir~d to be
--. made from the fund of firm V itself is an indication to show
F
that his wish was that title should vest in the beneficiaries
4 to the extent of the property which represented the
~
amount of Rs.30,000/- out of the total amount of
consideration required to acquire the same. There cannot
be 'any doubt whatsoever that his intention also was that G
the entire cash may not be paid to C as she was of gullible 1

character. She could be made to part therewith by any
-.\ other person by sweet words. A precaution was,
therefore, required to be taken. The amount was required
to be spent wisely. The amount which was required for
H
966 SUPREME COURT R~PORTS [2008] 16 S.C.R. ~

A their maintenance and education of appellant whether '
~
- '
derived from the interest or from the rental only was to ~
,.__

be handed over. It is only for the aforementioned limited
purpose, the trust was created. The sole beneficiary of
the trust was merely the appellant and his mother. It may
B be true that the property was purchased in the name of
the testator himself. The High Court commented that the
same could have been done in the name of the appellant
and his mothef or at least the purchase could have been -t .._
'
a joint one. But the Wiil Is required to be construed on
c the basis of the terms used therein and not otherwise. '~
[Para 29] [982-F, G, H; 983-A-B]

1.8. Only because there does not exist any straight ...
forward answer, the same would not mean that
beneficiaries under the Will shall be deprived therefrom
D only because the property was purchased in his own
name by the testator. The testator had a long wish to
purchase an immoveable property. He even thought of
acquiring a property, price whereof might exceed +-...I

Rs.30,000/-. If he wanted to keep apart the said sum of '-

E Rs.30,000/- for the benefit of the appellant and his mother,
he also wanted to bequeath the immoveable property
purchased out of the said amount. [Para 30] [983-C-D]
1.9. How a Will has to be interpreted is no longer res
integra. Intention of the testator must be ascertained from
F
the words used and the surrounding circumstances. The
Court will put itself in the armchair of the testator. f- '
Applying the principles of construction of Will, as
contained in ss. 74, 82 and 84 of the Indian Succession
Act, if the Will is read as a whole and if the surrounding
G circumstances are to be given effect to, the only
conclusion that can be reached was that the amount of
Rs.30,000/-was set apart only for the benefit of the f....
appellant and bis mother. It might have been invested in
immoveable property but only thereby they could not
H have been deprived of the amount. The title to the said
NARENDRAGOPAL VIDYARTHI v. RAJAT VIDYARTHI 967

property vested in the appellant. Thus, .order of High Court A
1 cannot be sustained and is set aside. [Paras 32, 33 and
34] [984-E, F, G; 989-D]
Navneet Lal v. Goku/1976 (1) SCC 630; Arunkumar and
Anr. v. Shriniwas and Ors. 2003 (G) SCC aa; Bajrang Factory
8
Ltd. v. University of Calucutta 2007 (7) SCC 183; Anil Kak v.
Kumari Sharda Raje and Ors.· 2008 (6) SCALE 597 and
f Shyamal Kanti Guha (D) Though LRs. and Ors. v. Meena
Bose 208 (9) SCALE 363, relied on.
_,
----.
Case Law Reference: c
2007 (11) SCALE 46 Referred to. Para 11 ·
2007(1) SCALE 188 Referred to. Para 11
1976 (1) sec 630 Relied on. Para 33 D
2003 (6) sec sa Relied on. Para 33 ·

1 2001 (7) sec 183. Relied on. Para 33
2008 (6) SCALE 597 Relied on. Para 33
E
2008 (9) SCALE 363 Relied on.· Para 33
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No.
701 Oof 2008.

~ From the Judgment and final Order dated 4.4.2006 of the F
'
High Court of Judicature of Madhya Pradesh Bench at Gwalior
~
in Second Appeal No. 356 of 2001.

Dhruv Metita, Harshvardhan Jha, yashraj Singh Deora and
---'
T.S. Sabarish (for M/s. K.L. Mehta & Co.) for the Appellant.
G
Dr. Om Prakash Saxena, Dr. Sumant Bhardwaj, Shamba
""!i. ~ Dutta and Mridula Ray Bhardwaj for the Respondent.
l
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
H
968 SUPREME COURT REPORTS t~oos11s s.cJt I
•
r
I
J-
A S.B. SINHA; J.1. Leave granted. '
}---
2. This appeal is directed against a judgment .and. order
dated 4.4.2006 passed by a learned Single Judge ofthe High
Court of Judicature of Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior Bench, Gwalior
·in Second Appeal No.356 of 2001 whereby and whereunder
B
an appeal preferred by the respondent from the judgment and
decree dated 2.7.2001 passed by the 9th Additional District
Judge, Gwalior in Civil Appeal No.86A of 1999 affirming the ~
judgment and decree dated 1.11.1999 passed by the Xlth Clvil

~
Judge Class II, Gwalior in Civil Suit No.20~A of 1995
c dismissing civil suit filed by appellant/respondent, was allowed.
~
3. Controversy involved in this app~al centres around the t
construction of a Will executed by one Sh_ri Bishan Sahai
Vidyarthi on 21.11.1965. The said Bishan Singh Sahai died in
I
D or about 1973.
)----
•,
4. Indisputably, within a month from the date 'of the
execution of the said Will, an immoveable property. was
p'urchased for a sum of Rs.32,000/-, inter alia, from the amount ·
T
•
set apart for the benefit of the appellant and his mother.·.
E
5. Bishan Sahai -Vidyarthi had five sons, na·mely, t--
Rameshwar Sahai, Rajeshwar Sahai, Harbansh Sahai,
Raghuvansh Sahai and Krishan Sahai; the eldest of them being
Harbansh Shai, father of the appellant herein. Plaintiff- t
I-
F respondent Rajat Vidyarthi is son of Rameshwar Sahai, the
youngest son of Bishan Sahai. ~
f-. I

6. The aforementioned suit was filed by the respondent for L
declaration and permanent injunction against the appellant
herein alleging that he had been making attempts to dispose
I
G of the suit property which is a house belonging to the joint
~
family. Appellant, in his written statement, contended that the I
said property was bequeathed to his mother and, thus .. the ~ ~r
plaintiff-respondent had no right in relation thereto.

