1. Construction of a will — Gift of estate subject to provisos for residence, maintenance, and a requirement for the beneficiary to execute a reciprocal will. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
1949 Supreme(SC) 32
Privy Council At Fiji
Sir John Beaumont, Lord Morton of Henryton, Justice Lord Greene, JJ.
Jaduram -Appellant
Versus
Ramdassi -Resopndent
Privy Council Appeal No. 13 of 1947
Decided On : 18-07-1949
Advocates Appeared:
Charles Russell and Co., Kimber and Co., John Beswick, Monlgomerg White, R.J.T. Gibson, S. Pascoe Hayward
Charles Russell and Co., Kimber and Co., John Beswick, Monlgomerg White, R.J.T. Gibson, S. Pascoe Hayward
A testamentary provision for maintenance based on a spouse's prior standard of living is not void for uncertainty. Additionally, a requirement for a beneficiary to make a will regarding "his estate" refers to the beneficiary's own property, not the property inherited from the testator.
Headnote:(A) Wills and Probate - Construction of Will - Maintenance and Residence Provisions - A gift of an estate given absolutely but subject to a proviso for the lifetime residence and maintenance of a widow is enforceable - A provision for maintenance based on the manner in which the widow lived during the testator's lifetime is not void for uncertainty, as the court can ascertain the necessary amount through inquiry - Provisions allowing for adjustments based on the state of a business or economic conditions are valid, but such adjustments cease to apply once the business is no longer carried on. (Para 10)
(B) Wills and Probate - Obligation to make a Will - A provision requiring a beneficiary to execute a will disposing of "his estate" in a specified manner refers to the beneficiary's own separate property and not the property inherited under the will - This is particularly true where the inherited property is already burdened with other provisions and where the testator has used distinct language elsewhere to refer to property inherited from the beneficiary. (Para 12)
Facts of the case:
A testator bequeathed his entire estate to his brother absolutely, subject to a proviso that the brother allow the testator's widow to reside in the family dwelling house for her lifetime and provide her with maintenance sufficient to maintain her in the manner she lived during the testator's lifetime, adjusted for business and economic conditions. The will further required the brother to execute a will disposing of his own estate in a specified manner. Following the deaths of the testator and subsequently the brother, a dispute arose regarding the construction of these provisions and whether the maintenance clause was too vague to be enforced.
Findings of Court:
The maintenance provision is enforceable and not void for uncertainty, as the standard of living immediately prior to death provides a determinable benchmark. The obligation to make a will applied only to the brother's own property and not the property inherited from the testator. Consequently, the brother became absolutely entitled to the residuary estate, subject to the trust for the widow's residence and maintenance.
Issues: Whether the maintenance provision was too vague to be enforced; whether the gift to the brother was absolute or subject to a trust; and whether the requirement to make a will applied to the inherited estate or the brother's own estate.
Ratio Decidendi: A provision for maintenance based on a prior standard of living is sufficiently certain for judicial determination. A requirement for a beneficiary to make a will regarding "his estate" refers to the beneficiary's separate property, not the property received under the will, especially when the inherited property is already subject to specific burdens and the testator's language distinguishes between the two.
Result: Appeal partly allowed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
-
wills and estates
-
construction of wills
- interpretation of testamentary provisions
-
testamentary trusts
- maintenance and residence
-
testamentary obligations
- reciprocal will requirements
-
construction of wills
Table of Contents
2. Whether the maintenance provision was void for uncertainty and whether the obligation to make a will applied to the inherited estate or the beneficiary's own property. (Para 11 )
Lord Morton of Henryton -
This is an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court of Fiji dated 11th October 1946, on an originating summons in the matter of the estate of Nanhu deceased.
[2] Until his death, Nanhu carried on business as a merchant in partnership with his brother Jagannath under the style of Jagannath Nanhu and Co.
[3] Nanhu made his will on 21st August 1937, in the following terms:
"This is the last will and testament of me Nanhu son of Birma of Labasa on the Island of Vanualevu in Fiji. Merchant. I hereby Revoke all former Wills and other Testamentary writings by me heretofore made And I Declare this to be my last and only Will and Testament. I appoint my brother Jagannath Son of Birma Merchant who is also my partner to be my sole executor and trustee. I Give Devise and Bequeath unto my said trustee all real and personal property of whatsoever nature and wheresoever situate of or to which I may be entitled or over which I may have a disposing power at the time of my decease absolutely save only with the proviso that he shall, during her lifetime, allow my wife Ramdassi to live in the Dwelling house at Nasea where she and I now live and shall supply her out of my estate with money and goods sufficient to maintain her during her lifetime in the manner in which she has lived with me in my lifetime but having regard always to the state of our business and to any economic conditions which may affect the same and further that he shall himself make a Will leaving the whole of his Estate to me should he predecease me and otherwise to be divided equally between my said wife Ramdassi and Bacheoni the wife of the said Jagannath or, in the event of the death of either, to the survivor of them. Should my said brother Jagannath predecease me I Give Devise and Bequeath the whole of my estate including such property as I shall inherit from the said Jagannath and remain possessed of at the time of my decease to be divided equally between my said wife Ramdassi and Bacheoni the wife of the said Jagannath. And I Direct that if either the said Ramdassi or the said Bacheoni shall predecease me that the whole of my estate shall go to the survivor of them and, in such an event or events, I Appoint the said Ramdassi and the said Bacheoni or the survivor of them, to be my executrices and trustees."
[4] Nanhu died on 27th May 1943 and Jagannath proved his will on 3rd March 1944. The estate of Nanhu was sworn by Jagannath for the purpose of assessment of death duty thereon at £6030 17s. 5d. which, according to his Declaration, was the value of Nanhu's half interest and share in the partnership of Jagannath Nanhu and Co.
[5] Jagannath undoubtedly accepted the benefits conferred upon him by Nanhu's will, and therefore became bound to carry out the provisions beginning with the words "save only with the proviso." Between 3rd March 1944, and 17th June 1946, he took certain steps in regard to the property of Nanhu and in regard to his own property. As their Lordships are concerned only with the construction of Nanhu's will, it is unnecessary to set out these steps in detail. They are all to be found in the agreed statement of facts.
[6] On 17th June 1946, Nanhu's widow Ramdassi took out an originating summons to which Jagannath was defendant, raising certain questions as to the construction of Nanhu's will. Bacheoni, the wife of Jagannath, was not made a party to the summons. Thomson J. gave judgment in the case on 11th October 1946, but no formal order was drawn up. He decided the questions of construction partly in favour of Ramdassi and partly in favour of Jagannath, and directed that the costs of both parties, as between solicitor and client, should come out of Nanhu's estate.
[7] Jagannath and Ramdasai each obtained leave to appeal from the said judgment to His Majesty in Council, but Ramdassi abandoned her appeal. Jagannath died on 25th July 1947, and his son-in-law Jaduram, as his executor, was substituted as appellant.
[8] The only questions
