Golden Rule of Interpretation:-

The golden rule is that the words of a statute must prima facie be given their regular meaning. It is yet alternative rule of construction that when the words of the statute are clear, plain and unambiguous, then the courts are assured to give effect to that meaning, irrespective of the consequences. It is said that the words themselves best announce the intention of the law-giver.

There is indeed no cause to limit the natural and ordinary meaning of the words used. The intention of the Legislature is primarily to be collected from the language used in the law, thus paying attention to what has been said as also to what has not been said. When the words used are not vague, literal meaning has to be applied, which is the golden rule of interpretation.

The golden rule of interpretation is that words should be recite in their normal, natural, and grammatical significance subject to the rider that in construing disputes in a Constitution conferring legislative power the most liberal construction should be put upon the words so that they may have result in their widest amplitude.”

The golden rule is that the words of a statute must prima facie be given their ordinary meaning’. Natural and normal meaning of words should not be departed from ‘unless it can be shown that the legal context in which the words are used requires a different meaning’. Such a meaning cannot be departed from by the judges ‘in the light of their own opinions as to policy’ although they can ‘adopt a purposive interpretation if they can find in the statute read as a whole or in material to which they are allowable by law to refer as aids to interpretation an expression of Parliament’s purpose or policy. The drafting of statutes, so significant to people who hope to live under the rule of law, will never be acceptable unless courts seek whenever possible to apply the golden rule of construction, that is to read the legal language, grammatically and terminologically, in the ordinary and primary sense which it bears in its context, without omission or addition. Of course, Parliament is to be attributed with good sense; so that when such an approach produces injustice, absurdity, contradiction, or stultification of statutory objective the language may be altered sufficiently to evade such disadvantage, though no further.

Summary of the case:-

Dr. Mandakini Naik v G.K. Naik And Ors, AIR 2004 AP 525

Plaintiffs filed O.S. No. 821 of 1986 for partition of the suit schedule properties and to put them in possession of 1/5th share each, after dividing the property by metes and bounds. The defendants, including the revision petitioner-6th defendant, resisted the suit. After commencement of trial, the plaintiffs’ evidence was completed and the evidence of defendants was being recorded. The revision petitioner was examined as DW-2. During the chief-examination she sought to mark two documents describing them as ‘Wills’. The plaintiffs raised objection for marking those documents by contending that though the documents are titled as

‘Wills’, they cannot be treated as such. Therefore, they cannot be received and marked by the 6th defendant on her behalf.

It is contended that the revision petitioner that the lower Court ought to have treated the documents as “Wills” by taking into consideration the intention of the testator to give the properties mentioned in the documents to the persons thereinafter his life-time.

Issue was that the first document would lead to conclusion that it is a will and the contents of the second document discloses that it is a codicil.  

A plain reading of the contents of the above documents do not indicate that they shall come into force after the death of the executant or that he reserved the right to revoke the ‘Wills’ at any time prior to his death. The lower Court therefore, rightly observed that they cannot be accepted as “Wills’ and rejected to receive those documents in evidence.

In the review petition the lower Court observed that as there is no error apparent on the face of the record and as there is no ambiguity in understanding the contents of the documents, it is devoid of merits and accordingly dismissed the same. Since the review petition was filed requesting to review the impugned order, the order in the review petition became superficial.  And do not find any grounds in both the revision petitions to interfere with the orders of the lower Court.    

Rule Interpreted by the Court:-

Court widely interpreted the provisions involved in it.

Section 2(h) reads as follows: The legal declaration of the intention of the testator with respect to his property, which he desires to be carried into effect after his death.

The fundamental idea of execution of a ‘Will’ is that the testator should dispose of his property or such part thereof as his personal law permits him to bequeath by a ‘Will’, in such manner as seems to him best. A ‘Will’ is an expressed intention as to what should happen to the property on the death of the testator. A ‘Will’ though executed by a living person, takes effect only on his death. It should have the characteristics viz., it must be intended to come into effect after the death of the testator and it must be revocable.

Section 2(b) of the Indian Succession Act, defined codicil which reads thus: “codicil” means an instrument made in relation to a will and explaining, altering or adding to its dispositions, and shall be deemed to form part of the will”

The documents lack two essential ingredients viz., (1) bringing the terms of the documents to force after the death of the testator, and (2) reserving the right to revoke the document at any time before the death of testator, they cannot be treated as ‘Wills’ and cannot be marked as such.  

 In order to know the intention of the testator, I wish to extract the essential contents of the two documents in question. The document dated 8.5.1962 was executed by Sri Krishnaji S/o Srinivas Naik wherein he mentioned as follows: I bequeathed my immovable property to my daughter in absolute right. This is my last Will and testament. In the above document, the executants has not mentioned that the direction given by him should come into force after his death or that he is reserving his right to revoke the document at any time before his death.

Document dated 21.9.1962 was executed by Sri Krishnaji S/o Srinivas Naik and the essential contents of the document are to the following effect:- I bequeathed by this Will my one-half joint share in the house absolutely to my daughters in equal shares. This is my last Will which I make.

The contents of this document also do not indicate that it has to come into operation after the death of the executant and that he has reserved the right to revoke the document during his life-time.

Since the second document did not alter any of the terms and conditions of the first document it cannot be treated as a codicil.

Principle of case:-

The essential characteristic of a Will is that it is a mere declaration of an intention so long as the testator is alive, a declaration that may be revoked or varied according to the variations in his intention; a disposition that requires the testator’s death for its consummation and is but ambulatory or without fixed effect until the happening of that event. A gift, on the other hand, is a transfer of property that is voluntary gratuitous and absolute conferring immediate rights.

The golden rule in interpreting a Will is to give effect to the testator’s intention as ascertained from the language, which he has used. The overriding duty of a Court of construction is to construe the language which the testator has in fact employed giving the due weight to all the words and rejecting none to which a meaning can reasonably be assigned. The Court is entitled to put itself into the testator’s armchair.

The above rulings make the position clear that unless a document satisfies the two characteristics i.e., it must be intended to come into effect after the death of the testator and it must be revocable, it cannot be treated as a Will. A document cannot be treated as a Will by a mere reading of the heading of the document. After repeated reading of the documents in question, the learned Counsel for the revision petitioner-6^th defendant could not locate from the documents the essential ingredients of a Will, The lower Court was therefore, right in refusing to receive the documents of the revision petitioner and to mark them on her behalf.

Conclusion:-

The judiciary has very well interpreted the term ‘Will’ in its wider sense. The court had applied the Golden Rule of interpretation to understand the provision which was in conflict. The court has one by one interpreted the both the sections which were in conflict and along with that the provisions were applied to the issue. Further the court also look side by side both the ‘Will’, which were in dispute and after analysis both the ‘Will’ come to the conclusion that both the ‘Will’ does provide the effect of the will i.e. either during his lifetime or after his death. So by analyzing the provisions and both the ‘Will’, the court have come to the conclusion that the lower court’s decision is appropriate and the review petition was been dismissed by the court

So here this court has acted under the Golden Rule of Interpretation to see that the decision given by the lower court is appropriate or not. Or the lower court have properly interpreted the provisions or not.