INTRODUCTION
Once a person has died, the question that always comes up is what did he/she wish for? What is even more difficult is answering that question when it becomes clear that the wishes written in the will do not cover a certain scenario. The will-writer, who said that the property should be divided amongst “my children,” probably did not realise that one of his/her children would die before he/she. Or the person who used the word “Malik” in his/her Urdu will have in mind something completely different from what the court means by this word in the legal sense.
In India, the courts resolve the problem by way of the armchair rule. As provided for under Section 74 of the Indian Succession Act 1925,[1] The rule dictates that in interpreting a will, the courts must put themselves in the shoes of the testator and interpret the terms in question as he would have interpreted them at the time of making them, taking account of all the circumstances of the case. The courts do not concern themselves with the meaning of the terms but rather with the intention of the testator when writing such terms.
ORIGIN AND LEGISLATION
The concept of “the testator’s armchair” originated from the Privy Council. In Venkata Narasimha v Parthasarathy (1913),[2] the Privy Council laid down the principle clearly: the courts have the right and the duty to look into matters other than those mentioned in the words of a will. The circumstances around the testator, his relations with his family members, the condition of his property, and the likelihood of him using certain words in a certain sense must be looked into. As the Privy Council said, “all this may be conveniently summed up in the somewhat picturesque figure of putting oneself in the testator’s armchair.” Importantly, the Privy Council immediately added the caveat to this doctrine: this is only an aid to the construction of the will, and after the construction is done, it is the bounden duty of the court to implement it faithfully, without adding anything to it.
The Supreme Court adopted this principle in Gnanambal Ammal v T Raju Ayyar (1951),[3] wherein Justice Mukherjee stated that the cardinal rule in interpreting a will is that the intention of the testator has to be found out. This can be achieved only by making use of the language of the will itself, without supposing what the testator might have done under different advice.
THE FIVE PRINCIPLES: NAVNEET LAL V GOKUL
The seminal exposition of the armchair rule under Indian law is provided in Navneet Lal alias Rangi v Gokul (1976).[4] The case concerned the interpretation of a will written in Urdu in 1916 wherein the testator referred to his wife’s interest in the property he owned as “Malik”. The issue was whether this description denoted an absolute interest or merely a life interest. In answering the question, the Court considered all the pertinent aspects – the testator’s family background, the motives behind writing the will, the relationships between the beneficiaries, and the general structure of the will. These were the five principles derived by the Supreme Court from previous cases:
- Intention from words: The basic principle, irrespective of whether it is an English will or a vernacular language will, is to determine the intention from the words used. Circumstances are relevant only for determining the meaning of the words, but never to substitute the words with new words.
- Read the will as a whole: It is essential to ascertain the intention of the testator from reading the entire will and not merely isolated words. In case there are conflicting provisions in the will, the court should try to resolve it in such a way that effect is given to every word of the will and nothing can be considered superfluous.
- Avoid intestacy where possible: When there are two possible interpretations of the will, out of which one leads to intestacy whereas another one does not lead to intestacy, the court shall adopt the interpretation that avoids intestacy.
- Give effect to every disposition: It is a fundamental rule that to the fullest extent possible, all dispositions of the will must be implemented. No disposition can be treated as inoperative by a court of construction unless there is absolutely no alternative way of interpreting the same.
These rules have been consistently upheld. The case of Uma Devi Nambiar v TC Sidhan (2004)[5] reaffirmed the position that the armchair rule requires that the will should be read from the perspective of the testator, keeping in mind his normal perceptions, family conditions, and the condition of his property at the time of making the will.
THE ARMCHAIR RULE AND SUSPICIOUS CIRCUMSTANCES
The armchair test is applied in the interpretation phase. Another issue related to the application of this test is whether the will itself is valid. In case there are suspicious circumstances in connection with the execution of the will, both the armchair test and the principle of suspicious circumstances come into play.
The Supreme Court in H Venkatachala Iyengar v BN Thimmajamma (1959)[6] decided that a will needs to be proved similarly to any other document, and the onus lies upon the propounder to establish its execution according to section 63 of the Indian Succession Act 1925.[7] The presence of such suspicious circumstances as a suspicious signature, a highly biased distribution of the estate, or an active participation of a beneficiary in the preparation of the will calls for proof from the propounded.
Regarding Kavita Kanwar v Pamela Mehta (2021),[8] The application of the armchair rule was done by the Supreme Court in order to evaluate if the will under dispute truly represented the intention of the testator. The Court assumed the position of the testator and evaluated if the exclusion contained in the will was reasonable given her personal life and family situation. In case when this assessment was still not able to provide any reasoning for such a disposition, it was deemed as an element that was not in favour of the testator’s testamentary capacity.
LIMITS OF THE RULE: WHAT THE COURT CANNOT DO
The armchair rule allows the court to comprehend the language used by the testator. This rule does not allow the court to substitute the language. Three concrete limitations delineate its boundaries.
- No guessing, better advice: The Court in the Gnanambal Ammal case clearly stated that the court cannot assume what the testator would have done in the event of being given better advice or having been more aware. The armchair rule is about interpreting the will that is already there.
- No insertion of judicial value judgments: The testator may make provisions that seem unfair, unjust and even cruel. In carrying out the wishes of the testator from his armchair, the court must do it without substituting its own values. As the Privy Council pointed out in the case of Venkata Narasimha, the obligation to enforce the will as rightly interpreted is universal.
- Language is the starting point and the end of interpretation: In the case of Narendra Gopal Vidyarthi v Rajat Vidyarthi (2009),[9] The Court reiterated the principle that although the context may aid in understanding the meaning of the language used in the will, no additional words that are not in the will itself can be added.
CONCLUSION
The armchair rule helps in resolving an inherent difficulty – the difference between what was written and what was meant. Words are imperfect tools for conveying intent, and not everyone who writes a will is a legal professional. Any rule that failed to take account of the circumstances at all would lead to results that no reasonable testator could have wanted. Any rule that granted courts unlimited discretion to impose their intent in place of that of the testator would render testamentary dispositions meaningless.
Indian courts have adopted a sensible position throughout. The court sits in the testator’s armchair to interpret language, but does not write wills from there. It interprets the document as the testator would have interpreted it, keeping in mind the entire background against which the will was drafted –the context, family, and language of the testator. Once this has been done, the court vacates its armchair and implements the testator’s wishes as outlined in his will.
Author(s) Name: Ayesha Firdosi (Smt.Velagapudi Durgamba Siddhartha Law College)
References:
[1]Indian Succession Act 1925 s 74
[2]Venkata Narasimha v Parthasarathy (1913) 41 IA 51 (PC) 70
[3]Gnanambal Ammal v T Raju Ayyar AIR 1951 SC 103
[4]Navneet Lal alias Rangi v Gokul (1976) 1 SCC 630, para 8
[5]Uma Devi Nambiar v TC Sidhan (2004) 2 SCC 321
[6]H Venkatachala Iyengar v BN Thimmajamma AIR 1959 SC 443
[7]Indian Succession Act 1925 s 63
[8]Kavita Kanwar v Pamela Mehta (2021) 8 SCC 360
[9]Narendra Gopal Vidyarthi v Rajat Vidyarthi (2009) 3 SCC 287