MANU/TN/0610/1925

Equivalent Citation: AIR1926Mad936, 97Ind. Cas.163

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS
Decided On: 20.08.1925
Appellants: The Official Assignee of Madras and Ors.
Vs.
Respondent: Vedavalli Thayarammal and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges/Coram:
Charles Gordon Spencer and Ramesam, JJ.
Subject: Family
Cases Referred:
Radha Peosad Mullick and Anr. vs. Ranimoni Dassi and Ors. MANU/PR/0016/1908
Case Note:
Succession Act (X of 1865), Sections 116, 117 - Will--Construction--Gift over to grand-daughter if no grandsons are born in particular
time--Gift to grandsons void under rule, in Tagore case--Gift over, whether fails--Intestacy.
JUDGMENT
Charles Gordon Spencer, J.
1. The decision of this appeal depends on the construction to be placed upon the Will of K. Narayansr swrami Naidu, a Hindu of Madras. He
made a Will on, 3rd February, 1897, and a subsequent codicil on 21st May, 1897, and died, oh 23rd May, 1897, leaving a widow and one son,
whose whereabouts are not known, and three granddaughters. One grandson, who is the 2nd defendant, was born in 1899 after the testator's
death and, having become an insolvent, he is represented by the Official Assignee. The Will having been made in the Presidency Town, the Hindu
Wills Act is applicable to it and Section 2 of that Act makes Sections f 16 and 117 of the Indian Succession Act applicable. Among the
dispositions the important passages ran as follows: "Clause 9. I give and bequeath the whole of the residuafy estate to my grandson or grandsons
who may be born or will be born to my son Kaveri Sundararamanjulu Naidu within 10 years after my death; if there shall be such grandsons to be
born as aforesaid the whole of my residuary estate is to be divided equally between my said grand-daughters after the death of my said wife." The
proviso to the clause provides that a srtsa Should be placed in deposit in Messrs. Arbruthnot & Co.'s Bank to provide a monthly income for the
maintenance of the testator's daughter-in-law, the widow of a son who died during his lifetime, and for the distribution of the amount to his
granddaughters after her death. Clause 13 provides that the testator's son K. Sundararamanujulu Naidu having fraudulently spirit more than half of
his father's earnings aid having executed a release in his favour should have no claims whatever in and upon the testator's estate. Clause (2) of the
codicil revokes a provision of Rs. 5,000 in.
2. Clause 3 of the Will in favour of charity and Clause (3) provides that the distribution of the residuary estate among the grand-daughters should
take place after the death of the testator's wife, daughter-in law and son. The facts necessary for understanding the case are that the testator's son
Sundararamanujulu Naidu disappeared and has not been heard of for 25 years. The testator's grand-daughter Katanayaki died unmarried in 1903.
The 2nd defendant was born in 1899, that is, within two years of the testator's death in 1897; but the bequest in his favour being a bequest to a
person not in existence at the death of the testator is invalid under the rule in the Tagore case Jotendra Mohar Tagore v. Ganendra Mohan Tagore
2 Suth. P.C.J. 692.
3. The question we have to decide in this appeal is whether the effect of the first of the passages quoted from Clause (b) of the Will is, in the events
that happened to create a gift to the granddaughters or an intestacy. The learned Judge in the trial Court decided in favour of the former alternative.
He was of opinion that Section 116 of the Succession Act applied to this case rather than Section 117. He referred to; two cases, Narandas
Vrijbhukhandas v. Bai Saraswati 23 Ind. Cas. 130 16 Bom. L.R. 577 and Radha Prasad Mullick v. Ranee Mani Dassee 33 C. 947, as being
cases in point. Narandas Vrijbhukhandas v. Bai Saraswati 23 Ind. Cas. 130 : 16 Bom. L.R. 577 is a case which dealt with a' Will executed in the
mofussil and consequently, it contains no discussions of the sections of the Succession Act. Radha Prasad Mullick v Ranee Mani Dassee followed
the English case of Jones v. Westcomb (1711) 1 Eq. Ca. Abr. 245 . The case Radha Prasad Mullick v. Ranee Mani Dassee 33 C. 947 went on
appeal to the Privy council and was confirmed on different grounds from those upon which the Calcutta High Court decided it. The decisive feature
of that case was there was no adoption in law because the authority given under the Will for the widow and the executors to adopt, was invalid.
