P.K. Mohan Ram v. B.N. Ananthachary
AIR 2010 SC 1725 • Supreme Court of India • Property / Instrument Character
Quick Summary
The Court had to decide what the 1969 instrument really was. Was it a settlement deed with immediate effect, or a will that works only after death?
Reading the document as a whole, the Supreme Court held it was a settlement deed. It created present rights, barred revocation, and let beneficiaries enjoy the property with the settlor during his life. Later revocation and will could not undo it.
Issues
- Whether the 1969 instrument titled “Settlement Deed” was truly a settlement or in substance a will.
- Whether the settlor kept any right to revoke or alter after execution.
- Whether fraud or misrepresentation in making the deed was proved.
Rules
- Settlement vs Will: A settlement creates rights in praesenti; a will is revocable during life and speaks only on death.
- Vested vs Contingent: Vested rights arise now and survive the transferee’s death; contingent rights depend on an uncertain future event.
- Fraud/Misrepresentation: The accuser carries the burden of proof.
Facts (Timeline)
Arguments
Appellant
- The deed created present rights and barred revocation; so it is a settlement.
- Later revocation and the will cannot override an already completed settlement.
- No evidence proves fraud or misrepresentation.
Respondent
- Enjoyment was postponed; thus, the document functioned like a will.
- Alleged fraud/misrepresentation affected the deed’s validity.
Judgment
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and restored the trial court view.
- The instrument was a Settlement Deed, not a will.
- The settlor kept no power to revoke or alter after execution, as the deed itself declared.
- Fraud/misrepresentation was not proved; the burden lay on the alleging party.
- The High Court erred by reinterpreting the clear text and structure of the deed.
Ratio Decidendi
Look at the document as a whole. Clear words giving present enjoyment with the settlor and explicit bar on revocation point to a settlement. A will, by contrast, is ambulatory and revocable till death.
Why It Matters
- Guides drafters on wording that clearly creates a settlement.
- Clarifies that a no-revocation clause carries real legal weight.
- Reaffirms the burden of proof for fraud claims.
Key Takeaways
- “Present rights + no revocation” → Settlement, not will.
- A will speaks after death and is revocable while alive.
- Fraud needs proof; suspicion alone is not enough.
Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook
Mnemonic: “NOW–NO–WILL”
- NOW: Rights arise now → settlement.
- NO: No revocation power → settlement stands.
- WILL: A will works later and is revocable.
IRAC Outline
Issue
Is the 1969 instrument a settlement or a will? Could it be revoked? Was fraud proved?
Rule
Settlement = present transfer; will = post-death, revocable. Fraud must be proved by the alleging party.
Application
Text shows present enjoyment with the settlor and an explicit no-revocation clause. No proof of fraud was given.
Conclusion
It is a settlement deed; later revocation/will are ineffective; appeal allowed.
Glossary
- In Praesenti
- Rights start now, at the time of the document.
- Ambulatory (Will)
- Changeable during the maker’s life; operates only after death.
- Irrevocable Clause
- Language that removes the power to cancel or alter the deed.
FAQs
Related Cases
Focus on documents that grant in praesenti enjoyment and bar revocation.
Cases explaining how courts read substance over title of the instrument.
Share
Related Post
Tags
Archive
Popular & Recent Post
Comment
Nothing for now