SHYAMAL KANTI GUHA Vs. MEENA BOSE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) Interpretation of a Will executed by one Hillol Kanti Guha is in question in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 13.11.2006 passed by a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in First Appeal No. 155 of 2002 affirming a judgment and order dated 24.5.2001 passed by Civil Judge Senior Division, Alipore in Title Suit No. 57 of 2000. The properties in suit belonged to the testator. The parties hereto are a brother, sister and the heirs and legal representatives of the testator. A suit for partition was filed by Meena, the sister of the testator for declaration of title in respect of 50% of the property in question and for partition. The right, title and interest of the parties to the suit indisputably arise for the Will in question. The said Will was executed by Hillol Kanti Guha on 3.4.1985. Hillol Kanti Guha was a bachelor. He had two brothers; Shyamal Kanti Guha and Ujjal Kanti Guha and one sister Smt. Meena Bose, the original plaintiff. He was owner of a dwelling house No. 5/1A, Moor Avenue, Calcutta-40. He had also a bank account as well as shares in the Company. Shyamal Kanti Guha died during the pendency of the appeal in the High Court. His heirs and legal representatives had been brought on record in his place. For the sake of convenience, we heretobelow re-produce the relevant clauses of the Will, being :

(3.) Mr. Dushyant Dave, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in support of this appeal contends that in view of the well-settled principles of law, a Will must be read in its entirety and so read there cannot be any doubt whatsoever that the intention of the testator was to confer only a life interest upon the plaintiff -respondent. It was urged that the very fact that in the event of the death of the sister, Shyamal Kanti Guha, the appellant's predecessor-in-title was to occupy the said premises absolutely and furthermore in view of the fact that clause (10) applies only in the event that both the brothers or the sister died during his lifetime, the question of the sister's acquiring a permanent interest in the suit property did not and could not arise. In support of the said contention, strong reliance were placed on Raj Bajrang Bahadur Singh v. Thakurain Bakhtraj Kuer ((1953) SCR 232), Ramachandra Shenoy and Another v. Mrs. Hilda Brite and others ((1964) 2 SCR 722); Navneet Lal alias Rangi v. Gokul and others ((1976) 1 SCC 630).