• Today: November 03, 2025

P.K. Mohan Ram v. B.N. Ananthachary

03 November, 2025
351
P.K. Mohan Ram v. B.N. Ananthachary (AIR 2010 SC 1725) — Settlement Deed vs Will | The Law Easy

P.K. Mohan Ram v. B.N. Ananthachary

AIR 2010 SC 1725 • Supreme Court of India • Property / Instrument Character

Court: Supreme Court Year: 2010 Citation: AIR 2010 SC 1725 Area: Property/TPA Reading: ~7 min Jurisdiction: India
Hero image illustrating settlement deed vs will under Indian property law
Author: Gulzar Hashmi Published: 01 Nov 2025 Location: India
```

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)

1969: Shri K. Perumal Iyer executes a “Settlement Deed” naming 16 beneficiaries (including the appellant). They will enjoy the property with him during his lifetime.
Post-death plan: On his death, the property is to be sold and proceeds divided as specified among the beneficiaries.
Irrevocability: The deed states it cannot be revoked or altered for any reason.
1970: A “Revocation Deed” is executed by the settlor.
1972: The settlor makes a will bequeathing the property to two beneficiaries; he dies in 1972.
Suit: The appellant seeks partition of 1/17th share, claiming the settlement is valid and irrevocable. Trial court agrees; High Court treats the document as a will.
Appeal to Supreme Court: Challenge to the High Court’s reclassification.
Timeline of key events in P.K. Mohan Ram v. B.N. Ananthachary

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.
Judgment illustration for P.K. Mohan Ram case outcome

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

  1. “Present rights + no revocation” → Settlement, not will.
  2. A will speaks after death and is revocable while alive.
  3. 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

Because the deed created present enjoyment with the settlor and barred revocation. A will would be revocable and effective only after death.

No. Enjoyment with the settlor during life plus no-revocation shows present rights. Timing of sale alone does not convert it into a will.

The party alleging fraud bore the burden and failed to prove it with credible evidence.
Reviewed by The Law Easy
```
© 2025 The Law Easy • All rights reserved.

Comment

Nothing for now