(1) Where the words used in a will to designate or describe a legatee or a class of legatees sufficiently show what is meant, and error in the name or description shall not prevent the legacy from taking effect.
(2) A mistake in the name of a legatee may be corrected by a description of him, and a mistake in the description of a legatee may be corrected by the name.
Illustrations:
(i) A bequeaths a legacy to "Thomas, the second son of my brother John". The testator has an only brother named John, who has no son named Thomas, but has a second son whose name is William. William will have the legacy.
(ii) A bequeaths a legacy "to Thomas, the second son of my brother John". The testator has an only brother, named John, whose first son is named Thomas and whose second son is named William. Thomas will have the legacy.
(iii) The testator bequeaths his property "to A and B, the legitimate children of C". C has no legitimate child, but has two illegitimate children, A and B. The bequest to A and B takes effect, although they are illegitimate.
(iv) The testator gives his residuary estate to be divided among "my seven children" and, proceeding to enumerate them, mentions six names only. This omission will not prevent the seventh child from taking a share with the others.
(v) The testator, having six grandchildren, makes a bequest to "my six grandchildren" and, proceeding to mention them by their Christian names, mentions one twice over omitting another altogether. The one whose name is not mentioned will take a share with the others.
(vi) The testator bequeaths "1,000 rupees to each of the three children of A". At the date of the will A has four children. Each of these four children will, if he survives the testator, receive a legacy of 1,000 rupees.
Legal Commentary & Landmark Judgments: Section 76
Section 76 prevents bequests from failing due to misnomer or inaccurate description of a beneficiary, providing that where the person intended can be ascertained, the bequest takes effect despite the error.
Section 76 prevents testamentary failure by allowing extrinsic evidence to resolve misnomers, ensuring the testator's genuine distributive intent is honored.
In Indian testamentary practice, testators frequently refer to relatives by informal nicknames, pet names, or colloquially inaccurate familial terms (e.g., calling a maternal cousin a 'brother', or referring to a grand-nephew as a 'son'). Opposing heirs routinely argue that no person answering the exact legal description exists. Section 76 allows propounders to defeat these objections by proving the testator's customary usage and relationships.