H 7. The learned Trial Judge, despite finding that the suit

~
r
< NARENDRA GOPAL VIDYARTHI v. RAJAT VIDYARTHI 969
[S.B. SINHA, J.]
,., property was a joint family property, inter alia, on the premise A
-1
that no injunction can be granted against a co-owner in terms
of Section 41 (h) of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and the only
remedy available to the plaintiff was to file a suit for partition,
dismissed the suit.
B
8. The respondent did not prefer any appeal thereagainst.
The appellant, however, preferred an appeal against the finding
(
f made therein that the suit property was a joint family property.
By reason of a judgment and order dated 2.7.2001, the said
appeal was allowed by the learned 9th Additional. District
Judge, Gwalior, holding : .
c
"21. At the time of execution of the Will, if Bishan Sahai
was trying to purchase the house for Chandramukhi, but
no appropriate and good house was found by him and
even plaintiff has not initiated any proceedings on the [D
ground that their money is invested in the disputed house
before filing of the suit after the demise of Bishan Sahai,
"'( though Bishan Sahai had died in the year 1973. Therefore,
•
this inference could be drawn from the conduct of other
heirs of Bishari Sahai that the disputed house has been E
purchased from the amount payable to Chandramukhi.
Therefore, plaintiff has failed to prove that the disputed
house is the property of the Joint Family."

9. A Second Appeal was preferred thereagainst by the
respondent. Two substantial questions of law were formulated
F
which are:

"(1) Whether, after dismissal of the suit, defendant has
right to file appeal?
G
(2) Whether, the property in dispute is Joint Hindu
~ Family Property?"

The first question was answered in favour of the appellant.
Respondent has not filed any appeal thereagainst.
\
H

.
970 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 16 S.C.R.

A So far as the second substantial question of law is
concerned, the High Court held : · '

· Substantial. question of law Nq.2 is "whether the property
in dispute is Joint Hindu Family Property'', To decid~ this
substantial question of law, I will have to go through· the ·
B
record of the trial court, judgment and .decree passed by
trial court and lower appellant court. it is .also necessary
·to peruse tlie evidence adduced by both the parties and ·..\
if it reveals that learned First Appeal court's finding
pertaining to sole ownership of defendant/respondents to
c disputed house is perverse, against evidence, misreading
of evidence or overlooking of any evidence then, it would .
I-
be necessary to re-appreciate the evidence adduced by r•
both the .parties."I · I-
l-
D 1b. Appellant is, thus, before us.
'
11. Mr. Dhruv Mehta, .learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the appellant, would submit : ·

( 1) , Keeping in .view the fact that after death of Bish an
E Sahai, not only the property was mutated in the ·
name of Chandramuk~i, the mother of the appellant
and also the appel1ant, the High Court committed .
a serious error in opining that by reason of the said
·Will dated 21.11.1965, only a limited interest has
been bequeathed in favour of the appellant and his I-
mother.

;. · (2) The second question oflaW formulated is not a
substantial question of law. The approach of the
G High Court in formulating the same was, thus,
erroneous, wherefor no opportunity ofhearing was
·given to the appellant. ·

Reliance in this behalf has been placed on
Krishnan v. Backiam & Anr. [2007 (11) SCALE 46]
H and Boodireddy Chandraiah & Ors. v. Airgela.
NARENDRA GOPAL VIDYARTHI v. RAJAT VIDYARTHI 971
·[S.B. SINHA, J.]
>.
-1 Laxmi & Anr. (2007 (1) SCALE 188]. A
(3) In any event, the High Committed a serious error
insofar as it misconstrued and misinterpreted the
· said Will dated 21.11.1965 tg hold that by reason
thereof, only a li.mited interest iri favour of the
B
appellant
···:
Rad been bequeathed.
,,-.J. 1a. Or. Saxena, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the respondent, on the other hand, would submit :

~
(1) No objection having been raised by the appellant c
befqr~ the High Court, it does not lie in the mouth
of the appellant now to contend that the substantial
question of law formulated by the High Court was
not correct.
(2) A bare perusal of the Will dated 21 .11 .1965 would D
clearly show that the testator who was proficient in
1 Urdu having used the word 'wakf and a board of
~
trustees consisting of four persons named therein
having been constituted, no absolute interest had
been or could have been conferred in the appellant. E

13.. One of the issues which arose for consideration before
the High Court was as to whether the property in question was
a joint family property. The learned Trial Judge answered the
question in the affirmative. The same was reversed by the first F
-~
appellate court. A finding of fact arrived at by the first appellate
court is ordinarily final. Its correctness can be questioned if, inter
aila, the same was based upon no evidence or is otherwise
· perverse or that correct legal principles were applied. The
question formulated, namely, as to whether the property in
G
dispute is. a Joint Hindu Family property, per se, is not a
. ~' substantial question of law.

14. The High Court, however, proceeded on the basis that
if the judgment is based on no evidence or is otherwise
perverse,
;
a substantial question
. -
of. law
~ ..
"
would arise for ·H
~
,,

[2008] 16 S.C.R. I-
972 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
.
\

l.

