KAIVELIKKAL AMBUNHI Vs. H GANESH BHANDARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only ground on which the judgment of the High Court is questioned before us is that the Will in question was not properly interpreted and that the testator having created an absolute estate in favour of Kannan, son of his direct sister, Vellachi, it was not open to the High Court to rely upon the subsequent recital that Schedule 'A' properties which as per the earlier part of the Will had already been bequeathed in favour of Kannan shall be possessed and enjoyed as a "Tavazhi".

(2.) In interpreting the Will, the High Court has relied upon a number of decisions of this Court including Ramachandra Shenoy v. Mrs. Hilda Brite, AIR 1964 SC 1323, Navneet Lal v. Gokul, AIR 1976 SC 794 and Ramakishorelal v. Kamalnarayan, AIR 1963 SC 890, in which the principles of interpretation, as also the principles on the basis of which the true intentions of the testator can be gathered, have been set out.

(3.) The rules of interpretation of the "Will" are different from the rules which govern the interpretation of other documents say, for example, a Sale Deed or a Gift Deed or a Mortgage Deed or, for that matter, any other instrument by which interest in immovable property is created. While in these documents if there is any inconsistency between the earlier or the subsequent part or specific clauses inter se contained therein, the earlier part will prevail over the latter as against the rule of interpretation applicable to a Will under which the subsequent part, clause or portion prevails over the earlier part on the principle that in the matter of "Will", the testator can always change his mind and create another interest in place of the bequest already made in the earlier part or an earlier occasion. Undoubtedly, it is the last Will which prevails.