A proposition traceable to Forbes v. Git, [1922] 1 AC 2564 was approvingly taken note of by a Three-Judge Bench of this Court in Radha Sundar Dutta v. Mohd. Jahadur Rahim, AIR 1959 SC 24.

“If in a deed an earlier clause is followed by a later clause which destroys altogether the obligation created by the earlier clause, the later clause is to be rejected as repugnant and the earlier clause prevails. In this case the two clauses cannot be reconciled and the earlier provision in the deed prevails over the later. Thus, if A covenants to pay $ 100 and the deed subsequently provides that he shall not be liable under his covenant, that later provision is to be rejected as repugnant and void, for it altogether destroys the covenant. But if the later clause does not destroy but only qualifies the earlier, then the two are to be read together and effect is to be given to the intention of the parties as disclosed by the deed as a whole.”

– Hon’ble Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah, Bharat Sher Singh Kalsia v. State of Bihar, [Criminal Appeal No. 523 of 2024].