Holding

The testator’s unambiguous intention was that Om Prakash alone should succeed to the estate after Lakshmi Devi’s death, and the court may read necessary words into the will to give effect to that intention.

Summary

The testator, Pyare Lal Singh Bhatia, executed a will in 1944 leaving a life interest in his property to his second wife Lakshmi Devi and, after her death, to his son Om Prakash. The will also expressly denied any right to the property for the widow and daughters of his pre‑deceased son, while providing for their maintenance and marriage. After Lakshmi Devi's death, Om Prakash claimed a sum of Rs 16,490 deposited in two banks, but the trial court, applying a narrow construction, held that the amount should be divided among Om Prakash, Manmohini, Raj Kumari and Pramod Kumari. The Allahabad High Court, on a broader construction, held that Om Prakash alone was entitled to the amount. The Supreme Court affirmed that the testator’s clear intention was that Om Prakash should succeed to the estate, and that the court may supply missing words to give effect to that intention. It also declined to interfere with the High Court’s discretion in refusing belated additional evidence, and dismissed the appeal.

Issues considered

The proper construction of the will and whether the court may supply omitted words to effect the testator's intention.
Whether Om Prakash alone is entitled to the deposited sum or it should be shared with other heirs.
Whether the Supreme Court can interfere with the High Court's discretion to admit additional evidence filed belatedly.

Subjects

will constructiontestamentary intentioncurial draughtsmanshipadditional evidencediscretionary jurisdictionsuccessionlife interestinterpretation of wills

Judgment

53

PRAMOD KUMAR! BHATIA A
v.
OM PRAKASH BHATIA AND ORS.
November 15, 1979
[R. S. SARKARIA AND 0. CHINNAPPA REDDY, JJ.)
•
Will-Teslamtntary Will, con.struction of-Jurisdiction of the Court in
cxercisinR its curial c!raught.~nurnship for the ffl~tator to supply the specific
words from the Will,. explained.

Evidence-Additional evidence reception of by the High Court-Supre1ne
Court cannot interfere with the discretionary power of the Iligh Court, when c
the application is very much belated.
I
The lestator Pearcy Lal Singh Bhatia died on 30-3-1952 leaving behind him
a Will dated 8-4-44, a widow Lakshmi Devi being his second wife, a son Om
Praka5b by Lakshmi Devi, and t!;ie widow and daughters (Mamnohini, Raj
Kuma!i aDd Pramod Kumari respectively) of a pre-deseased son by a pre- I)
dece38Cd fll'St wife. Manmohini, the daughter-in-law of the testator and her
daughter Raj Kumari had left the family house and moved away to_ Mathura,
V..'hile Pramod Kumari stayed in with her grand father and was brought by up
him. Lakshmi Devi, widow of Pearey Lal Singh died in 1958.
•,
>-
The "1Jit filed by Om Prakash for title to a sum of Rs. 16,490/- lying in
deposit with two banks was dismissed by the trial J udgc, who on a strict and
narrow construction of the will came to the conclusion that Om Prakash was E
not entitled to •ucceed under the will and that on the death of Lakshmi Devi
the amount bad to be divided among Om Prakash, Man Mohini, Raj Kumari
and Pramod Kumari. On appeal the High Court of Allahabad held that on a
true comtruction of the will Om Prakash alone was entitled to the amount.

Dismissing the appeal by special leave, the Court,

HEID : I. A reading of the whole of the will clearly shows the unambi-
guous intention of the testator that his son Om Prakash should succeed to his
• estate after the death of Lakshmi Devi and none else was to be the owner of
the properties. [57 A]
• The testator noticed the existence of five possible heirs : his wife, Lakshmi
DcVi; his sOill Om Prakash, his deceased son Krishna Chandra's widow, Man- G
n1ohini and Krishna Chandra's daughters, Raj Kumari and Pramod Kumari.
He was desirous that Pra·mod Kumari Should be brought up by himself and his
wife and that they should also perform her marriage. He was also desirous that
a sum of Rs. 2000/- should be set apart for the marriage of Raj Kumari.
Apart from that, he did make it clear thait Man Mohini, Raj Kumari and
Pramocl Kumari should have no right or interest in any of bis properties under
any circumstances. On his death his properties were to go to his wife Lakshmi R
Devi who 1llao to have a life interest in them. If his wife Lakshmi Devi pre-
decease<l him, the properties were to go to his son Om Prakash. [56 F-HJ
54 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1980] 2 s.c.l!..

