Back
1928 Supreme(SC) 6
PRIVY COUNCIL [ON APPEAL FROM THEEAST INDIES]
VISCOUNT SUMNER, LORD ATKINSON, LORD SINHA, SIR JOHN WALLIS, AND SIR LANCELOT SANDERSON.
NARSINGH RAO - Appellant
Versus
MAHALAKSHMI BAI (DEFENDANTS) - Respondents
On Appeal from the High Court at Allahabad.
Decided On : January 31, 1928.
Solicitors for appellant :Douglas Grant & Dold. Solicitor for respondents: H. S. L. Polak.
The main legal principle established in the judgment is the interpretation of the deed and the estate rights conferred, highlighting the application of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, and the principles of Hindu law in determining the nature of the estate and the entitlement of the appellant.
Headnote:
Construction of Deed - Estate Rights - Transfer of Property Act, 1882, ss. 28, 30 - Hindu Law - Absolute Estate - Condition Subsequent - Intestate Succession
Fact of the Case:
The appeal concerned the true construction of a deed of settlement executed in 1875, determining the estate rights of the appellant, the only son of Balwant Singh, in an estate owned by Jaswant Rao. The appellant claimed entitlement to the estate as the legitimate son of Balwant Singh, and challenged the estate conferred upon the Rani under the deed.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Rani took an absolute estate in the property, subject only to defeasance in certain events, and that the provisions in favor of the appellant were void under Hindu law. The court held that the Rani's interest terminated upon the appellant attaining majority, and that he became entitled to the estate as the heir of the settlor.
Issues: The key issue was the true construction of the deed and the nature of the estate conferred upon the Rani, as well as the entitlement of the appellant to the estate under the deed.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Rani and her successors took an absolute estate in the property, subject only to defeasance in the event of the appellant's attaining majority or the Rani's death before the settlor. The provisions in favor of the appellant were deemed void under Hindu law, and the estate passed as on intestacy to the appellant as the heir of the settlor.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal, affirming the decree of the lower court, and held that the appellant was entitled to the estate as the heir of the settlor, as the Rani's interest terminated upon the appellant attaining majority.
Judgement
Appeal (No. 57 of 1925) by special leave from a decree of the High Court (May 19, 1921) affirming a decree of the Additional District Judge of Aligarh (August 2, 1918).
The appeal, as it was ultimately presented, depended exclusively upon the true construction of a deed of settlement executed on September 4, 1875, by Jaswant Rao, the owner of an estate of great value in the Province of Agra.
The suit was instituted by the appellant, who claimed the estate as the only son of Balwant Singh, who died in 1899. A provision in the deed in favour of any son who should be born to Balwant being inoperative in Hindu law, the plaintiff by his plaint claimed that the estate conferred by the deed upon the Rani and her successor terminated upon his attaining his majority, and that he was entitled a3 heir to Jaswant Rao.
The deed of September 4, 1875, is fully set out in the judgment of the Judicial Committee.
The Additional District Judge, to whose Court the suit was transferred, found on the evidence that the plaintiff had failed to establish that he was the legitimate son of Balwant. He was also of opinion that on the true construction of the deed the plaintiff, even if his paternity were established, was not entitled to the property in suit. Accordingly he made a decree dismissing the suit.
An appeal to the High Court was dismissed by a judgment delivered on May 11, 1921. The learned judges (Mears C.J. and Banerji J.) agreed with the above finding of fact and affirmed the decree. The construction of the deed was not dealt with.
On August 10, 1922, an Order in Council was made granting special leave to appeal.
By an Order in Council made on July 26, 1926, the suit was remitted to the High Court to reconsider the whole case, having regard to certain further evidence which had been recorded in London in pursuance of an application by the appellant. The nature of that evidence and the terms of the order appear from the present judgment.
The High Court having reconsidered the case, with the additional evidence, delivered a further judgment on May 11, 1927. The learned judges (Mears C.J. and Dalai J.) were of opinion that, having regard to the further evidence, the plaintiff had established that he was the legitimate son of Balwant. On the construction of the deed they held that though the words in the preamble and clause 1 were sufficient to bestow upon the Rani full proprietary rights, the later clauses restricted her interest to the period ending in 1912, when the plaintiff attained his majority. They were further of opinion that even if the deed conferred an absolute estate subject to defeasance, that estate terminated upon Balwants son attaining majority, although the gift to him was invalid.
1927. Nov. 21, 22, 24, 25. Sir John Simon K.C., Maugham K.C., Kenworthy Brown and Motilal Nehru for the respondents. (Having regard to the judgment on remand the burden of the appeal was on the respondents.) The Privy Council decided in Balwant Singh v. Kishori (( 1898) L. R. 25 I.
A. 54.) that the property now in suit was self-acquired. The earlier part of the deed conferred on the Rani an absolute gift; the later clauses made the gift subject to defeasance in certain events, but did not otherwise affect its nature. It is well established in English law that if a gift is subject to a condition subsequent, the invalidity of the condition does not affect the character of the gift; Co. Litt., p. 206a; Sugden on Powers, 8th ed., p. 526. That principle is embodied in the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, ss. 28, 30. The Indian Succession Act, 1865, does not apply to this
case, but it is noticeable that the same principle is there adopted 1 see ss. 118, 120 contrasted with s. 121. The words of gift being of sufficient amplitude the Rani took an absolute estate, even though she had not an absolute power of alienation Ramachandra Rao v. Ramachandra Rao (( 1922) L. R. 49 I.
A. 129, 135.); Prosunno Coomar Ghose v. Tarruchnath (( 1873) 10 Ben. L. R. 26
