Skip to content


Rajani Kant Mondal and ors. Vs. Kanti Chandra Mandal and ors. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in64Ind.Cas.237
AppellantRajani Kant Mondal and ors.
RespondentKanti Chandra Mandal and ors.
Excerpt:
will - life-estate, to daughter and remainder to testator's heirs--construction of will--heir. - .....a life-estate supervenes. but those rulings do not apply to this case, because it is clear on the terms of the will that the properties did not vest either in the son or any one else on the testator's death, that there was no vesting of the property until the death of the tenant for life, manoda. that being so, you have to ascertain the heirs of the testator at the time of manoda's death. it appears to me that both the lower courts have correctly interpreted the will, and accordingly the appeal fails and must be dismissed with costs.walmsley, j.3. i agree.
Judgment:

Greaves, J.

1. This is an appeal by defendants Nos. 2 to 4 from a decision of the First Subordinate Judge of Burdwan, affirming a decision of the Munsif at Kalna. The question that arises is with regard to the construction of a Will of one Umesh Chandra Mandal. The Will is dated the 15th Falgun 1303 B.S. The testator died soon after executing his Will. By his Will he devised certain properties referred to in the schedule for the maintenance of his daughter, Srimati Manodabala Dasi, who was a childless widow : and the only question that arises upon this Will is whether upon the death of the widowed daughter who was given a life-interest, the properties passed to the person who was the heir of the testator at the date of his death or to the person or persons who was or were the testator's heirs on the death of the tenant for life. But for the argument addressed to us by the learned Vakil for the appellants, I should have thought that the matter was absolutely clear from the terms of the Will itself. The testator provides that after the death of Manoda, his son or his son's son or any other heirs should get the same properties, that is to say, the properties in which Manoda was given a life-interest. It is quite clear that the testator intended to give the properties, after Manoda's death, to his son, or if that Ban was dead, to his son's son, that is, his grandson, by that son or if there was no grandson, to the heir of the testator to be ascertained at the death of Manoda.

2. It is perfectly true, as the learned Vakil for the appellants has told us, that there are a large number of eases in which it has been held that the property vests in the remainder man immediately upon the death of the testator although the enjoyment is postponed because a life-estate supervenes. But those rulings do not apply to this case, because it is clear on the terms of the Will that the properties did not vest either in the son or any one else on the testator's death, that there was no vesting of the property until the death of the tenant for life, Manoda. That being so, you have to ascertain the heirs of the testator at the time of Manoda's death. It appears to me that both the lower Courts have correctly interpreted the Will, and accordingly the appeal fails and must be dismissed with costs.

Walmsley, J.

3. I agree.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //