(i) A man has an aunt, Caroline, and a cousin, Mary, and has no aunt of the name of Mary. By his will he bequeaths 1,000 rupees to "my aunt, Caroline" and 1,000 rupees to "my cousin, Mary" and afterwards bequeaths 2,000 rupees to "my before-mentioned aunt, Mary". There is no person to whom the description given in the will can apply, and evidence is not admissible to show who was meant by "my before-mentioned aunt, Mary". The bequest is, therefore, void for uncertainty under section 89.
(ii) A bequeaths 1,000 rupees to..................leaving a blank for the name of the legatee. Evidence is not admissible to show what name the testator intended to insert.
(iii) A bequeaths to B .......................rupees, or "my estate of........................’’ Evidence is not admissible to show what sum or what estate the testator intended to insert.
82. Meaning or clause to be collected from entire will —
The meaning of any clause in a will is to be collected from the entire instrument, and all its parts are to be construed with reference to each other.
(i) The testator gives to B a specific fund or property at the death of A, and by a subsequent clause gives the whole of his property to A. The effect of the several clauses taken together is to vest the specific fund or property in A for life, and after his decease in B; it appearing from the bequest to B that the testator meant to use in a restricted sense the words in which he describes what he gives to A.
(ii) Where a testator having an estate, one part of which is called Black Acre, bequeaths the whole of his estate to A, and in another part of his will bequeaths Black Acre to B, the latter bequest is to be read as an exception out of the first as if he had said "I give Black Acre to B, and all the rest of my estate to A".
83. When words may be understood in restricted sense, and when in sense wider than usual —
General words may be understood in a restricted sense where it may be collected from the will that the testator meant to use them in a restricted sense; and words may be understood in a wider sense than that which they usually bear, where it may be collected from the other words of the will that the testator meant to use them in such wider sense.
(i) A testator gives to A "my farm in the occupation of B, and to C’’ "all my marsh-lands in L". Part of the farm in the occupation of B consists of marsh-lands in L, and the testator also has other marsh-lands in L. The general words, "all my marsh-lands in L", are restricted by the gift to A. A takes the whole of the farm in the occupation of B, including that portion of the farm which consists of marsh-lands in L.
(ii) The testator (a sailor on ship-board) bequeathed to his mother his gold ring, buttons and chest of clothes, and to his friend, A (a shipmate) his red box, clasp-knife and all things not before bequeathed. The testator’s share in a house does not pass to A under this bequest.
(iii) A, by his will, bequeathed to B all his household furniture plate, linen, china, books, pictures and all other goods of whatever kind; and afterwards bequeathed to B a specified part of his property. Under the first bequest is B entitled only to such articles of the testator’s as are of the same nature with the articles therein enumerated.
84. Which of two possible constructions preferred —
Where a clause is susceptible of two meanings according to one of which it has some effect, and according to the other of which it can have none, the former shall be preferred.
85. No part rejected, if it can be reasonably construed —
No part of a will shall be rejected as destitute of meaning if it is possible to put a reasonable construction upon it.
86. Interpretation of words repeated in different parts of will —
If the same words occur in different parts of the same will, they shall be taken to have been used everywhere in the same sense, unless a contrary intention appears.
87. Testator’s intention to be effectuated as far as possible —
The intention of the testator shall not be set aside because it cannot take effect to the full extent, but effect is to be given to it as far as possible.
The testator by a will made on his death-bed bequeathed all his property to C.D. for life and after his decease to a certain hospital. The intention of the testator cannot take effect to its full extent because the gift to the hospital is void under section 118, but it will take effect so far as regards the gift to C.D.
The Court should adopt that construction which will give effect to each and every disposition. All possible efforts should be make to give to the provisions of the Will an effective and consistent meaning. In construing the language of the Will, Court is entitled to put itself into the testator’s arm-chair and is bound to bear in mind all circumstances which the testator would have taken into consideration while making the disposition. The true intention of the testator has to be gathered from the reading of the whole Will. The effort of the court must be to give effect to the expression made by the testator and not to make it inoperative. Every intention contained in the Will should, as far as possible, be given effect to; Papoo v. Kuruvilla, 1994 (2) KLT 278.
88. The last of two inconsistent clauses prevails —
Where two clauses of gifts in a will are irreconcileable, so that they cannot possibly stand together, the last shall prevail.
(i) The testator by the first clause of his will leaves his estate of Ramnagar "to A", and by the last clause of his will leaves it "to B and not to A". B will have it.
(ii) If a man, at the commencement of his will gives his house to A, and at the close of it directs that his house shall be sold and the proceeds invested for the benefit of B, the latter disposition will prevail.
89. Will or bequest void for uncertainty —
A will or bequest not expressive of any definite intention is void for uncertainty.