Introduction

The case of Badrilal v. Suresh And Others (2021 INSC 687) adjudicated by the Supreme Court of India on October 28, 2021, delves into the intricacies surrounding the revocation of a will and the consequent validity of agreements made subsequent to its execution. The primary parties involved are Badrilal (the appellant and third defendant), Suresh (the original plaintiff and first respondent), Ramkanya (original first defendant), and the State of Madhya Pradesh (original second defendant). The central issue revolves around whether an agreement made after the execution of a will can effectively revoke that will, thereby altering the distribution of Mangilal’s estate.

Summary of the Judgment

Mangilal, the deceased, had executed a will on May 6, 2009, bequeathing specific portions of his land to Ramkanya and his sons to Suresh, Dilip, and Prakash. Subsequently, Suresh and Ramkanya entered into an agreement on May 12, 2009, purportedly altering the distribution of Mangilal's property. Ramkanya later sold a portion of the land to Badrilal via a sale deed on February 21, 2011. Suresh contested the validity of this sale deed, asserting his rightful ownership and seeking a perpetual injunction against Badrilal. The Trial Court upheld the validity of Mangilal's will and deemed the agreement invalid, leading to the District Court affirming this stance while modifying certain aspects. The High Court dismissed Badrilal’s second appeal, leading to the Supreme Court's review.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively references the Indian Succession Act, 1925, particularly Section 70, which delineates the permissible modes of revoking a will. The court scrutinizes prior cases to ascertain the validity of non-traditional methods purported to revoke wills, emphasizing the necessity for statutory compliance in such revocations.

Legal Reasoning

The Supreme Court meticulously examined whether the agreement dated May 12, 2009, constituted a lawful revocation of Mangilal's will. Under Section 70 of the Indian Succession Act, revocation is permissible only through specific means: executing another will or codicil, a written declaration of intent to revoke executed with proper formalities, or the physical destruction of the will with intent.

The Court found that the agreement lacked the requisite formalities and did not involve Mangilal as a party, despite his thumb impression being present. Moreover, the agreement was not a will or codicil, nor was there evidence of Mangilal destroying the will. Consequently, the Court held that the will remained valid and was not revoked by the agreement.

Additionally, the sale deed executed by Ramkanya was deemed valid only to the extent of the property legitimately bequeathed to her in the will. Since the will was upheld, Ramkanya could not sell more than her rightful share without effecting a partition, which had not been done.

Impact

This judgment reinforces the stringent requirements for revoking a will under Indian law. It sets a clear precedent that informal agreements, even with partial involvement of the testator, do not suffice to revoke a will. Future cases involving disputes over wills and subsequent agreements will reference this judgment to ensure adherence to statutory provisions.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Revocation of a Will

Revocation of a will refers to the legal process by which a testator (the person who made the will) nullifies their previously made testamentary document. Under Indian law, this can only be done through specific methods outlined in the Indian Succession Act, such as executing a new will, creating a codicil (an amendment to the will), declaring the intent to revoke in writing, or physically destroying the will with intent.

Perpetual Injunction

A perpetual injunction is a court order that indefinitely restrains a party from performing a particular act. In this case, Suresh sought a perpetual injunction to prevent Badrilal from interfering with his possession of the land.

Bequest

A bequest is a provision in a will where the testator leaves specific property or assets to a beneficiary. Mangilal’s will included a bequest of land to Ramkanya and his sons.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in Badrilal v. Suresh And Others underscores the paramount importance of adhering to statutory procedures when revoking a will. Informal agreements, absent the requisite legal formalities, cannot override the clear intentions expressed in a duly executed will. This judgment fortifies the sanctity of testamentary documents and ensures that the distribution of a deceased’s estate adheres strictly to the law, preventing unauthorized alterations through informal agreements.