Section 86: Interpretation of words repeated in different parts of will

Indian Succession Act • Official Statutory Text & Practice Guide

Statutory Regulation
Legal Standard
Competent Court / Tribunal
Act 1925

Legal Commentary & Landmark Judgments: Section 86

Section 86 establishes a presumption of semantic consistency, providing that words occurring more than once in a will are presumed to be used in the same sense throughout, unless a contrary intention appears.

  • Core Legal Standard: Section 86 codifies the principle of internal linguistic consistency.
  • Substantive Scope & Reach: If a particular word or phrase occurs more than once in a will, the law presumes that the testator used that term with the same meaning, scope, and legal effect in every instance.

This presumption is rebuttable: where the context of a particular clause or the subject matter clearly demonstrates that the testator used the repeated word in a different, narrower, or broader sense, the presumption yields to the evident intention. However, the initial burden rests upon the party asserting a semantic shift to establish that the testator intended different meanings in different paragraphs.

Key Landmark Precedents:
  • Gnambal Ammal v. T. Raju Ayyar, AIR 1951 SC 103: The Supreme Court held that under Section 86, the same words repeated in different clauses of a will are presumed to bear identical meanings unless the context compels a different interpretation.
  • Navneet Lal v. Gokul, (1976) 1 SCC 630: The Supreme Court affirmed that internal semantic harmony under Section 86 guides the court in understanding recurring legal or familial expressions.
Legal Commentary:

Section 86 is especially pertinent when interpreting terms like 'children', 'issue', 'property', or 'heirs' appearing across multiple bequests. If 'children' in Clause 3 clearly excludes step-children, Section 86 presumes that 'children' in the residuary Clause 10 also excludes step-children, creating uniform interpretation throughout the estate.