YOGESH KHANNA, J.

IA No.4950/2013

1. This application is under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC. One Goverdhan Lal Obhroi was the owner of the suit property admeasuring 1066 square yards bearing No.3A, Ring Road, Lajpat Nagar-IV, New Delhi by virtue of lease deed dated 22.06.1964 duly registered as document No.2638 in additional book No.1, Volume No.1119, page Nos.90-93 in the office of Sub Registrar, Delhi.

2. He executed a Will dated 27.06.1983 in which he gave life time interest to his wife Smt. Sharda Obhroi and after her death, created further life interest, in the estate, for his two daughters viz defendant Nos.3 & 6 herein and only on the death of his daughters viz defendant Nos.3 & 6, the property would vest in the daughters of defendant Nos.3 & 6. The plaintiff being the daughter of defendant No.6 and defendant Nos.4 & 5 being the daughters of defendant No.3 were to acquire the property as absolute owners in the event of the demise of their mothers namely defendants No.3 & 6.

3. The plaintiff and defendants are aware of the execution of the Will. After the death of late Goverdhan Lal Obhroi on 30.10.1983, the suit property was mutated in the name of Smt. Sharda Obhroi in terms of the Will. Late Smt. Sharda Obhroi got the property converted into free hold and a deed of conveyance dated 09.07.2003 was duly registered. She submitted the plan for reconstruction of the house and it was approved by the MCD, but during the construction of the building, she expired. After her demise, the property devolved upon the mother of the plaintiff viz defendant No.6 and upon the mother of defendants No.4 & 5 viz defendant No.3 in equal proportions as life estate interest. The defendant No.6/mother of the plaintiff spent huge amount for construction of the existing structure.

4. The counsel for defendants No.1 and 2 argued though the Will of Late Mr.Goverdhan Lal Obhroi created a life interest for his wife and then for his daughters viz. defendants No.3 and 6 but the ultimate beneficiaries were his grandchildren viz, the plaintiff and defendants No.4 and 5 and hence the defendants no.4 and 5 do have a vested right in the property per Section 19 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 which read as under:

“19. Vested interest.—Where, on a transfer of property, an interest therein is created in favour of a person without specifying the time when it is to take effect, or in terms specifying that it is to take effect forthwith or on the happening of an event which must happen, such interest is vested, unless a contrary intention appears from the terms of the transfer.

A vested interest is not defeated by the death of the transferee before he obtains possession.

Explanation.—An intention that an interest shall not be vested is not to be inferred merely from a provision whereby the enjoyment thereof is postponed, or whereby a prior interest in the same property is given or reserved to some other person, or whereby income arising from the property is directed to be accumulated until the time of enjoyment arrives, or from a provision that if a particular event shall happen the interest shall pass to another person.”

5. The learned counsel for the defendant also referred to Section 119 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 which read as under:

“119. Date of vesting of legacy when payment or possession postponed.—Where by the terms of a bequest the legatee is not entitled to immediate possession of the thing bequeathed, a right to receive it at the proper time shall, unless a contrary intention appears by the Will, become vested in the legatee on the testator’s death, and shall pass to the legatee’s representatives if he dies before that time and without having received the legacy, and in such cases the legacy is from the testator’s death said to be vested in interest.

Explanation.—An intention that a legacy to any person shall not become vested in interest in him is not to be inferred merely from a provision whereby the payment or possession of the thing beq