4. Section 116 of the Succession Act runs as follows: "Where there is a bequest to one person and a bequest of the same thing to another, if the
prior bequest shall fail, the second bequest shall take effect upon the failure of the prior bequest, although the failure may not have occurred in the
manner contemplated by the testator." This provides for cases of double contingencies as may be seen from the illustration to the section, a subject
which is discussed in Williams on Executors, 11th Edition, Vol. II, pages 1014 to 1017. Section 117 is as follows: Where a Will shows an
intention that the second bequest shall take effect only in the event of the first bequest failing in a particular manner the second bequest shall not
take effect, unless the prior bequest fails in that particular manner." The illustrations co this section recall the facts of the cases of Underwood v.
Wing 3 W.R. 228 : 102 R.R. 310 and Wing v. Angrave (1860) 8 H.L.G. 183 : 30 L.J. Ch. 65 : 125 R.R. 99. The Will before us declares that the
gift over in favour of the grand-daughters shall take effect only if there are no grandsons born within 10 years of the testator's death. There was a
grandson born within 10 years of the testator's death, namely, the 2nd defendant. The question is whether the prior bequest in favour of grandsons
has failed in the particular manner denoted by the Will.
5. It was argued that we should read the words "if there shall be no such grandsons to be born as aforesaid" as meaning, "if there shall be no
grandsons born who can take the estate as aforesaid" or in other words "if the bequest in favour of grandsons fails on any account." I think that the
language used is quite specific contended for by the respondent's Vakil which involves a contradiction, viz., that grandsons born within 10 years
after the testator's death, means grandsons born during his lifetime, as they alone could take the estate. The testator clearly spoke of two classes of
grandsons when he used the words grandsons who may be borne (i.e., before my death) or will be born to my son K. Sundararamanujulu Naidu
within 10 years after my death." The gift in favour of the grand-daughters has been made expressly dependent on the condition that there shall be
no grandsons born during the testator's lifetime or within 10 years of the testator's death. We cannot make a new Will for the testator in the light of
the events which happened. The wishes of the testator have to be given effect to so far as the Court is able to do so. We must, therefore, consider
what the testator intended. It is evident from Clause 12 that he intended to disinherit his son and it may also be considered from the proviso to
Clause (9) that he was in favour of benefiting his granddaughters to some extent, but he evidently preferred to benefit grandsons if any should be
born within ten years of his death rather than his grand-daughters. He wished to restrict the bequest to grandsons born within ten years as that was
the period within which his son and daughter-in-law might be expected to have children, but he showed no intention of disinheriting them altogether
in case of there being a legal, objection to the bequest taking effect in the manner stated. The Will contains no indication that the testator wished to
give preference to grand-daughters supposing a grandson and grand-daughters were both in existence at a date within ten years after his death. In
Hall v. Warren 11 E.R. 791 : 131 R.R. 258 Lord Kingsdown observed:
"The gift over seems, to me, to have taken effect whether we regard the precise language of the particular clause, or the general
intention of the testator." So, here, let us consider first whit is the meaning of the precise language used by the testator, and secondly,
what, were his general intentions and how may his wishes be best carried out. If the answers to both these questions lead to the same
conclusion we need have no hesitation in giving effect to the ordinary meaning of the language used. The testator did not contemplate
intestacy, but he made no provision for the case of the bequest in favour of grandsons who might be born within ten years being found
invalid owing to a provision of law. If he had contemplated the event which actually happened of a grandson being born within ten
years of his death, there can be little doubt that he would have preferred that his grandson should succeed even though on intestacy,
rather than that the granddaughters should take the whole estate and the grandson taking nothing. The case of Underwood v. Wing 1
Jur. (W.S.) 169 : 3 W.R. 228 : 102 R.R. 310 was a case in which the construction put upon a Will by the Court of final appeal in
England who gave effect to the intentions of the testator led to intestacy and the illustration (e) to Section 92 and the illustration to
Section 117 or the Succession Act are also illustrations of cases of intestacy resulting. We should not, therefore, assume, that the idea
of intestacy would have been more repugnant to the mind of the testator than the preference of female to male descendants. I think
that this specific language of the Will and the intention of the testator lead to the same conclusion. I further think that Section 117,
Succession Act, covers the case and, therefore, I would, as was done in Maddison v. Chapman (1858) 4 K. & J. 709 : 116 R.R.
511, construe strictly the condition under which the grand-daughters were to take the estate and hold that, as a grandson was born,
the gift over failed and the grand-daughters are not entitled to take the residue, and that if the gift to the grandson is invalid and the gift
over to the grand-daughters failed by reason of it feeing subject to a contingency which actually happened, there is an intestacy and
the heir-at-law, namely, the 2nd defendant in the absence of his father who is presumably dead, will take the whole estate.
6. This appeal must, therefore, be allowed and the suit dismissed. Costs of the plaintiff and the Official Assignee in this Court will come out of the
estate. The order as to costs in the trial Court may stand.
Ramesam, J.