A consideration. It is so but therefor also a substantial q1,.1e$tion )'---
of law must be framed. In terms of Section 100 of the Code of
Civil Procedure, the High .Court can entertain a ~e~nf;i ~ppeal
if a sub§tantial question of law arises for its consideratlofi f:lR€1
not otherwise.
B 15. A finding of fact may give rise to a substantial question
of law, inter alia, in the event the findings are based on no
~
evidence and/or while arriving at the said finding, relevant
admissible evidences have not been taken into consideration
or inadmissible evidences have been take" if!tQ consideration.
"
t
c I=
16. We fail to understand as to on what basis, the ~ejg
question of law was formulated. Before an additional question
is formulated, the procedure laid down therefor must be
complied with. This aspect of the matter stands concluded by
D this Court in Krishn;:m's case (supra), wherein it was held :
il10. Under the amended S@~ti9n, 100 CPC the High Court
has to frame substantial questit;1n$ @f l?.'!V and can decide
the second appeal only on those queeti@fl§ frerried. A
T
perusal of the questions framed shows that no QUi§t!@~ @f
E law was framed as to whether the finding of fact of the First
Appellate Court that Lakshmi and Ramayee are one and
the same person, is based on no evidence or is perverse.

11. !t may be men,tioned that the First Appellate Court urider
F Section 96 CPC is the last court of facts. The High Court
tn second appeal under Section 100 CPC cannot interfere f.,

with the findings of fact recorded by the First Appellate
Court under Section 96 CPC. No doubt the findings of fact
of the First Appellate Court can be challenged in second
G appeal on the ground that the said findings are based on
no evidence or are perverse, but even in that case a
question of law has to be formulated and framed by the 4-
High Court to that effect In the present case no question
was framed-by the High Court as to .whether the finding of
the First Appellate Court thcit Ramayee and Lakshmi are
H
\
NARENDRA GOPAL VIDYARTHI v. RAJATVIDYARTHI 973
[S.B. SINHA, J.]
~

1 one and the same person 1 is a finding based on no A
evidence or is pery~rn~, Hence the findings of the First
Appella~e Qgyrt \Rat Ramayee and Lakshmi are one and
\~~ §aff\e person, could not have been interfered with by
t\'le High Court.''
B
{See also Subramaniaswamy Temple, Ratnagiri v. V.
Kanna Gounder (Dead) by LRs. [2008 (9) SCALE 386]}.
_,-.l.
Yet again in Boodireddy Chandraiah's case (supra), this
Court opined:
c
"8. The phrase 'substantial question of law', as occurring
in the amended Section 100 CPC is not defined in the
Code. The word substantial, as qualifying 'question of law',
means-of having substance, essential, real, of sound worth,
important or considerable. It is to be understood as D
something in contradistinction with-technical, of no
substance or consequence,, or academic merely. However,
l ~
it is clear that th§ legislature has chosen not to qualify the
scgg~, Q,f 1§ub~tantial question of law' by suffixing the words
1
~f ~~neral Importance' as has been done in many other E
provisions such as Section 109 of the Code or Article
133(1 )(a) of the Constitution. The substantial question of
law on which a second appeal shall be heard need not
necessarily be a substantial question of law of general
importance. In Guran Ditta v. T. Ram Ditta the phrase
F
·~ubstantial question of law' as it was employed in the last
·~ clause of the then existing Section 100 CPC (since omitted
by the Amendment Act, 1973) came up for consideration
and Their Lordships held that it did not mean a substantial
question of general importance but a substantial question
of law which was involved in the case. In Chunilal case G
the Constitution Bench expressed agreement wlth the
~
following view taken by a Full Bench of the Madras High
Court in Rimmalapudi Subba Rao v. Noony Veeraju:
(Chunilal case)
H
f.-
974 SUPREME COURT REPORTS . [2008] 16 S.C.R. . ~

A '5 . ... when a question of law is fairly arguable,. ,.._ .
where there is room for difference of opinion. on it
or where th~ court thought it necessary to deal with ·
that question at some length and discuss alternative.
views, then the question would be ~ substantial
8 question of law. On the other hand if th@ Q!,l?§tien
was practically covered by the decision of the
highest court or if the g~neral principles. to be >--.....
applied in determining the.question are weff settled
and the only question was of applying those
c principles to the particular facts of the case it would
not be a substantial question of law.'

12. The principles relating to Section 100 CPC relev~mf
· for this case may be summarised thus :

0 (i) An inference of fact from the recitals or contents
of a document is a question of fact. But the legal
effect of the terms of a document is a question of y
law. Construction of a document involving the ~

application of any principle of law, is also a question
E oflaw. Therefore, when there is misconstruction of ·
I a document or wrong application of a principle of
1 .law ;in construing a document, it gives rise to a·
question of law. · ·

(ii) The High Court should be satisfied that the case
F · . involves a substantial question of law, and not a
mere question of law: A question of law having a ~·
material bearing on the decision of the case (that
is, a question, answer to which affects the rights of
parties to the suit) will be a sut:>stantial question of
G law, if it is not covered by any specific provisions
of law or settled legal principle emerging from
1 A
~
binding precedents, and, involves a debatable legal
issue. A substantial question of law will-also arise
in a contrary situation, where the legal position is.
H clear, either on account of express provisions of law

•
/

NARENPRA GOPAI,, VIDYARTHI v. RAJAT VIDYARTHI 975
[S.8. SINHA, J.]
I
~
or binding pr~c~dents, but the court below ha~ A
decided the matter, either ignoring or acting
contrary to such legal principle. In the second type
of cases, the substantial question of law arises not
because the· law is still debatable, but because the
decision rendered on a material question, violates B
the settled ·position of law.
k 13. The general rule is that the High Court will not interfere
'·
with the concurrent findings of the courts below. But it is
. not an absolute rule. Some of the well-recognised
· exceptions are where (i) the courts below have ignoreq
c
material evidence or acted on no evidence; (ii) the courts
have drawn wrong inferences from proved facts by
applying the law erroneously; or (iii) the courts have wrongly
cast the burden of proof. When we refer to 'decision based
on no evidence', it not only refers to cases where there is D
a total dearth of evidence, but also refers to any case;
where the evidence, taken as a whole, is not reasonably
1
; capable of supporting the finding."

