A Layman’s Will Must Be Read With Heart, Not With a Lawyer’s Lens: Delhi High Court Interprets Bequest

"Absolute Means Absolute—Unless the Will Says Otherwise", In a judgment of far-reaching significance on the principles of testamentary interpretation, the Delhi High Court dismissed an appeal filed by two daughters challenging the interpretation of their father’s registered Will. In a Division Bench comprising Justice Anil Kshetrapal and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar held that mere use of words like “absolute and exclusive” in a Will does not necessarily confer full ownership, particularly when the Will, read as a whole, reflects a contrary intention.

“When a testamentary instrument is authored by a layman, the linguistic acumen and the terminology used therein must not be read stricto sensu… but construed in light of the Testator’s intention.”

The case stemmed from a registered Will dated 24.02.1993, executed by one Mam Chand Deswal, who owned a double-storey property in Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi. In the Will, he stated that after his death, his wife Nanki Devi would inherit all his property as the “absolute and exclusive” owner, and that after her demise, their son Rajinder Singh Deswal would inherit all the estate.

While the Will granted specific monetary bequests to his two daughters—Rs. 21,000 each for their daughters' marriages—it was also stated that they were “well-settled in their respective families.” After the death of the mother in 2014, the daughters sought partition of the suit property, claiming that their mother had become absolute owner, and therefore her Will (dated 2013) bequeathing equal shares to all three children must be respected.

The Single Judge had dismissed their suit, holding that Nanki Devi held only a life interest under the original Will. The daughters appealed.

Did the Words “Absolute and Exclusive” in the Will Grant Full Ownership to the Wife?

The daughters’ main argument hinged on Clause 4 of the 1993 Will, where the Testator wrote:

“After my death, the same will be inherited by my wife, Mrs. Nanki Devi and will stand absolute and exclusive properties of my wife.”

They argued that this clause clearly conferred full ownership, and therefore she was competent to bequeath the property equally to her three children.

However, the Court was not persuaded by this literal reading in isolation. The Bench emphasized that a Will must be read holistically, not with a narrow or overly technical approach.

“The usage of expressions such as ‘absolute and exclusive’ in Clause 4... must be interpreted from the standpoint of a layman and in the context of the entire document.”

The Court pointed to Clause 7, which stated:  “After the death of wife Mrs. Nanki Devi, my son named Rajinder Singh Deswal will inherit all my estate and property movable and immovable.”

This, the Court held, clearly revealed the Testator’s true intention—that the wife was to enjoy a life interest, and not alienate the property.

Interpretation Anchored in Intention, Not Just Language

The Bench stressed that Section 82 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 mandates that the meaning of any clause in a Will must be collected from the entire instrument:

“A Will is not a statutory document to be parsed like a contract; it is the voice of a deceased testator, often a layman, setting down his last wishes in the language available to him.”

It further noted that: “The Will was typed by the Testator himself, who was not legally trained. The expressions used cannot be interpreted with the precision of legal drafting, but must be understood in spirit.”

The Court also invoked Section 88 of the Indian Succession Act, which provides that in case of conflict between two irreconcilable clauses, the last shall prevail. Since Clause 7, directing property to the son, came after Clause 4, the Court found the life interest conclusion further fortified.

Section 14 of Hindu Succession Act Not Applicable

The daughters had argued that Section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 entitled the widow to full ownership. However, the Court pointed out that no such plea had been raised before the Single Judge, and the suit was argued solely on the interpretation of the 1993 Will.

“In the absence of any independent claim or framed issue under Section 14(1), the Appellants cannot at this stage press for relief under the same.”

Limited Bequests to Daughters Reinforce Limited Intent

The Court also emphasized Clauses 8 and 9, which provided only limited financial gifts to the daughters and stated that they were “well-settled” in their respective families. This, the Court said, reinforced the idea that the Testator did not intend to divide his property equally:

“The wordings used in Clauses 8 and 9 of the Will further reinforce the inference that the intention of the Testator was not to grant an absolute estate to his wife, but to create a limited interest with a subsequent bequest in favour of his son.”

The Appeal was dismissed, and the decision of the Single Judge upholding the life interest bequest to the wife and succession to the son was affirmed.

The judgment reaffirms a long-standing principle in testamentary jurisprudence: the language of a Will is subordinate to the intention of the Testator, and that intention must be extracted from a harmonious reading of the entire Will—not from isolated words taken out of context.

“A Will must be read with the eyes of its maker—not merely with the eyes of a lawyer.”

Date of Decision: August 20, 2025