Madhuri Ghosh & Anr. v. Debobroto Dutta & Anr.
Background
By a registered Will, Ajit Kumar Ghosh left his house in Allahabad jointly to his widow (Madhuri Ghosh) and elder daughter in one clause, and then, in a later clause, purported to split the same house among his grandchildren after both women died. After his death, the widow and daughter sued other family members for a declaration that they were absolute joint owners under the Will. The trial court held the women only got a life interest, the first appellate court held they got absolute ownership, and the High Court's second appeal reversed back to a mere life interest, bringing the matter to the Supreme Court.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that the Will's own language, stating the house would "vest" in the widow and daughter jointly and that the daughter (or widow) would become its "exclusive" owner, used no words of limitation and therefore created an absolute (not merely life) interest in their favour. Applying the settled rule that where an earlier clause of a Will grants an absolute interest in property, a later clause purporting to redirect the same property to different persons is void and must be disregarded, the Court held the later clause bequeathing the house to the grandchildren was of no legal effect, while the rest of the Will (the earlier clause) stood valid. It therefore did not need to address the appellant's alternative arguments on pleading defects or Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, allowed the appeal, and set aside the High Court's judgment.
Lesson Learnt
When writing a Will, be careful that later clauses do not contradict an earlier absolute gift of the same property to someone: courts will enforce the first unambiguous absolute bequest and treat a conflicting later clause as void, even if that defeats the testator's apparent wish to also provide for other family members.