17. This Court, for the reasons stated hereinbefore, should E
ordinarily upon setting aside the judgment of the High Court,
remit the matter to it. However, we, in view of the fact that the
suit was filed in the year 1995 and the principal controversy
between the parties is construction of the said Will dated.
21.11.1965, though~ it proper to dispose of the matter F
ourselves .
. 4:
18. Before adverting to the said question, we may place
on record that we have heard the learned counsel for the
parties at some length on 17. 7 .2008. Appellant had furnished .·
to us an unofficial translation of the said Will, correctness G
Whereofwas disputed by Dr. Saxena. We, therefore, entrusted
the job to the official translator. Acopy of the said Will, as
translated by the official translator, has been placed before us.
It is accepted by the counsel for both the parties that the said
translation, to put it simply, even does not carry any meaning. H
976 SUPRE~E ·COURT REPO~T§

A We, therefore, chose to igno.re the same.

19. The translated. portions of the Will which are disputea
one are as under :
Extract of Will Official Translation Correct Translation
B
~ anM ~ t My last willing~ness H\§ nw lsst wish
fcp. ~ tfl{A" ~ is that I shall cancel my th9t PY WiW §f thi!?
~<ITT~ m ~ all previous.Wills ang ~y will, wh'ich I am stating
way of this Will, I in my in my senses, that
¢1'lfl<lo"11~· ctr ~ \ill complete mental and from my self acquired
c ll ~~<PX w physical conscious- earn-ings of whole life,
( ~. anM ammr ness, execute that out only Rs.30,000/- (Rs.
~ ~ 1-R qft ~ of my self acquired Thirty thousand only),
,>\...,,... ~ earnings a sum of the half of which i~
'iqi CITTCIT 'f,.,,~ if ~ Rs.30,000/- (Rupees only Rs.15,0~Q/.,,
11crfalf tfi~ 6'\ilH fifteen thot1sand only) (Rupees fifteen
D 30,000/- ~ ~ be §pared QF s13t apart thoµsand only) may
f'R:q;jq~<i ~ m from.the benen~ of Dear give 'Wakr for the
15,0001- 'liitl'm ~ ~ tq;- Narendra Gopal Vidya- benefits of dear Nare-
rthi and his widowed ndra Gopal Vidyarthi,
3T\ifi\if o:r~;:~ lfhz;r mother Chand-ramukhi and his widow mother
fcrnwff 3TR ~ -rfr .,, Vidyarthi so that the. Chander Mukhi Vidya-
E il~!f<if) ~ctr ~ study and marriage etc. rthi, by which for the
ctr~ qqq; <PX { ~ of Narendra Gopal and education ·~rnd
~ l'JTtm;r qft cm;lTq Livelihood of his mother mainten-ance and· for
,, · such. as fooding and the marriage .etp. e.f
er tH&llld er mcfi ~ clothes could easily be Narendra GoPC\H~rn~ {gr-
~ ~ iff ~ iff arranged and they th,~ rn~\nteriance, food,
F ~~~~~ would not get any clothes etc. of his
~ q;r lflCfIB ~ difficulty in their lives. No Mother appropriate
m~atR·fc.ITTfi one t)as any right or arrangement could be
claim over his Munda- made, and throughout
CRi! ~ ~ .3'1'R' raja amount and I have life, there rn~y not t:Je
-q~~n;ft "I' i!T I ~~ complete right to use enY type of difficulty
G j'Ri'l\i)I c:m;rr ~ tJ"l" this as per my wishes !!ind problem. On this
~ fWml ~ 3TR fcp'lft and nobody has any etipulated amount
~ ~ objection or right to excepting me, there is
; ~ : .,.,.,.t~ raise di~pute. Therefore not right or concern of
~""'1 in my complete anyone else, and I,
~ '$ ~ ~ physical and mental according to my wish,
H ~ '$ ~ atR ~ · consciousness by way for the use and
NAR~NDRA GOPAL Vl!)YARTHI v. RAJAT VIDYARTHI 977
[S.S. SINHA, J.]

