When a person speaks his mind on the way his properties must be disposed through a single document, his intentions must be culled from the document as to which of the properties are gifts, taking effect immediately, and which testamentary disposals, taking effect on his death. — The Supreme Court in Mathai Samuel and Others.

V. Eapen Eapen (dead) by Legal Representatives and Others was confronted with a document that was registered which is mandatory for gifts while not being mandatory for Wills. The Supreme Court pointed out that nothing turned on the factum of registration to hold that the entire document was gift. Since gift is not actionable unless it is registered, the executants of the document would get the composite document registered lest the gifts made by him became ineffectual.

The composite document had nine schedules. The language of the first six schedules made it abundantly clear that they were gifts, intended to take effect immediately. Schedule No. 7 of the document clearly indicated that the same was required for the marriage and dowry purposes of the daughter of the executants. The document clearly indicated that the marriage of their daughter would be conducted by the executants since it was their responsibility. Further, it was also stipulated that if the daughter did not get married during their lifetime, the property in Schedule No. 7 shall after their lifetime belong absolutely to their daughter. Schedule 9 property clearly said that the properties shall be equally divided by sons after the executants’ lifetime thereby making it a Will pro tanto.

The intention of the executants that the property would pass only on deaths was culled from the language of the recital in Schedule 8.

Related Topics
comment COMMENT NOW