A 2. No doubt, the testator while specifying that Om Prakash was to take the
properties in case Lakshmi Devi predeceased the testator, did not specify I.bat
Om Prakash should take the properties after the death of Lakshmi Devi ·in
case Lakshmi Devi survived the testator to enjoy the• life estate given to her
under the will. But this is a case where the testator's intention to give the -pro·
perties to Om Prakash in case Lakshmi Devi predeceased the testator was so
patently and reasonably certain, 'no speculation but a compelling conviction',
·B that the Court would be justified in exercising its curial draughtsmanship for
the testator. and supplying th~ specific \VOrds missing from the will. 1be Court
bas undoubted jurisdiction to do so. Therefore necessary words to that effect
can and must be read into will. [57 A-C, 58 CJ
William Abbott v. Eliza Middleton, 7 H.L.C. 68 Eden v. Wilson, 4 H.L.C.
284, Re Smith (1947 2 All England Law Reports 708), Re Cory (1955 I W.L.R.
725 Re. Riley's Will Trusts (1962 I W.L.R. 344); quoted with approval. /
c
3. Supreme Court cannot interfere with the discretion exercised by the liigh
Court in refusing to receive additional evidence for which an application was
made after several years. [58 F-G]

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 2577 of 1969.
From the Judgment and Order dated 18-7-1967 of the Allahabad
D High Court in First Appeal No. 166/60.
M. V. Goswami for the Appellant.
Mohan Beltari Lal and Vishnu Mathur for Respondent No. 1.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered· by
E CHINNAPPA REDDY, J.-The question in the appeal is about thCJ
co'nstruction of a will. The facts which are now not in dispute before ·
us are as follows : The testator, Pearey Lal Singh Bhatia died on
30-3-52 leaving behind him a will dated 8-4-1944, a widow Lakshmi
Dovi being his second wife, a son Om Prakash by LakShmi Devi, and
the widow and daughters (Manmohini, Raj Kumari and Pramod
Kumari respectively) of a pre-deceased son by a pre-deceased first
wife. Manmohini. and her daughter Raj Kumari had left the family
house and moved away to Mathura while Pramod Kumari stayed on
with her grand-father and was brought up by him. Lakshmi Devi,
widow of Pearey Lal Singh, died in 1958. We are now concerned
with the title to a •um of Rs. 16,490/- lying in deposit with the State
G Bank of India and the District Cooperative Bank, Bulandshahr. Om
Prakash claims the amount und·or the will dated 8-4-1944. The will,
a registered one, was in the following terms :-
"I, Pyare Lal Singh, so'n of Babu Ghanshyam Narain
Saheb, by caste Kshatriya Bhatia, resident of Mohalla
H Sheopuri, Bulandshahr, do declare hs follows :-
"I, the executant, am owner in possession of the property
specified as given below in Schedules 'A', 'B' and 'C'. The
. PRAMOD KUMAR! v. OM PARKASH (Chinnappa Reddy, J.) 55

property given in Schedules 'B' and 'C' has been purchased A
by me the executant, with my own funds in the 'name of my
wife Smt. Lakshmi Devi and my son Om Prakash. In fact I,
the executant, am the owner of it as well. Th~ entire
• movable and immovable property, owned and possessed by
me, is my self, acqnired property and is not ancestral pro-
perty, and I the cxccuta'nt, ha.ve all sorts of rights to make B