<ff~ ~~-<PT- of this Will, I Vishun spending, I have A
~ ~ 6Cf> ~ afR fcITT:fT Sahay son of Lala Sibo complete right to
q;)- -rl-:l- Sahay hereby gifting the make the Will, and no
~ ~ lR "''~ Mundaraja amount of other person has any
~crm:;n:rr~~<PT Rs.30,000/- Rupees right to object ci>r
~ ~ ~ 1 ~ thirty thousand only) quarrel. As such in
which has been depo- my comple~e B
i!l$'<'l'Rll ~~~
sited jn the Saving senses, by way of
qff\4d11~ <ff ~ lf
account of Bank of India this will, I Bishan
tTiirf ~ ~ ~ Ltd., Gwalior Branch in Sahai son of Lala
ftrq WflJ !!'< IWJ'l I CITm the name of dear Shiv Sahai, by
~ 5\J'1"R' ~ q;)- w Narendra Gopal and his separating, the
~-Cf> 31'f-q> ~~ ~o mother Chandar Mukhi amount of Rs.30,000/ c
Vidhyarthi and thus for - which is deposited
•ql~4"( ~ lf ~ ~
their benefit I am making in savings accounts
~Cf> I'd "'C lf \i!+rr t ~ a trust ... in the Bank of India
~~f<mr~afR Ltd., Gwalior Branch.,
'i.Hrctfl 'fff :q-;.~ 11~ft The amount of the for the benefits of
f<mT~ ~ <ff lfCITTG <6
said Rs.30,000/- which Nare-ndra Gopal D
has been spared by me Vidyarthi, and his
~~~~~ in the name of Narendra motner Chander
~'CPW{ ............ .. Gopal and his widowed Mukhi Vid-yarthi,
mother, as far as hereby 'WAKF' to
cft~ 6\jfH ~'l1'tl'T
possible, shall be establish a Trust ......
30000 \:ill ll';f ~ ~ invested ;n the immo- E
afR ~ l!T <ff ~ veable property. Till dateRupees thirty
~ ~ ~ \ifITT crq; the efforts to purchase thousand (30,000/-)
house has not been which I have Wakf for
~'ITT~~
fulfilled. If in the Narendra Gopal and
Gt 14 cU G if (if7fT ~
purchase of immovable his mother, so far as
~ 1 arEr ~ lf<PR property a sum of more possible may be F
~°Rt"G~ CffT q;r~nr than the sum of invested in immove-
rffCfiffl m ~-311R ~ Rs.30,000/- is required
then the same shall be
able property. Efforts
to purchase the
~\1114GIG~
inyested from the house4 have
ff 'ij)cftp Cj)XGf cftX1 ~
working capital of remained uns- ,
~ 30000 ~ ~ Vidyarthi and Sons and uccessful till now. In G
~mm~-~ agreern~nt share be case in the pur:..chase '
W'tf~~-il'Xl~ rni:!Qe ac~ordingly. of the immov-able
ftf 'l'T iJf T'tf 3fh property, if more: than
In any c;ircums- the Wakf amount of
6Cfi~t'CffT~o \ffiT ~ tances, at one time the Rupees thirty thous-
~aiRlct> 'ITT ~ \jfj'<f I number of the trustees and (30,000/-) is H
978 SUPREME COURT REPORfS (2008] 16 S;C.R :

·- ..
1ft W'ff T{ ~ shall not be more than req~!r~d~ th~n th~t
~

A
"

~
~ Cfiffi' 'il ~ qft four. If any trustee act may be invested from
~ "q°R. ~ ~ 'I' against the motive of the. capital of Viciyarthl
this trust of uses the & sons and the rights
W1ft 3llR -cffll 1ft ~ amount of this trust for of ownership may be
trm m !fR!'<lfil ~ 'q"(' his own benefit then the fixed according to that.
B ~ q«l'll<i'"llq ~. ~ · said trustee would be
q; ~ ~ ~ ~ qfi presumed to be removed In any case, at any
~ CIR from the post of trustee time, the number of
· CR\ifi m ~ or property of this trust Trustees shall not be
ctft~m~m and the. remaining more than four, if .any
'Gl'Tftr 1fCPTC;' ~ ft;r~ trustee of this trust trustee singly or
c m
~ffi"l1<i1 CIR ~ ~ would take action jointly acts against
<f>1m3Tirt ~ ~ against him. May God the motive of the trust
~ ~ ·~ ~ fulfill my wishes and created by this will or
grant peace to my soul. uses the money as
lfTGT ~'fil\jf ~~ct property of the trust for
ltslt'i I q) q;nf<fll ~ his personal benefit
D ~ ~ % QlFtT th~p· ttie s~id trustee
would be pr~sumed to
~ ~ 3fN ~· 3lTcirT pe removed from his
<ITT~~. y·,
post of trustee and the
remaining trustees will •
be able to take action.
E against him .. May God
fulfill my wishes and
give peace to my soul.

According to 'the respondent, the af9r~m@nti().n~p
F .controversial portion should. read as unq~r :
1-·.
"In such circumstance§, if immovable property does not. get
available, handing over of caS,h amount to her would be
useful destruction~ Therefore, for the purpose of safety ·of
the amount, it would be. must that she be riot given all big
G cash amount. Watch on rental amount and interest is must.
For the bigger expenditure, the decision and sanction of
the trustees is necessary.
If immovable property becomes· available then rent of the
H same otherwise the bank interest over the said amoun1 of
NARENDRA GOPALVIDYARTHI v. RAJATVIDYARTHI 979
[S.S. SINHA, J.]

Rs.30,000/- shal! be given to the Narendra Gopal and his A
~
widowed mother for their personal expenses so that they
would not have to stretch their hands before anyone for the
personal expenses. In this regard trustees have to be
gracious and farsighted. It would be taken care that the
, · property shall remain family and would not be mortgaged B
or sold.
. ~
Rs.30,000/- was set apart for the limited purpose of
"' maintehance and for the benefit of Vaidarthi. and his
mother.
c
This means that the intention of the testator was that only
small amount should be given not a big amount and for the
·safety of the amount, big cash should not be given to the
widowed mother or the petitioner. Strict vigil would be
must. The decisions and sanction of the trustees is D
necessary, Watch on rental and interest is must. They
wanted to. bring up the widowed mother as well as the
1 minor child and for that purpose they spared that amount."
~

20. We have also been taken through the entire original
E
Will. The testator had a philosophical bent of mind. The recitals
in the Will show that he was aware of the uncertainties of life.
He had made a Will also on 19th February, 1959. As he lived
till 1965, he executed the Will in question. The Will recites that
God had been kind enough to him. He had four daughters,
Sunbderkala, Sarladevi, Shanti Devi and Lakshmi Devi who F
were happily married. He also acknowledged that he had five
sons, Raghuvansh Sahay (Mithubabu), Harbans Sahay
(Kaptan), Rameshwar Sahay, Rajeshwar Sahay and Krishna
Sahai (Kisho). He also stated that out of the five sons, four,
namely, Raguuvansh Sahay, Rameshwar Sahay, Rajesnwar G
Sahay and Krishna Sahay were highly educated and well placed
..A
in their life. They are married and were in employment. They
had been leading a happy life. He wished a lon·g and
prosperous life for them. However, he expressed his agony for
I' the death of his eldest son Harvansh Sahay (Kaptan) who had H
