The Delhi High Court has arranged in a recently heard judgment in the case‘Vikram Bahl and others v. Siddharth Bahl’ that in the event of a ‘mutual will’, the last beneficiary is entitled to the death of one of the wills and the other Will be received in lifetime. 

Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw pronounced his judgment in the suit, stating, "It is expressly substituted in Indian law that the principle of a Mutual Will shall be effective after the death of one of the two wills and shall also be binding on the surviving testator.


" In the present case, Wing Commander (Late) N. N. On March 31, 2006, a joint will was prepared by Bahl and his wife, Mrs. Sundari Bahl (defense no. 2). Mr. N. N. Bahl died before his wife, Mrs. Bahl. According to the provisions of the will, after the death of one of the couple, the entire property will be safe with the other and no one will have any right in the property of the deceased. Only after the death of both the will will his elder son, granddaughter (daughter of the elder son) and younger son be the absolute owners of their share as per the details mentioned. 

The elder son and his daughter had filed a petition requesting, among other demands, that the court issue an order restraining their mother and brother from eviction from their (litigants) part of the will. There were some issues in this lawsuit. The main issues before the court were - (1) Whether the undisputed document prepared on 31 March 20006 falls under the category of Mutual Will and if so, what will be its impact? And




(2) What will be the effect of Section 14 (1) of the Hindu Succession Act on such a will? Giving a detailed judgment in favor of the litigants, Justice Rajeev Sahai Endlaw said that from reading the provisions of the will, it is clear that in the said will there was agreement among the testators as to how the will of the disputed property was to be done.

 Thus there was a clear and definite consent between the testators, in such a situation there is no question of allowing any oral evidence in the context of Sections 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The judgment further states that once such agreement is detected and the will if it relates to joint property, as well as the testator is satisfied with the relevant document then it falls under the category of Mutual Will.




After accepting the terms of the said will and taking benefits on the same basis, Smt. Sandari N. Bahl cannot deal with the property in violation of the agreement with her husband, as she is bound by the agreement. 

The law was further interpreted to provide that "the death of one will of the mutual will and the rights of the last beneficiary within the lifetime of the second testator are absolutely clear" and that the death of the two wills to the beneficiary to regain his rights Do not have to wait.

 In the context of the second issue, the court said that for the practicality of section 14 (1) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the possession of that property by a Hindu woman is necessary on the date of the enactment of this law. 

It was also provided that it is mandatory for a Hindu woman to plead that the disputed property was given to her in lieu of her pre-existing rights, but in the present case, Mrs. Sundari Bahl had not given any such argument, hence she could not be allowed to use the Hindu Succession Act. Under section 14 (1), it cannot claim full rights to the disputed property. 

The litigants were represented by senior advocates Mr. Ravi Gupta, Mr. Jeevesh Nagarath, Mr. Sachin Jain and Ms. Diya Kapoor, while Mr. Anil Sharma and Mr. Sanjay Agnihotri appeared on behalf of the defendants. (The author of this report, Mr. Chitwan Singhal is a lawyer of Delhi High Court)
Website
https://thelawupdates.com
Youtube channel link here:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCYPLCrHZGkdKEwjSXgko0yA
Facebook page:

https://www.facebook.com/Law-updates-104979037865175/

Facebook group link here
https://www.facebook.com/groups/261353011575471/?ref=share




JUDGMENT HERE