GURSWAROOP JOSHIversusBEENA SHARMA & ORS.

A                            GURSWAROOP JOSHI
                                         V.

                            BEENA SHARMA & ORS.

                                 APRIL 25, 2006

B                   [S.B. SINHA AND P.P. NAOLEKAR, JJ.]


          Hindu Law:

         Indian Succession Act, 1985; Ss.81 & 89:
c
           Will-Ambiguity/deficiency on the face of the Will-Probate granted by
    trial Court-High Court passing injunctions restraining both the parties from
    raising objections-On appeal, Held: The contention raised by the legal heirs/
    representatives should have been properly considered by the High Court-
    Order of the High Court suffers from manifest error-Hence cannot be
D   sustained.

          The first respondent/legal heirs filed an application under Section
    276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 for grant of probate in respect of
    the Will executed by his deceased father. Trial Court granted the probate.
    The widow of the testator and other legal heirs/representatives preferred
E   an appeal before the High Court. Single Judge of the High Court opined
    that though there is an unusual clause in the Will couched in a slightly
    vague words, but it is a part and parcel of the Will. Later, it directed that
    the appellant and respondents since bound by the terms of the Will are
    restrained from raising any objection against the Will. Hence the present
F   appeal.

          The appellant contended that by reason of interim orders, vested
    right of a party cannot be taken away; that having regard to the order
    dated 6.2.2003 of the Single Judge of the High Court wherein it was clearly
    opined that the terms of the Will was vague and thus void on the ground
G   of uncertainty, the same could not have been directed to be enforced,
    particularly, when the appeal against the order granting probate is still
    pending.

         One of the respondents submitted that the appellant having accepted
    the genuineness of the Will in the Court, he cannot turn round and
H                                       342
                 GURSWAROOP JOSHI v. BEENA SHARMA                       343
question the validity thereof.                                                 A
      Allowing the appeal, the Court

      HELD: 1.1. If the contents of the Will are found to be vague despite
the genuineness thereof, the grant of probate in favour of the 1st
respondent may, ultimately, be declined. It is in that view of the matter,     B
the High Court must be held to be not justified in passing interim orders
in mandatory form in terms of which not only the appeal preferred by
respondent Nos.2, 3, 5 and 6 would become infructuous, the parties would
also be forced to give effect to the provisions of the Will, although, they
may have reservations in relation thereto. Grant of mandatory injunction       C
on such premise, therefore, suffers from manifest error. (346-H; 347-A-B)

     Union of India & Ors. v. Modiluft Ltd, [2003) 6 SCC 65 and Srikrishna
& Ors. v. Aniruddha Singh & Ors., [2005) 12 SCC 389, referred to.

      2. In any event, the order of the trial Court would merge in the order
of the Appellate court which may ultimately be passed and thus, it is          D
necessary that before the stipulations made' in the said Will are directed
to be given effect to, the contentions raised by the appellant, as also the
respondent Nos.2, 3, 5 and 6 should receive proper consideration by the
High Court. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned orders cannot be
sustained, hence set aside. However, having regard to the peculiar facts       E
and circumstances of the case, the High Court is requested to consider
the desirability of disposing of the appeal as expeditiously as possible by
taking into account the effect of various interim orders passed at different
stages. [347-C-D-E-F]

      Chandi Prasad & Ors. v. Jagdish Prasad & Ors., (2004] 8 SCC 724,         F
referred to.

     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 1520-1522
of 2004.

      From the Interlocutary Orders dated 6.2.2003, 13.3.2003 and 20.3.2003    G
of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in FAO No. 248/1996.

     Sandhya Goswami and Jasbir Singh for the Appellant.

     Sujit K. Singh, Abhishek Agarwal, Sudhir Nandrajog, L.D. Adhlakha
and S.L. Aneja for the Respondents.                                            H
    344                    SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006) SUPP. I S.C.R.
A         The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

          S.8. SINHA, J. A Will was executed on 3.1.1980 by one Harbans Lal
    Joshi. He passed away on 5.3.1981 leaving behind the following heirs and
    legal representatives:

           I.    Smt. Pushpawati Joshi, widow.
B
           II.   Late Shri Basant Kumar Joshi (deceased son of Shri H.L. Joshi)
                 through:

                 (1) Smt. Chandrakala Joshi widow of Shri Basant Kumar Joshi.

c                (2) Gunjan Joshi d/o Shri Basant Kumar Joshi.