980 Sl.JPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 16 S.C.R.

A died in the year 1949 leaving behind a small child and a young
wife. He aekriowl@dges that proper ar~angements should be
.made tot maintenance of Chahdramukhi, his widowed
daughter.;in;.law. Some arrangements should also be made for
education, maintenance arid marriage. of her son Narendra
g Gopc:ll. It appea-rs from the Will that he had saved about
Rs.30,000/-. Indisputably, he had also a sum of Rs.10,000/- In
a firm known as "Vidyarthi and Sons". Indisputably again, he
thought of purchasing an initnoveable pr<Jperty for the benefit
of the appellant and his mother out tn~ same did not
c materialize.

21. It is in the aforementioned backdrop of facts, the Will
in question is required to be construed. Before we proceed to
do so, we may also notice some subsequent events. The house
property In question was purchased by Bishan Sahai in his own
D name from Stnt. Laxmibai Kelkar. After his death which took
place in 1973; the· said property stood mutated in the name of
Chandramukhi Devi and after her death in the name of the
appellant. No other family member objected thereto. The High
Court, in its impugned judgment, has, in fact, recorded that for
E the purpose of obtaining the order of mutation, the other family
members he_lped Chandramukhi. They also filed applications
for exemption from payment of property tax by her. Admittedly,
since the date.of death of Bishan Sahai, the appellant and his
mother alone have been.in possession of the property. The suit
F was filed in the year 1995. Therein, no other family member
was impleaded. If the plaintiff-respondent intended to obtain a
d_eclaration that the property in question is a joint family
property; it was expected that other family members would be
impleaded. None of the sohs of Bishan Sahai was examined
G as a witness. No explanation was sought' for from them as to
why they themselves were instrumental in getting the name of
Chandramukhi mutated. .

22. A bare perusal of the Will would show that he-had kept
apart Rs.30,000/- for Chandramukhi and the appellant.· The
H
NARENDRA GOPAL VIDYARTHI v. RAJATVIDYARTHI 981
[S.B. SINHA, J)
.J purpose of doing stl was that from his IHcdme, he had made A
i
jew~lleries ffif othefS. The Will speaks of division of the utensils
13fsu, Ao~t>rding to him, it was the duty of the brothers to look
after the widow of Iii§ son Kaptan and Narendra Gopal, as they
had beefl earning Wall 1 the child bf with his mother should iive
With them so as to enable him to meet the ups and downs of B
life. He did hot Want that the said amount should be wasted and
for tfte said purpose, some sort of supervision was necessary.
~
• He, therefore, wanted to make a 'wakf in their favour so as, to
enable them not only to maintain themselves but also to spend
for the education and upbringing as well as marriage of c
Narendra Gopal. He declared that apart from himself, nobody
else had any interest therein nor anybody can raise any dispute
in regard thereto. He made his sof1S the Executors of the wakf.
He as; indicated hereinbefore, used the word 'wakf.

23. What should be the tflie meaning of the said word is D
the question. Whereas, Mr. Mehta submits that it should be
treated as ;gift', according to Dr. Saxena, the same connotes
'1
~ a trust. The ordinary meaning of 'wakf is taking out something
out of one's ownership and passing it on to God's ownership
dedicating Its usufruct - without tegard to indigence or affluence, E
perpetually and with the intention of obtaining Divine pleasure
- for persons and individuals, or for institutions or mosques and
graveyards, or for other charita61e purposes. It is in their true
sense neither gift nor trust.
F
24. Gift of some amount in cash does not require
~ registration nor does the statutory requirements as contained
in Sections 122 and 123 of the Transfer of Property Act are
attracted therefor.

25. Was it the amount which was the subject matter of the G
Will or an immoveable property which was to be purchased
from the said amount, meant to be transferred in favour of the
respondent absolutely is the question.

26. The Will provides that if the sum of Rs.30,000/- is found H
IL

982 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008]· ~6 S.C.R. · '/-
J
A to be inadequate for purchase of an immoveable property, the
t-
r
' I-
amount of Rs.10,000/- which was available with the partnership
firm vidyarthi & Sons·be utilized which would be determinative
factor as regards the extent of title of the property ..
r.
;

27. The word used in the Will ·is 'karar'. ·1t may mean
8
determination; it may also mean agreement. But if the extent
of the title is ·to be de!ermined, the same will have a direct :I
r-
).
nexus with the amount spent from the sum of Rs.10,000/- which • 'j
1--
was with the partnership firm. If determination of the extent of I
r-
C the title has a nexus with the amount spent from the said sum
ofRs.30,000/- vis-a-vis the said sum of Rs.10,000/-, title was
' to be passed in favour of the beneficiary. 1--

28. This gives rise to two questions which. are of some ~
importance. When a sum is to be invested in the immoveable
D property and in the event, any further sum is necessary; the
extent·of title is required to be determined, does it demonstrate.
the intention on the part of the testator. In our opinion, it does.
Wakf is a 'final dedication'. a goes out of the control of ( .
dedicator. The use of the said word may not be appropriate in
E a situation of this nature but that only goes to s~ow that the
testator intended to divest himself of the said property.

29. The very fact that the-testator categc:ically stated that
the extent of title in the property will depend upon the amount
of additional contribution required to be made from the fund of
F Vidyarthi and Sons itself is an indication to show that his wish
was that title should vest in the. beneficiaries to the extent of
the property which represented the amount of Rs.30,000/- out
of the total amount of consideration required to acquire the
same. There cannot be any doubt whatsoever that his intention
G also was that the entire cash may not be paid to Chandramukhi.
as she was of gullible character. She eoutd be made to part
