Father expels daughter from property will after she marries outside the community; SC refuses to interfere in his wishes

The Supreme Court’s bench headed by Justices Ashanuddin Amanullah and K Vinod Chandran overturned a ruling by the high court and trial court which had awarded Shyla Joseph a share in her father N S Sreedharan property. The woman had married outside of the community after which Sreedharan disowned her, a TOI report stated.

The lower courts had raised doubts on the will and awarded Shyla an equal share in her fathers property along with her eight other siblings. SC rejected the lower courts judgment and ruled that Shyla has no claim in her fathers property given the will.

Writing the judgment, Justice Chandran said, "There can be no interference to the will which stands proved unequivocally. The judgment and decree of the high court and that of the trial court stands set aside. The plaintiff (Shyla) is found to have no claim over the properties of her father, which by a will have been bequeathed to the other siblings of the plaintiff," as reported by TOI.


When SC doubted Shyla’s claim her counsel P B Krishna said that her share of 1/9 of the property is negligible, TOI report stated.

The Supreme Court ruled that equality does not apply to a person's wishes regarding division and inheritance of their properties. "We are not on equity, and the wish of the testator assumes pre-eminence. The last will and testament of the testator cannot be digressed from or frustrated," the bench stated while allowing the appeal of the siblings and dismissing Shyla's suit for equitable partition of her father's properties.

The court clarified that the rule of prudence cannot override the contents of a will, which reflects the testator's absolute discretion. It noted that prudence might apply if all siblings were disinherited, but not in partial exclusions.

Addressing the reason for disinheriting Shyla, the bench said, "There is a reason stated for such exclusion, the acceptability of which to our minds, is not what the rule of prudence dictates. We cannot put the testator in our shoes... We cannot substitute our opinions in place of that of the testator; his desire prompted by his own justifications."

(With inputs from TOI)