Key Points: - Clause 5 bequeaths immovable property to Hamir Chandra Vasu Mullick for life with contingent absolutely vested remainder to his sons/grandsons by appointment, with default to eldest male descendants; and possibility of female issue in default (!) (!) - Codicil (12 March 1932) states that if Hamir Chandra has no issue, estate goes to the University of Calcutta; codicil read as part of Will and confirms testator’s intention for university bequest upon failure of issue (!) (!) (!) - High Court and Division Bench held Clauses 5 and 12 are not inconsistent; University is entitled to file suits; Clause 12 prevails over Will to the extent of the contingency (!) (!) (!) - Court's analysis on whether Clause 7 is meaningful (devise/desire) and its applicability; ultimately found Clause 7 does not affect validity of Clause 5 or 12; Codicil confirms bequest to University upon failure of issue (!) (!) (!) - Parliament sections: Clause 12 does not substitute Clauses 5, 6, 7; if legatee dies without issue, bequest to University vests; analysis rejects voiding under Sections 113 and 116; applies Section 129 on bequest to University upon failure of prior bequest (!) (!) (!) - Appellants’ contentions rejected; University’s locus to file suits recognized; appeal dismissed with costs (!) (!) (!)

What is the interpretation/construction of Clauses 5, 6, 7 and Clause 12 of the Codicil in the Will of Nerode Chandra Vasu Mullick, and whether the University of Calcutta's bequest under Clause 12 is valid under the Indian Succession Act?

What is the effect of the Codicil read with the Will on the contingency of the legatee having no issue or adopted son, and whether Clause 12 operates in place of Clause 5 when such contingency occurs?

What is the proper application of Sections 113, 116 and 129 of the Indian Succession Act in validating or defeating bequests to unborn issue and to the University of Calcutta?