therewith by any other person by sweet words. A precaution
was, therefore, required to be taken. The amount was required
to be spent wisely. T.he amounl which was required for their
H maintenance and education of appellant whether derived from
NARENDRA GOPAL VIDYARTHI v. RAJATVIDYARTHI · 983
[S.S. SINHA, J.]

the inte(est or from the rental only was to be handed over. It is A
~ only for the aforementioned limited purpose, the trust was
created. The sole beneficiary of the trust, in our opinion, was·
merely the· appellant and his mother. It may be true that the
property Was purchased in the name of the testator himself. The
High Court commented that the same could have been done , B
.in the name of the appellant and his· mother or at least the
purchase could have been a joint one. But the Will is required
.,.( to be construed on the basis of the terms used therein and not
otherwise.

30. The answer to the question may be difficult one. Only C
·because there does not exist any straight forward answer, the
same would not mean that beneficiaries under the Will shall be
deprived therefrom only because the property was purchased
in his own name by the testator. The testator had a long wish
to purchase an immoveable property. He even thought of D
acquiring a property, price whereof might exceed Rs.30,000/-
. If he wanted to keep apart the said sum of Rs.30,000/- for the .
1 benefit of the appellant and his mother, we think he also wanted
to bequeath the immoveable property purchased out of the said
amount. E

31. The Indian Succession Act contains provisions for
construction of the Will. We may notice some of them.

"74 -Wording of Will-It is not necessary that any technical
words or terms of art be used in a Will, but only that the F
wording be such that the intentions of the testator can be
known therefrom. · •

82 - Meaning or clause to be collected from entire
Will-The meaning of any clause in a Will is to be collected G
from the entire instrument, and all its parts are to be
construed with reference to each other.

Illustrations

(i) The testator gives to B a specific fund or property at H

"
..
984 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 16 S.C.R.

A the death of A, and by a subsequent clause gives the
t-
whole of his property to A The effect of the several clauses
taken together is to vest the s·pecific fund or property in A
for life, and after his decease iri s; it appearing from the
bequest to B that the testator meant to use in a restricted
B sense the words in which he describes what he gives to
A.
(ii) Where a testator having an estate, one part of which ).
is called Black Acre, bequeaths the whole of his estate to
A, and in another part of his Will bequeaths Black Acre to
c B, the latter bequest is to be read as an exception out of ~
the first as if he had said "I give Black Acre to 8, and all
I
the rest of my estate to A". I

84-Which of two possible constructions preferred-
lI
D Where a clause is susceptible of two meanings according
to one of which it has some effect, and according to the
t
~
other of which it ·can have none, the former shall_ be
preferred." r.. ~
32. Applying the principles of construction of Will, as
E

~
contained in the aforementioned provisions, we are of the
opinion that if the Will is read as a whole and if the surrounding
circumstances are to be given effect to, the only conclusion that
can be reached was that the aforementioned amount of
Rs.30,000/-was set apart only for the benefit of the appellant
F
and his mother. It might have been invested in immoveable
property but ~mly thereby they could nor have been deprived of ?--
the amount.

33. How a Will has to be interpreted is no_ longer res \-
G integra. Intention of the testator must be ascertained from the
words used and the surrounding circumstances. The Court will
Pl.!t itself in the armchair of the testator. )..._

In Navneet Lal v. Gokul [(1976) 1 SCC 630] it has been
held:
H .,
!-
NARENDRA GOPAL VIDYARTHI v. RAJAT VIDYARTHI 985
[S.B. SINHA, J.]

-1 _ "8. From the earlier decisions of this Court the following A
principles, inter alia, are well established:

.(1) In construing a document whether in English or in
vernacular the fundamental rule is to ascertain the
intention from the words used; the surrounding B
circumstances are to be considered; but that is only
for the purpose of finding out the intended meaning
~
-4 of the words which have actually been employed.
(Ram Gopal v. Nand La~

(2) In construing the language of the will the court is c
entitled to put itself into the testator's armchair
( Venkata Narasimha v. Parthasarathy) and is
bound to bear in mind also other matters than
merely the words. used. It must consider the
surrounding circumstances, the position of the D
testator, his family relationship, the probability that
-,
,,f
he would use words in a particular sense ... But all
this is solely as an aid to arriving at a righf
construction of the will, and to ascertain the
meaning of its language when used by that E
particular testator in that document. ( Venkata
Narasimha case and Gnanambal Ammal v. T.
Raju Ayyar)

(3) The true intention of the testator has to be gathered
F
not by attaching importance to isolated expressions
but by reading the will as a whole with all its
provisions and ignoring none of them as redundant
or contradictory. (Raj Bajrang Bahadur Singh v.
Thakurain Bakhtraj Kuer)
G
(4) The court must accept, if possible, such
construction as would give to every expression
some effect rather than that which would render any
of the expressions inoperative. The court will look
at the circumstances under which the testator H
986 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2008] 16 S.C.R.

A makes his will, such as the state of his prop,erty, of
.,_
his family and the like: Where apparently conflicting
dispositions can be reconciled by giving full effect
to every word used in a d.ocument, such a
construction should be accepted instead of a
B construction which would have the effect of cutting
down the clear meaning of the words used by the
testator. Further, where one 9f the two reasonable
)-
constructions would lead to intestacy, that should be
discarded in favour of a construction which does -
c not create any such hiatus. (Pearey Lal v.
Rameshwar Oas)
~
