Back
1930 Supreme(SC) 54
PRIVY COUNCIL [ON APPEAL FROM THEEAST INDIES]
LORD TOMLIN, SIR LANCELOT SANDERSON, AND SIR GEORGE LOWNDES.
SHALIG RAM - Appellant
Versus
CHARANJIT LAL - Respondents
On appeal from the Court of the Judicial Commissioner, North-West Frontier Province.
Decided On : June. 26. 1930.
Solicitors for appellants: H. S. L. Polak.
Solicitors for respondent: Kimber Bull, Howland, Clappe & Co.
In a Hindu will, if a female is designated as an "heir" to a share of the estate and the will lacks a devolution clause or specific limitations, she is presumed to take an absolute interest with the power to alienate.
Headnote:(A) Hindu Law - Wills - Devise to females - Absolute interest vs. Life interest - Where words are used conferring absolute ownership upon a female, she enjoys the rights of ownership without the need for express and additional terms of alienation, unless the circumstances or context indicate otherwise.
(B) Construction of Wills - Use of the term "heirs" - Where a testator nominates multiple female relatives as "heirs" to shares of the residue of an estate, and the will contains no provision for the devolution of the property after their deaths, such a devise is construed as conferring full proprietary rights.
(C) Testator's Intent - Contrast in limiting interests - Where a testator expressly limits the interest of one beneficiary to a life estate, the absence of such a limitation for other beneficiaries suggests an intention to grant absolute interests.
Facts of the case:
A testator executed a will dividing the residue of his estate into three equal shares for his two widows and his daughter-in-law, designating them as "heirs." Following the death of the last surviving widow, the reversionary heirs filed a suit claiming the properties, contending that the women had been granted only life interests. The trial court dismissed the suit, but the first appellate court reversed the decision, holding that the devisees took only limited interests.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the testator intended to confer full proprietary rights on the two widows and the daughter-in-law. This was inferred from the fact that all three were placed in the same category as "heirs," the absence of any provision for the devolution of the property after their deaths, and the fact that the testator had specifically limited the interest of his daughter to a life estate elsewhere in the will.
Issues: Whether the construction of the will, specifically the use of the term "heirs" in relation to the widows and daughter-in-law, conferred absolute interests including the power to alienate, or merely life interests.
Ratio Decidendi: The intention of the testator is gathered from the will as a whole. If the words used are sufficient to confer ownership and there is no evidence of an intention to limit the estate to a life interest—especially when contrasted with other specifically limited gifts in the same will—the devisees take absolute proprietary rights.
Result: Appeal allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
personal law
-
hindu law
-
wills and succession
- testamentary disposition
- female inheritance
-
wills and succession
-
hindu law
Judgement
Appeal (No. 3 of 1929) from a decree of the Judicial Commissioner, North-West Frontier Province (July 25, 1927), reversing a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Peshawar (July 1, 1926),
The above named respondent and another, since deceased and represented by the respondent, brought a suit claiming certain movable and immovable property, as nearest reversionary heirs of one Mul Chand upon the death of his last surviving widow Sahib Devi.
The substantial question arising upon the appeal was whether a will of Mul Chand conferred upon his two widows and his daughter-in-law absolute interests, including a power to alienate, or only life interests.
The terms of the will, according to the official translation, appear in the judgment of the Judicial Committee. The word translated as " heirs " in the clause to be construed was " waris."
The Judicial Commissioner, by a judgment delivered on April 10, 1924, held (reversing the trial judge) that the testators widows and daughter-in-law took only life interests under the will. The case was remitted to be dealt with upon other points. The Subordinate Judge made a decree allowing the plaintiffs claim in part only. Upon an appeal the Judicial Commissioner varied that decree by a decree of July 25, 1927, now appealed from.
1930. May 23, 26, 27, 29. Dunne K.C. and Wallach for the appellants. Upon the true construction of the will the testators widows and daughter-in-law took absolute interests ; the plaintiffs accordingly had no title. The Board has held that a devise to a person, including a devise to the testators widow, as " malik " confers upon the devisee an absolute interest Lalit Mohan Singh Roy v. Chukkun Lal Roy (( 1897) I. L. R. 24 I. A. 76.) ; Fateh Chand v. Rup Chand (( 1916) L. R. 43 I. A. 183.) ; Bhaidas Shivdas v. Bai Gulab . (( 1921) L. R. 47 I. A. 1.) Here the word " waris " was used. It has been held in Bombay that the use of that word has the same effect as where " malik " is used Chunilal v. Bai Mull . (( 1899) I. L. R. 24 B. 420.) The terms of the will were of sufficient amplitude to pass full proprietary rights including a power to alienate Surajmani v. Rabi Nath Ojha (( 1907) L. R. 35 I. A. 17.) ; Ramachandra Rao v. Ramachandra Rao (( 1921) L. R. 49 I. A. 129,135.); Sasiman Chowdhurain v. Shib Narayan Chowdhury . (( 1921) L. R. 49 I. A. 25.) It was laid down by Mitter J. in Kollany Kooer v. Luckmee Pershad (( 1875) 24 S. W. R. 395.) in 1875 that it is not part of Hindu law that a gift to a female carries only an interest equivalent to a widows estate. That view appears to have been departed from in certain later decisions in India, but has been affirmed by the decisions of the Board mentioned. Apart from the terms of the clause in question the will shows that the testator intended that his widows and daughter-in-law should take absolute interests. In the case of his daughter he in express terms limited to her life her interest in the house devised to her ; the earlier will also shows that the testator when he so wished limited the interests given to life interests. No provision was made for the devolution of the property on the deaths of the widows or the daughter-in-law.
De Gruyther K.C. and Fortune for the respondent. The will should be construed in the light of the ordinary notions and wishes of Hindus ; among Hindus women ordinarily do not take an absolute estate, and a Hindu ordinarily wishes that his property should remain in his own family Mahomed Shumsool v. Shewukram (( 1874) L. R. 2 I. A. 7,14,15.); Radha Prosad Mullick v. Ranimoni Dassi . (( 1908) L. R. 35 I. A. 118.) The use of the word " malik" does not by itself show an intention to give an absolute estate Amarendra Nath Bkose v. Shuradhani Dasi . (( 1909) 14 Cal. W. N. 458.) The decisions of the Board referred to for the appellants do not establish the contrary. If in Chunilal v. Bai Mull (( 1899) I. L. R. 24 B. 420.) it was held that the word " waris " meant the same as " malik " the decision w
