Back
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
K.L.Gosain, J.
Hazara Singh
Versus
Banta Singh
Second Appeal No. 126 of 1953,
Decided On : APRIL 9, 1958
WILL - INTERPRETATION - LIFE ESTATE - VESTED INTEREST - LIMITATION - [SECTION 63 OF THE INDIAN SUCCESSION ACT, SECTION 119 AND 120 OF THE INDIAN SUCCESSION ACT]
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a dispute over the ownership of property left by Hukmi, who died in 1923. Hukmi had made a will in 1911, bequeathing one-third of his estate to his brother-in-law Nathu, one-third to his widow Mst. Tabi, and the remaining one-third to his widowed daughter-in-law Mst. Chandar Kaur. The will stipulated that Mst. Tabi and Mst. Chandar Kaur could not alienate the property and would only possess it for their lifetimes for maintenance purposes. After their deaths, their shares were to pass to Nathu. In 1925, Nathu obtained a decree in his favor for one-third of the property, while Mst. Tabi and Mst. Chandar Kaur retained the remaining two-thirds. Mst. Tabi died in 1934, and her share was mutated in Nathu's name. Mst. Chandar Kaur died in 1944, and the plaintiffs, claiming to be Hukmi's collaterals, filed a suit in 1949 seeking possession of the entire property, alleging that the will was invalid and that they were the rightful heirs. The trial court and the lower appellate court dismissed the plaintiffs' suit.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the will created only a life estate in favor of Mst. Tabi and Mst. Chandar Kaur and that Nathu was the proper heir to them after their death. The court found that the plaintiffs' suit was barred by limitation with respect to Nathu's share, as more than 12 years had passed since the accrual of the cause of action. The court also held that the plaintiffs' suit was within time regarding the property of Mst. Tabi and Mst. Chandar Kaur, as the suit was filed within 12 years of their respective deaths.
Issues: 1. Whether the will created an absolute estate or a life estate in favor of Mst. Tabi and Mst. Chandar Kaur? 2. Whether Nathu had a vested interest in the property bequeathed to him? 3. Whether the plaintiffs' suit was barred by limitation?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court interpreted the will and found that it conferred only a life estate on Mst. Tabi and Mst. Chandar Kaur, as it expressly limited the estate to their lives and for the purposes of maintenance only. The court relied on case law to support its interpretation, distinguishing it from cases where absolute estates were granted without restrictions. 2. The court held that Nathu had a vested interest in the property bequeathed to him, as per Section 119 of the Indian Succession Act, which provides that a right to receive a legacy vests in the legatee on the testator's death unless a contrary intention appears in the will. The court found no such contrary intention in the will. 3. The court held that the plaintiffs' suit was barred by limitation with respect to Nathu's share, as more than 12 years had passed since the accrual of the cause of action. However, the court held that the plaintiffs' suit was within time regarding the property of Mst. Tabi and Mst. Chandar Kaur, as the suit was filed within 12 years of their respective deaths.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the plaintiffs' appeal and confirmed the decree of the lower appellate court, upholding the dismissal of the plaintiffs' suit with costs throughout.
1. The fact giving rise to this second appeal are as under: The property in dispute belonged to one Hukmi who died on the 17th October 1923, leaving a widow Mst. Tabi and a widow of his predeceased son Mst. Chandar Kaur. On the 6th June, 1911, Hukmi had made a will, Exhibit P. 15, by virtue of which he bequeathed one-third of his estate to his brother-in-law Nathu, (brother of Mst. Tabi) one-third to Mst. Tabi and the rest one-third to Mst. Chandar Kaur. It was provided in the will that Mst. Tabi and Mst. Chandar Kaur shall not be able to alienate the property in any way and shall keep the property only till their lives and for their maintenance. After the death of Mst. Tabi and Mst. Chandar Kaur their share was also to go to Nathu.
On the 13th February, 1925, the entire property was mutated in the name of Mst. Tabi and Mst. Chandar Kaur, but on a suit brought by Nathu for possession of his one-third share a decree was passed in his favour on the 21st April, 1925, which the result that one-third of Hukmis property went over to Nathum one-third to Mst. Tabi and one-third to Mst. Chandar Kaur. On the 6th August, 1926, the present plaintiffs excepting Bhalla and Kehar Singh, brought a suit for usual declaration challenging the validity of the will.
The said suit was dismissed by the trial Court and the decree of the trial Court was confirmed by the District Judge and also by the Lahore High Court. Some time between 1931 and 1934 Nathu died and his brother Jangi inherited him so far as one-third share of Hukmis property was concerned. On the 10th November 1934, Mst. Tabi died and her share was mutated in the name of Jangi by means of mutation Exhibit P. 7 attested on the 18th August, 1935. On the 28th August, 1945, the present plaintiffs filed a suit for possession of this one-third share left by Mst. Tabi.
On the 3rd May, 1948, the suit was dismissed by the trial Court but in appeal the plaintiffs were permitted to withdraw the suit with leave to bring a fresh suit. On the 2nd June, 1944, Mst. Chandar Kaur also died and on the 18th February, 1948, the present plaintiffs brought another suit for possession of the property left by her. On the 29th March, 1949, this suit was also withdrawn with leave to bring a fresh suit. In July, 1949, the present suit was brought for possession of the entire land left by Hukmi on the allegations that the property held by Hukmi was ancestral, that Hukmi could not have made a will in respect of the said property, that the alleged will made by him had never in fact been made, that the alleged will gave absolute estate to Mst. Tabi and Mst. Chandar Kaur, and on their death the plaintiffs were the proper heirs qua that property, that they were collaterals of Hukmi deceased and were entitled to succeed to the entire property left by him.
The suit was contested by Jangi, real brother of Nathu, who claimed to be the successor-in-in-terest of Nathu. The defendant did not admit the ancestral nature of the property and pleaded that Hukmi had executed a valid will in favour of Nathu and others. Several other pleas were also raised by him which are not very much relevant for the purpose of decision of this appeal. the trial Court framed as many as 10 issues in the case and after recording its findings on them dismissed the plaintiffs suit with costs. In appeal before the District Judge, the findings of the trial Court only on the following points were assailed:-
- (1) proof and interpretation of the will,
(2) application of the doctrine of res judicata,
(3) ancestral nature of the property, and
(4) limitation.
The learned District Judge found that the alleged will had been executed by Hukmi and gave only the life interest to Mst. Tabi and Mst. Chandar Kaur. He also found that on testators death Nathu got vested interest in the property which devolved on the defendant Jangi. It was found that the decision in the previous suit did not amount to res judicata and that the suit was barred by time. On the a
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