(5) It is one of the cardinal p~inciples of construction of r
wills that to the extent that it is legally possible effect
I
should be given to every disposition contained in )
·o the will unless the law prevents effect being given
I

I

• I to it. Of course, if there are two repugnant
· provisions conferring successive interests, if the
first interest created Is valid the subsequent interest
cannot .take .effect but a Court of construction will
'
r..
E . proceed to the farthest extentto avoid repugnancy,
' so that effect could be given as far as possible to
every testamentary intention contained in the will.
(Ramachandra Shenoy v. Hilpa Brite Mrs)'."

F {See also Arunkumar & Anr. v. Shriniwas & Ors. [(2003)
6 SCC·98]}
j--
.• This. aspect oUhe matter has recently been considered in
Bajrang Factory Ltd. v. University of Caiucutta_[(2007) 7 SCC
183], whereir it was held:
G
"39. With a view to ascertain the intention of the maker of
the will, not only the tern;is thereof are required to be tc;tken
A..
into cQns.ideration but also all circumstances attending
tllereto. The will as a whole must, thus, be considered for
H the said purpose and not _1:qerely the particular part ~hereof.
/

NARENDRA GOPAL VIDYARTHI v. RAJAT VIDYARTHI 987
[S.B. SINHA, J.]
)

1 As the will if read in its entirety, can be given effect to, it is A
imperative that nothing should be read therein to invalidate
the same.

40. In construing a will, no doubt, all possible contingencies
are required to be taken into consideration, but it is also 8
a well-settled principle of law that only because a part of
.,--4 a document is invalid, the entire document need not be
invalidated, if the former forms a severable part. The
legatee admittedly did not have any issue, nor did he adopt
or appoint any person. In a situation of this nature, effect
can be given to Clause 12 of the will, if it is read as
c
occurring immediately after Clause 5 of the original will.
fa.s the said clause stands on its own footing, its effect must
be considered vis-a-vis Clause 6, but the court may not
start with construction of Clauses 6 and 7, which may lead
to a conclusion that Clause 5 is also invalid. The D
contingencies contemplated by Clause 6 may not have any
i,. effect on Clause 7, if it does not take place at all. The
property which should have been purchased with the sale
proceeds could have been the subject-matter of the
bequest and in terms thereof the University of Calcutta E
became the beneficiary on the death of the original
legatee. We do not find any reason as to why the same
cannot be given effect to. We have indicated hereinbefore
that it is possible to construe Clause 7 of the will and in
fact a plain reading thereof would, thus, lead to the F
-~
conclusion that it merely provides for an option given to the
legatee to take recourse thereto. We have also indicated
hereinbefore that the term "devise" in the context of Clause
7 does not carry any meaning and, therefore, the same for
all iritent and purport should be substituted by the word G
"desire". As a matter of fact, the appellant in the copy of
A
the will supplied to us had also used the word "desire" in
place of the word "devise", which would also go to show
that even the appellant understood Clause 7 in that fashion.
Clause 7, if so read, will have no application to the H
.,.

988 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 16 S.C.R.

A properties which were to be substituted in place of the ...
~-
immbvable properties belonging to the testator. The
benefit of the sale proceeds, thus, in absence of any action
on the part of the legatee in terms of Clause 7 shall also
vest in the University. Moreover, the questions as to
B whether the deed of sale purported to have been executed
by the legatee in favour of Chamong Tea Co. Ltd. or other
instruments executed by him in favour of the appellants . ~.
herein are pending for consideration before the High Court. ' ' " ' r-
which may have to be determined on its own merit. In the
c event the said transactions are held to be: void, the
question of giving any other or further effect to Clause 6
of the will may not arise."

In Anil Kak v. Kumari Sharda Raje & Ors. [2008 (6)
SCALE 597], this Court stated :
D
"The testator's intention is collected from a consideration
of the whole Will and not from a part of it. If two parts of
the same Will are wholly irreconcilable, the court of law t
~

would not be in a position to come to a finding that the Will
E dated 4.11.1992 could be given effect to irrespective of
the appendices. In construing a Will, no doubt all possible
contingencies are required to be taken into consideration.
Even if a part is invalid, the entire document need not be
invalidated, only if it forms a severable part. [See Bajrang
F Factory Ltd. and Anr. 'v. University of Calcutta and Ors.
[(2007) 1 sec 1831
-;--
In Halsbury's Laws of England, Fourth edition, Volume 50,
page 332-33, it is stated :

G '462. Leading principle of construction: The
1.eading principle of construction which is applicable
to all wills without qualification and overrides every. >--.'
other rule of construction is that the testator's
intention is collected from a consideration of the
H whole will taken in connection with any evidence
NARENDRA GOPAL VIDYARTHI v. RAJAT VIDYARTHI 989
[S.S. SINHA, J.]

i properly admissible, and the meaning of the will and A
of every part of it is determined according to that
intention'."

In Shyamal Kanti Guha (0) Through LRs. & Ors. v.
Meena Bose [2008 (9) SCALE 363), it is stated : B
"Keeping in mind the aforementioned backdrop, the Will
.,. 4.
. should be construed. It should be done by a Court
indisputably placing itself on the arm-chair of the testator.
The endeavour of the Court should be' to give effect to his
intention. The intention of the testator can be culled out not c
only upon reading the Will in its entirety, but also the
" background facts and circumstances of the case."

Following the said principles, we have no hesitation to hold
that the title to the said property vested in the appellant. D
34. For the reasons aforementioned, we are of the view

.~
t that the impugned judgment cannot be sustained. It is set aside
accordingly. Appeal is allowed with costs. Counsel's fee
assessed at Rs.50,000/-.
E
N.J. Appeal allowed.