The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation and application of the provisions of the Succession Act, particularly regarding residuary bequests, legacies, and the invalidity of attempts to create perpetuities.

1. These appeals both raise questions relating to the will of a Parsi gentleman by name Nanabhai Hirjee who died on 30th June, 1916. Appeal No. 199 of 1937 is preferred by the plaintiffs who represented the interest of Nanabhai Hirjees daughter, Meherbai Jehangir, the first plaintiff (who is now dead) being her husband; plaintiffs 2 to 7 are her children. They sued to recover a half share in a legacy given to Nanabais widow Bhikaijee and also to recover Meherbais share in specific properties which are items 9 to 12 in the will. We are no longer concerned with Bhikaijees legacy which has been validly dealt with by Bhikaijee herself in a will which excludes Meherbai. The claim in the appeal is therefore confined to the four items 9 to 12 in the will Ex. A. This will is a somewhat unusual document. Nanabhai was a merchant trading in Calicut. The will Ex. A. is dated 21st April, 1916. It enumerates firstly twelve items of property, items 1 to 6 being various movables connected with the trade, item 7 consisting of four Government promissory notes of the face value of Rs. 5,006, while item 8 is a site with the buildings thereon and their contents and the disputed items 9 to 12 are four parcels of immovable properties. These twelve items, are valued at Rs. 95,300 and in addition to these items, the will recites the existence of certain bank balances and outstandings of unspecified value. Under the will, his estate was to be managed by the widow. The first provision is that the widow, the eldest son Framroze, the first defendant and the two sons of Framroze, Jal and Bomman, both of whom are now dead, shall possess equal rights to the properties shown as items 1 to 8. The next provision is that if the widow Bhikaijee dies without disposing of her share, that share shall go to the wife of Framroze and the testators two daughters Meherbai and Dhannubai. Then follow three legacies of Rs. 5,000 one to the widow, one to Meherbaj and the third to the other daughter Dhannubai. Meherbai has already got a decree for this legacy of Rs. 5,000. Next follow small legacies to employees and a recital that one of the promissory notes referred to in item 7 which is in tile frame of Framroze shall go to Framroze as beneficiary. Then after small bequests for charity and provision for funeral rites and tombs, the will provides that items 9 to 12 shall be retained unencumbered and unalienated in any way and that any such alienation shall be void. Then follows the sentence:

The said four items of properties have been kept as tarwad properties.

2. And it is directed that out of the income from the business the tarwad karnavan Framroze shall meet the expenses for the maintenance of these items. After that provision for the creation of a tarwad to control these items, there follow certain minor provisions with which we are not concerned. Then comes the following sentence:

All the properties that may be found to belong to me and that have been omitted to be shown herein should be taken possession of by my wife Bhikaijee, Framroze and the two grandsons in equal shares.

3. At the time of her fathers death Meherbai was living at Hyderabad as the wife of a doctor practising there. There is no evidence that she was informed of the provisions of the will at the time of the testators death and she was not paid anything under the will. In 1919 Framroze wrote a letter Ex. K-1 to Meherbais husband referring to a claim for certain wedding presents of Meherbai which he repudiates. The letter concludes with the statement that in Nanabhais will a sum of Rs. 750 is provided for Meherbai and is being kept at the desire of the testator for her children to be given at their marriage. This appears to refer to an earlier will which was superseded by Ex. A. It would appear that in 1921 Meherbais husband got a registration copy of Ex. A and made a claim thereunder which was repudiated in a lawyers letter Ex. L, dated 16th August, 1921, which says that the will is invalid and ino