• transfers in respect thereof. NowI, the executant, am about
sixty years of age and I have a wife, Lakshmi Devi, a son,
Om Prakash, and two dear grand-daughters, Raj Kumari and
Pramod Kumari, daughters of my first son Krishna Chandra
Singh, M.A.,LL.B., who has already died in June, 1932, .
leaving behind his widowed wife Smt. Man Moh?ni D~vi,
c
besides these two daughters aforesaid. Both the daughters of
my deceased son aforesaid,' who are my grand-daughters,
are still minors. By way of prudence and for future manage-
ment I, the executant, make a will as under : -
D
That I, the executant, till I am alive, shall remain owner
of my entire movable and immovable property, cash etc.,
which I possess at present or which may be added to it duri'.ng
't '
nly life time and which I, the eirecutant, leave behind at the
time of my death. After my death, if my wife Smt. Laxmi
Devi remains alive, she will become owner of my entire E
estate with life interest, but she shall have no power to
transf~ any movable and immovable property. If my wife
Smt. Lakshmi Devi predeceases me, then under such circum-
stances, after my death my son Om Prakash, who has now
appeared at the examination of the X class of the English
F
School and who is 18 years of age, shall become permanent
-0wner in possession of my entire estate and he shall be
bound by the conditions laid down in this will. I and my
wife shall be duty-bound to maintain and perform marriage
• etc. of my grand-daughter Pramod Kumari and my son Om
Prakash and it will be incumbent .upon me and my wife to G
discharge that duty. My second grand-daughter Raj
Kumari lives with her mother at Mathura. After the death
of her father, she or her mother did nat come to me and
remained under the guidance of her matemai grand-father
and grand-mother. Therefore, it is the duty of the mother
of my grand-daughter Rajkumari, who. is a teacher in a H
girl's school in Mathura City, to mailltain her and perform
her marriage. Even then I Jay down for her as well that
Si SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1980] 2 s.c.R.

A a slim upto Rs. 2000;- may be given or spent for her lnarri- I
age. Appropriate expenses are to be incurred over the edlica- '
tion alld marriage of my second grand-daughter Pramod
Kumari and my son Om Prakash, who are living With me
and are getting education. My daughter-in-law Smt.
Manmohini Devi aforesaid or her daughters aforesaid or my
any other relation shall not have any right or share in my
any estate under any circumstances. Only the expensee of •
maintenance, marriage etc. of my both the grand-daughters
aforesaid and later on the expenses of th~ir bringing here
µnd sending off shall be met according to custom in accord-
ance with the directions give·n above. It is also niy will that
c after my death, a sum of about Rs. 20 /- per mensem out
of the income from rent of shops and houses and other field
property may be spent for charitable purposes in the follow-
ing manner:-

D I shall continue to do all the charitable acfa afore&Ud
during my life time. After my death, if my wife remains
alive, she shall, and after her death my son Om Prakash,
may he live long, shall be duty-bound to continue this chari-
table act. I have strong hopes that my wife Lakshmi Devi
and my son Om Prakash shall execute this will of mine ill
E
every way and in this way they shall cause benediction w
my soul, and that they shall make additions to my estate
and shall not allow it to be under charge or to decrease in auy
waJ."

F
The testator, it is seen, noticed the existence of five possible heirs :
his wife, Lakshmi Devi, his so\1 Om Prakash, his deceased son :KriBhna
Chandra's widow, Manmohini and Krishna Chandra's daughters, Raj
Kumari and Pramod Kumari. lk was desirous that Pramod Kumari
should be brought up by himself and his wife and that they should
G also pefrorm her marriage. He was also desirous that a snm of
Rs. 2000 /- should be se.t apart for the marriage of Raj Kumari. Apart
from that, he did make it clear that Man Mohini, Raj· Kumari and
Pramod Knmari should have no right or interest in any df his pro-
perties under any circumstances. On his death his properties were
to go to his wife Lakshmi Devi who was to have a life interest in
II them. If his wife Lakshmi D~vi predeceased hinl, the properties were
to go to his son Om Prakash. Directions were given for the cartying i ,
out of certain charitable obj ecti. His wife Lakshmi Devi and after
PRAMOD KUMAR! v. OM PRAKASH (Chinnappa Reddy, J.) 57