                 (3) Siddarth Joshi s/o Shri Basant Kumar Joshi.
           III. Dr. Sahib Swamp Joshi s/o Shri H.L. Joshi.
           IV. Shri Gurswamp Joshi s/o Shri H.L. Joshi.
D          V.    Shri Prem Swamp Joshi s/o Shri H.L. Joshi.
           VI. Smt. Beena Shanna d/o Shri H.L. Joshi.
           VII. Smt. Shanti Devi d/o Shri H.L. Joshi

          In 1984, the 1st respondent herein filed an application purported to be
E   under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 ('the Act', for short)
    for grant of probate in respect of the said Will. Objections were filed
    thereagainst. By an order dated 28.2.1996, the learned Additional District
    Judge, Delhi held that the said Will executed by the afore-mentioned Harbans
    Lal Joshi, was valid in law and had been executed by him in sound disposing
    mind. The prayer for grant of probate as made by t.he 1st respondent was,
F   therefore, allowed. The widow of Shri Harbans Lal Joshi, Smt. Pushpawati
    Joshi, respondent No. 2 - Smt. Chandra Kala Joshi, widow of deceased B.K.
    Joshi s/o Harbans Lal Joshi and respondent No. 7 - Dr. Sahib Swamp Joshi
    preferred an appeal against the said judgment and order dated 28.2.1996
    before the Delhi High Court. It was registered as F.A.O.No.248 of 1996. Smt.
G   Pushpawati, the widow of Late Harbans Lal Joshi died on 12.1.1999. The
    appellant herein filed an application for her transposition and/or substitution
    as an appellant in place of Late Pushpawati. The said application has been
    rejected by the Registrar of the Delhi High Court. One of the appellants in
    the said appeal, namely. Dr. Sahib Swarup Joshi moved an application for
    withdrawal from the said appeal and his name was deleted from the array of
H   the appellants and was transposed to the category of a respondent.
           GURSWAROOP JOSHI v. BEENA SHARMA [SINHA, J.]                     345

     It is not in dispute that certain stipulations made in the said Will are       A
vague. The parties found it difficult to work out the said Will.

      A learned Single Judge of the Delhi High Court noticed the said fact
in an order dated 6.2.2003.

    It is also not in dispute that various Interlocutory Applications were          B
moved before the learned Judge hearing the matter.

     By the afore-mentioned order dated 6.2.2003, the learned Judge opined:

           "Since there is an unusual clause in the Will couched in a slightly
       vague words, arguments on the point that what shall be the effect of         C
       such a clause in a Will, which cannot be implemented on account of
       unwillingness of a person in a reasonable time, who has just accepted
       an onerous will to raise the construction. It may be part and parcel
       of the Will.

           Appellant No.4 Sahib Swaroop Joshi shall remain present in person        D
       for it appears that he is responsible for causing the problem by not
       constructing his portion. This court may be inclined to stuck off his
       defence in case he fails to appear to answer specific question about
       the date when he intends to construct his portion. If he is not ready
       to construct, then the counsel for all parties shall take this aspect into   E
       consideration while making written submissions."

       Interim orders were also passed on 13.3.2003 and 20.3.2003. In the
latter order it was directed:

           "The appellant and other respondents being bound by the terms
       of the will are restrained from raising any objection to the sanctioning     F
       of the plan by respondent No.5 which will be submitted by the
       respondent No.5 in terms of the order dated 13th March, 2003 and in
       tenns of the will of the deceased Shri Harbans Lal Joshi. The other
       parties to the will excepting Shri Gurswaroop Joshi, respondent No.2,
       can also apply to get the plan sanctioned for raising construction, in       G
       respect of their portion. Shri Gurswaroop Joshi failed to pay the
       amount in terms of the will and not willing to pay now at the market
       rate to compensate his brothers etc. As such he cannot be permitted
       as consequences of non-payment have come into effect. However,
       the MCD is supposed to sanction plan in accordance with rules."
                                                                                    H
    346                      SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. I S.C.R.

