Recently, the Supreme Court revisited the boundaries of judicial interference in inheritance disputes, particularly where arguments of gender equality are raised against the clear intention expressed in a testamentary will. The ruling reinforces the principle that a person’s freedom to dispose of their property through a will remains paramount.
The case arose from a civil suit seeking equitable partition of a father’s properties among his nine children. The father had executed a will bequeathing his properties exclusively to certain children, expressly excluding one daughter on the ground that she had married outside the community. Doubting the validity of the will, both the trial court and the High Court had directed equal partition of the properties among all nine children.
The Appellants contended before the Top Court that the will had been proved in accordance with law and reflected the absolute discretion of the testator over his property. They argued that courts cannot override a valid will on considerations of equity or perceived fairness.
The respondent, on the other hand, argued that exclusion from inheritance on the basis of marriage outside the community was discriminatory and contrary to constitutional values of equality. It was further submitted that, at the very least, she was entitled to a fractional share in the properties.
The Supreme Court emphasised that the dispute was not one of equity but of testamentary intention. The Bench observed that once a will stands proved unequivocally, there can be no judicial interference with its contents. It held that principles of equality or prudence cannot be invoked to dilute or rewrite a will merely because the reason for exclusion may not align with contemporary notions of fairness.
The Court clarified that judges cannot substitute their own opinions for the desire of the testator, whose wishes must assume pre-eminence. It further noted that the rule of prudence would apply only in exceptional circumstances, such as where all heirs are completely divested, which was not the situation in the present case.
Allowing the appeal, the Supreme Court set aside the judgments of the High Court and the trial court. It held that the respondent had no claim over the properties, as they had been validly bequeathed to the other siblings through a proven will. Consequently, the suit for equitable partition was dismissed.
Disclaimer: This news/ article includes information received via a syndicated news feed. The original rights remain with the respective publisher.
Picture Source :