her death, his son Om Prakash were enjoined to perform the chari- A
table acts. A reading: of the whole of the will clearly shows that it
was the intention of the testator that his son Om PrakaSh and none
else was to be the ultimate owner of the properties. No doubt, the
' testator while specifying that Om Prakash was to take the properties
in case Lakshmi Devi predeceased the testator, did not specify that
Om Prakash should take the properties after th~ death of Lakshmi B
Devi in case Lakshmi Devi survived the testator to enjoy the life
• estates given to her under the will. But this is a case where the testa-
' tor's intention to give the properties to Om Prakash in case Lakshmi
Devi predeceased the testator was so patently aud reasonably certain,
'no speculation but a compelling conviction', that the court would be
justified in exercising its curial draughtsmanship for the testator and
c
supplying the specific words missing from the will. The Court has
undoubted jurisdiction to do so.
In William Abbott v. Eliza Middleton(!), the testaor gave an
annuity of £2000 to his widow, and set apart, out of· his per~onal
property, a sum sufficient to provide for its payment. He directed D
that, on the death of his widow, the s.m so set apart was to go to
his son George for his life and on his death to George's children, but
he directed, "in case of my son dying before his mother, then and in
that case the principal sum to be divided among the children of my
daughter". On the date of the will, George was. not married. He
married subsequent to the will and had a son. He died before the E
testator. The testator's widow died soon thereafter. A question
arose whether George's son was entitled to take the sum after the
.death of the testator's widow. He could so take if the words "with-
out leaving any child" could be supplied after the word "dying" in
the deposition relating to the final gift over. The Lord Chancellor
observed, "where there is an uncertainty as to the meaning of any
F
part of a will, the right of a Court of construction even to introduce
words, in case of necessity, is clearly stated by Lord St. Leonards,
in the passage quoted from Eden v. Wilson('), and declared the
right of George's son to the sum.
Re Smith(•), re Cory(4) 'and re Riley's Will Trusts(•), are other G
'instructive cases where words have been supplied by Courts because
ol "so strong a probability of intention, that au intention contrary to
that which is imputed to the testator canoot be supposed".
(1) 7 H.L.C. 68.
(2) 4 H.L.C. 284.
(3) [1947] 2 All E.R. 708 •
• (4) [1955] I.W.L.R. 725.
(5) [1962] I W.L.R. 344.
5-868SCl/79

,
58 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1980] 2 S.C.R.

A In Jarman On Wills, 8th Edn. 592, it is said : -
"Where it is clear 9n the face of a will that the testator
,. I

has not accurately or completely expressed his meaning by
the words he has used, and it is also clear what are the words
which he has omitted, those words may be supplied in order •
B to effectuate the intention, as collected from the context." '
As already observed by us, we do not have the slightest doubt
in the present case that it was th~ clear and unambiguous intention of
the testator that his son Om Prakash should succeed to his estate after '
the death of Lakshmi Devi. Necessary words to that effect can and
must b~ read into the will.
c
The learned trial Judge, on a strict and qarrow constnt:tion oX
the will, came to the conclusion that Om Prakash. was not entitled
to succeed, under the will, on the death of Lakshmi Devi and that the
amount had to be divided among Om Prakash, Man Mohini, Raj
Kumari and Pramod Kumari. On appeal, the High Court of Allaha-
D bad held that on a true construction of the will Oin Prakash alone
was entitled to the amount. , In the view that we have taken, we
a)J'ee with the conclusion of the High Court.
Before the High Court, Pramod Kumari filed an application for
reception of additional evidence. The principal additional evidence
' E. sought to be adduced was an alleg~d Jet\er said to have been written
by lat·~ Pearey Lal Si'ngh to the bank nominating Pramod Kumari as
the person entitled to the amount in deposit with the Bank. The
, letter itself was not filed along with the application but a i\equest was
made to summon the Jetter from the Bank. The High Court rejected
the application. The application to the High Court was made very
many years after the suit had been filed, and also quite some years
after the appeal had been filed before the High Court, and we do not
think that we will be justified in interfering with the discretion exer-
cised by the High Court in refusing to receive addition~! ev.idence at
that stage. The appeal is therefore dismissed but in the circumstances
with no order as to costs.
G
•
S.R. Appeal dimisscd.

•
.) ,)