After she married a boy from a different religion, her father disinherited her, but then the Supreme Court delivered this verdict

The Supreme Court has delivered a significant judgment regarding property rights. Upholding the testator’s wishes as paramount, it validated a father’s will that disinherited his daughter, Shaila Joseph, for marrying outside her community. This case prioritizes testamentary freedom despite several landmark judgments on gender equality. A bench of Justices Ahsanuddin Amanullah and K. Vinod Chandran overturned the decisions of the Kerala High Court and the trial court, which had set aside the will and ordered the equal distribution of N.S. Sreedharan’s property among his nine children.
According to a Times of India report, Sreedharan had nine children, but his registered will, made in 1988, bequeathed his property to eight of them, excluding Shaila. The reason cited was Shaila’s marriage outside the community. Writing the judgment, Justice Chandran stated that the will has been clearly proven and cannot be interfered with. The High Court and trial court judgments are set aside. Shaila Joseph has no claim to her father’s property, as the will has bequeathed it to her other siblings.

In court, Senior Advocate P.B. Krishnan, representing Shaila, argued that his client should at least receive a 1/9th share, which is a negligible portion of the property. However, the bench clarified that the question of equality does not arise in matters of property distribution based on an individual’s will. “We are not on equity,” the bench stated. The testator’s wishes are paramount. His last will and testament cannot be deviated from or set aside.

Testator’s wishes are paramount
The court also stated that the rule of caution does not apply to the contents of a will, as it is an individual’s absolute freedom to distribute their property as they wish. The court could only intervene if the will disinherited all the heirs. But here, only one daughter has been excluded, and a clear reason has been provided for this exclusion. The bench observed that a reason for the disinheritance had been given, but its acceptability does not establish a rule of caution for us. We cannot place ourselves in the testator’s shoes. We cannot impose our own views; his wishes were guided by his own reasons.

The judgment, while allowing the civil appeals, dismissed Shaila’s partition suit. The case is from Kerala, where the siblings had filed an injunction suit in 1990 after Sreedharan’s death and produced a copy of the will. Shaila did not participate in the proceedings, which the court later held against her.