A         The contention of Ms. Sandhya Goswami, learned counsel appearing
    on behalf of the appellant is that by reason of interim orders, vested right of
    a party cannot be taken away. It was urged that having regard to the order
    dated 6.2.2003, as it was clearly opined that the terms of the Will was vague
    and this was void on the ground of uncertainty, the same could not have been
    directed to be enforced by reason of interim orders, particularly, when the
B   appeal as against the order granting probate in respect of the Will is still
    pending.

         The learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.2, 3, 5 and
    6 supported the contention of the appellant.
c          Mr. L.D. Adhlakha, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the I st
    respondent, on the other hand, would submit that the appellant herein having
    accepted the genuineness of the Will in the Court of the Additional District
    Judge, now cannot turn round and question the validity thereof. It was urged
    that the appellant was neither an appellant, nor any order had been passed·
D   against him and, thus, this appeal should be dismissed.

          It is not in dispute that the legality or otherwise of the judgment of
    learned Additional District Judge, directing grant of probate in respect of the
    Will dated 3.1.1980 executed by Late Shri Harbans Lal Joshi, is in question.
    The said appeal has been entertained by the High Court. It is, therefore,
E   required to be disposed of on merit.

          The contents of the said Will are alleged to be vague. Whether the
    terms stipulated therein are capable of being implemented, would be a matter
    of construction of the Will at the hands of the High Court. The High Court,
    therefore, was first required to determine the validity or otherwise of the said
F   Will. Sections 81 and 89 of the Indian Succession Act read thus:

                "81. Extrinsic evidence inadmissible in case of patent ambiguity
            or deficiency.-Where there is an ambiguity or deficiency on the face
            of a will, no extrinsic evidence as to the intentions of the testator
            shall be admitted.
G
            xxx xxx xxx

                89. Will or bequest void for uncertainty.- A will or bequest not
            expressive of any definite intention is void for uncertainty."

H         Thus, if the contents of the Will are found to be vague despite the
                GURSWAROOP JOSHI v. BEENA SHARMA [SINHA, J.]                    347
    genuineness thereof, the grant of probate in favour of the Ist respondent may,      A
    ultimately, be declined. It is in that view of the matter, the High Court must
    be held to be not justified in passing interim orders in mandatory form in
    terms of which not only the appeal preferred by the respondent Nos.2, 3, 5
    and 6 herein would become infructuous, the parties would also be forced to
    give effect to the provisions of the said Will, although, they may have             B
    reservations in relation thereto. Grant of mandatory injunction on the afore-
    mentioned premise, in our opinion, therefore, suffers from manifest error.
    [See Union of India & Ors. v. Modiluft Ltd., [2003] 6 SCC 65, Para 11 and
    Srikrishna & Ors. v. Aniruddha Singh & Ors., [2005] 12 SCC 389.]

          In any event, the order of the learned Additional District Judge would        C
    merge in the order of the Appellate court which may ultimately be passed
    and thus, it is necessary that before the stipulations made in the said Will are
    directed to be given effect to, the contentions raised by the appellant, as also
    the respondent Nos.2, 3, 5 and 6 should receive proper consideration by the
    High Court.
                                                                                        D
           In Chandi Prasad & Ors. v. Jagdish Prasad & Ors., [2004] 8 SCC 724,
    this Court held that when an Appellate court exercises its power and passes
    a judgment, the same would replace the judgment of the lower court and only



-
    its judgment would be treated as final.

           For the foregoing reasons, the impugned orders cannot be sustained,          E
    which are, accordingly, set aside. However, having regard to the peculiar
    facts and circumstances of this case, we would request the High Court to
    consider the desirability of disposing of the appeal as expeditiously as possible
    and preferably within a period of two months from the date of communication
    of this order. The High Court, indisputably while disposing of the appeal,          F
    would take into account the effect of various interim orders passed at different
    stages.

           The appeals are allowed with the afore-mentioned observations and
    directions.
                                                                                        G
         No costs.

    S.K.S.                                                         Appeal allowed.