The main legal point established in the judgment is the distinction between specific and demonstrative legacies under the Indian Succession Act, and the importance of specific details in the Will to determine the nature of a legacy.

( 1 ) THIS appeal by the plaintiff in O. S. No. 8052/1980 is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the XIX Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore city, dated 29-2-1992 in so far as it pertains to dismissal of the suit of the plaintiff in part.

( 2 ) THE essential facts of the case leading up to this appeal with reference to the rank of the parties before the trial Court are as follows: the plaintiff filed the suit, O. S. No. 863/ 80, later numbered as O. S. No. 8052/1980 seeking for the following reliefs :" (A) to pass a decree against the defendants directing them to execute in favour of and deliver to the plaintiff a deed of Transfer of Trust in respect of the bequeathed property, namely No. 40, East End Road, bangalore. (b) to pass a decree directing the defendants to deliver and place the plaintiff in possession of the bequeathed property, namely no. 40, East End Road, Bangalore, by obtaining due attornment of all the tenants thereof to her: (c) to pass a decree directing the defendants to effectively transfer and deliver to the plaintiff the 1,500 equity shares in the Food specialities Ltd. , with accrued dividends upto date: (d) to pass a decree directing the defendants to render accounts with immediate payment, in respect of all the rents, profits and other accruals from the 4th July, 1972 upto date in respect of the bequeathed property, namely No. 40, East End Road, bangalore, and the 1500 equity shares in the Food Specialities Ltd. (e) to pass a decree directing the defendants to pay interest at 6% per annum on all amounts accruing to the plaintiff as and from the 4th July, 1972. (f) to pass a decree directing that the estate of late D. S. Suraiya be administered by Court. (g) to pass a decree directing the defendants to pay the plaintiff the costs of this suit, and (h) to pass such other decrees and grant such other reliefs as may be deemed just, fit, proper, necessary and expedient on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. "it is averred in the plaint that the plaintiff is an Assistant employed by the India Tourist development Corporation at Bangalore and she is residing with her mother. Defendants 1 to 3 are the executors of the Will and the trustees of the Estate of late D. S. Suraiya, who was a Hindu and who died at Bangalore on 4th July, 1972, leaving a Will dated 13th september, 1971, which was executed at bangalore. D. S. Suraiya was ordinarily residing at Bangalore, wherein he owned three immovable properties and bulk of his other assets are also situate at Bangalore. The defendants took charge of the estate of the deceased immediately upon his death which included cash in his house. It is averred that the plaintiff is a specific legatee under the said Will of D. S. Suraiya having been bequeathed one of the three immovable properties of the deceased, namely, the house known as "rita BHAVAN" bearing No. 40, east End Road at Bangalore and the plaintiff had also been bequeathed 1500 equity shares of Food Specialities Ltd. , a Company incorporated in India. It is averred that the plaintiff, who was in close touch and working with the deceased D. S. Suraiya for several years before his death, was immediately thereafter excluded from all access to or information of the affairs of the deceased. As a result, the plaintiff, after waiting for more than a year, was compelled to cause the issue of a notice to the defendants requesting delivery of the specific legacies bequeathed to her. The bequeathed property consists of several tenaments which had been let out separately as far back as 1972 and were fetching a rent in excess of Rs. 1,000/- per month. The plaintiff through her counsel carried on prolonged correspondence with the defendants seeking to recover the legacies bequeathed to her but was consistently put off with pleas of unavoidable delay, lack of funds and complications which had little or no basis in fact. The defendants also pleaded the necessity for obtaining probate, whi