A descriptive reference to a shop does not limit an express bequest of the entire property.

Roshan Lal, the admitted owner of property B-107, Subhadra Colony, executed a Will bequeathing the property to his son Bharat Bhushan.

The Will also described a 7′ × 7′ ground-floor shop occupied by his grandson Basant Kumar.

Letters of Administration with the Will annexed were granted to Bharat Bhushan, and the grant was not challenged.

Bharat Bhushan sued for possession of the property. Basant Kumar claimed that the Will covered only the shop and that the remainder belonged jointly to Roshan Lal’s heirs; he also claimed tenancy rights in the shop. The Trial Court, under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, decreed possession of the property excluding the shop. The defendants appealed.

Whether the admitted facts permitted the Court to determine the scope of the Will and grant possession under Order XII Rule 6 CPC, despite the defendants disputing the extent of the bequest

Whether the Will bequeathed the entire property at B-107 to Bharat Bhushan or only the 7′ × 7′ shop

Order XII Rule 6 CPC permits a discretionary decree where the necessary foundational facts are admitted; the legal consequence need not itself be admitted if no further factual adjudication is required. Admissions may be express or implied and may be gathered from the pleadings or otherwise (*Rajiv Ghosh v. Satya Narayan Jaiswal*).

A Will must be construed as a whole to ascertain the testator’s intention, giving effect to its language; surrounding circumstances may assist but cannot rewrite an unambiguous bequest (*Navneet Lal alias Rangi v. Gokul*; *Bay Berry Apartments (P) Ltd. v. Shobha*).

Section 88 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, applies where testamentary clauses are irreconcilably inconsistent, in which case the later provision prevails.

Roshan Lal’s ownership, execution of the Will, and the final grant of Letters of Administration were admitted; the defendants claimed no independent title apart from their interpretation of the Will. The Court therefore considered that no further factual adjudication was required before construing the Will under Order XII Rule 6 CPC.

The Will identified B-107 as the testator’s self-acquired property, described the shop and its occupation, and then bequeathed “my above said property” to Bharat Bhushan, excluding the other heirs. The Court held that this operative language referred to the entire property, while the shop reference was descriptive.

The separate allocation of specified percentages in the R.K. Puram flat reinforced that the testator knew how to make a limited disposition.

Section 88 did not apply because the Will contained no irreconcilable competing bequests.

The alleged tenancy in the shop was outside the application and remained for determination in the suit.

The appeal was dismissed, and pending applications were disposed of.