Case Note & Summary
The litigation concerned a property dispute within a family, stemming from a settlement deed executed in 1935 by one Uthupu Mani, who settled properties on his wife Mariamma and two sons, Joshua (the respondent) and Mani Mani (the first appellant). The property settled on Joshua was a storied building and 30 cents of garden land (B Schedule). Mutations were effected in favour of the donees. Subsequently, Uthupu executed three wills, the last one dated May 31, 1943 (Exh. 3), in which he declared that he had cancelled the earlier settlement deeds and wills, and that only this will would govern the disposition of his properties. In this will, he bequeathed five items of property to Joshua, which included properties originally settled on Mariamma and Mani Mani in 1935, but did not specifically mention the B Schedule property settled on Joshua. The will further stated that Mani Mani would be the sole heir of the remaining entire assets. After Uthupu's death in 1943, Joshua took possession of the five items bequeathed to him under the will. In 1955, he filed a suit claiming the B Schedule property settled on him in 1935, asserting that the settlement vested independent ownership in him and that the will did not affect that property. The defendants (Mani Mani and others) contended that Joshua, having accepted benefits under the will, had elected to take under it and was thereby barred from claiming the settled property. The trial court dismissed the suit, holding that the will clearly disposed of the entire estate including the B Schedule property, and that the doctrine of election under Section 180 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 applied. On appeal, the Kerala High Court reversed the trial court's decree, finding that the will did not specifically dispose of the B Schedule property and that mere general words of disposition were insufficient to put Joshua to election. The defendants appealed to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court examined the terms of the will, noting that the testator expressly stated he had invalidated the settlement deeds and intended the last will to be the sole governing instrument. The Court held that these recitals demonstrated the testator's belief that he could revoke the settlement and treat it as non-existent, thereby indicating an intention to dispose of the entire estate, including the properties earlier settled. Although the will did not specifically mention the B Schedule property, the residuary bequest to Mani Mani encompassed it. Consequently, Joshua was put to his election under Section 180. By accepting the five items under the will, he elected to take the benefit and was precluded from asserting any right to the property settled on him in 1935. The Court distinguished the English cases relied upon by the High Court, emphasizing that the intention to dispose of property not owned by the testator can be inferred from the will as a whole. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court's judgment and decree, and restored the trial court's dismissal of the suit, with parties left to bear their own costs.
Headnote
A) Succession - Doctrine of Election - Section 180, Indian Succession Act, 1925 - Where a testator by his will gives a benefit to a legatee and also disposes of property belonging to that legatee, the legatee must elect either to confirm the disposition of his own property or to dissent from it; if he dissents, he must relinquish all benefits under the will. The presumption is that a testator intends to dispose only his own property, but general words may include property not his own if intention appears on face of will. In the present case, the testator's last will explicitly referenced earlier settlements and cancelled them, indicating intent to dispose of the entire estate including properties previously settled. The respondent, having accepted benefits under the will, was precluded from claiming the property settled on him in 1935. (Judgment, pp. 78-79) B) Wills - Construction of Will - Intention to Revoke Settlement - Where a testator recites that he has 'invalidated' earlier settlement deeds and that the last will alone will govern, it shows that he considered the settlements revoked and intended to dispose of the settled properties afresh. The will gave to respondent properties that were originally settled on his mother and brother, and did not specifically mention the property settled on him, but the residuary bequest to his brother would include that property. The High Court erred in concluding that the will did not clearly dispose of respondent’s settled property. (Judgment, pp. 75-77) C) Civil Procedure - Appeal - Reversal of High Court Decision - The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s decree, and restored the trial court’s dismissal of the suit, holding that the doctrine of election applied and barred the respondent’s claim. Costs were borne by parties. (Judgment, p. 80)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the respondent, by accepting the benefit under the will by taking the five items bequeathed to him thereby, exercised his right of election and precluded himself from asserting any right to the item settled on him in 1935 under the earlier settlement deed.
Final Decision
Appeal allowed; judgment and decree of High Court set aside and trial court's dismissal of suit restored. Parties left to bear own costs.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- Section 180 of Indian Succession Act applies if legatee given benefit under will and his own property disposed of by same will
- legatee must elect either to confirm disposition or dissent and relinquish claims under will
- presumption that testator intends to dispose only his own property
- general words will not include property over which he had no disposing power unless intention appears on face of will by express words or necessary implication
- if testator thought he could revoke settlement and treat as non-existent that indicates intention to dispose entire estate
- acceptance of benefit under will bars claim to property settled earlier