7. I agree but would add some reason of my own. The first illustration to Section 116 of the Succession Act is based on Meadows v. Parry
(1812) 1 V. & B. 12 R.R 198. The 2nd illustration is taken from Avelyn v. Ward (1749) 1 Y. S. 420 . Other cases illustrating the section are
collected in Williams on Executors (11th Edition) Vol. II; pp. 1015--1017; Theobald on Wills 7th Edition, pp. 655-657; Jarnaan on Wills 6th
Edition, pp. 2195--2199. The reason for these decisions is that "intention of the testator is effectually fulfilled by regarding a clause of apparent
condition as a clause of conditional limitation so as not to require, as in the case of a gift on the condition that the very event on which the gift is
made contingent must be fulfilled with strict exactness, but paying regard, in the construction to the substantial effect of the contingency specified
and as to the real intent of the testator" (Williams 104). In these cases "there cannot be a shadow of doubt that, if asked whether in case of a prior
gift failing altogether for want of an object, he meant the alternative gift to take effect, his answer would have been in the affirmative. The conclusion
that such was the actual intention has been deemed to amount to what the law denominates a necessary implication." (Jarman, page 2195). The
Indian Legislature has accordingly adopted the principle as a general rule in Section 116 of the Act making the case where the testator intends the
gift over to take effect only, if the first gift fails in a particular manner, an exception. Accordingly, the appellant has to show an intention that the
second gift in this case should take effect only if there is no grandson born within 10-years. If the appellant fails to show such an intention, the
respondent succeeds even if he cannot show any clear intention the other way.
8. In many of the cases illustrating Section 116, the intention of the testator is so obvious that it cannot bear discussion. For instance, in the first
illustration cf. Meadows v. Parry (1812) 1 V. & B. 124 : 12 R.R 198 by the time of the death of the testator, from which time the Will takes
effect, it was definitely known that the testator had no children though it might not have been known when the Will was written and the testator
could not have intended the second gift to take effect only if children are born but die within 18. The language of the clause could not have been the
actual intention of the testator at the date of death. The same remarks apply to Murray v. Jones (1813) 2 V. & B. 313 : 13 R.R. 104 and to
Avelyn v. Ward (1749) 1 Y. S. 420 though not to Jones v. Westcomb (1711) 1 Eq. Ca. Abr. 245 to Hall v. Warren (1861) 9 H.L.C. 420 : 7 Jur.
1089 : 5 L.T. 190 : 10 W.R. 66 : 131 R.R. 258 or to Radha Prasad Mulla's case 33 C. 947 affirmed by the Privy Council in Radha Prasad
Mullick v. Ranee Manx Dassee MANU/PR/0016/1908 : 12 C.W.N. 729 : 35 I.A. 118 : 8 C.L.J. 48 : 10 Bom. L.R. 604 : 5 A.L.J. 460 : 18
M.L.J. 287 : 4 M.L.T. 23 (P.C.). It seems to me that, if the word "contemplated" in the section refers to the testator's state of mind on the date of
death and not to the language in the Will, the illustrations do not illustrate the section and the section is not happily worded; for the manner
contemplated by him could not be the manner apparently expressed in the condition. Even in Jones v. Westcomb (1711) 1 Eq. Ca. Abr. 245 and
Hall v. Warren (1861) 9 H.L.C. 420 : 7 Jur. (N.S.) 1089 : 131 R.R. 258 and Radha Prasad Mullick v. Ranee Mani Dassee 33 C. 947, there is
no doubt as to what the testator's answer would have been if the matter was put to him. As Lord Campbell stated in Hall v. Warren (1861) 9
H.L.C. 420 131 R.R. 258 it was gravely argued at your Lordships' Bar that the testator wished the opinion of the inhabitants of Bayswater to be
taken on the expediency of establishing this Hospital, and that a resolution of the Parish in the negative was the condition on which William Hall
Warren was to take the two houses. But I apprehend 'that the failure of the foundation of the Hospital was the contingency on which he intended
his godson to take. There can be no analogy between that case, in which the Hospital never came into existence and the present case in which a
grandson had come into existence.
9. The illustration to Section 117 is based on Underwood v. Wing 102 R.R. 310 and Wing v. Angrave (1860) 8 H.L.G. 183 : 30 L.J. Ch. 65 :
125 R.R. 99. That the result of these cases involved a hardship is clear from the observations of Lord Wensleydale in the latter case at pages 214-
215 Pages of (1860) 8 H.L.--[Ed.]. "This case (and there are many like it) is one in which the temptation from the supposed hardship of the case
to swerve from the established rules of construction, is strong. No one can doubt as to the testatrix's 'intention' in the loose sense of that word";
Then His Lordship relied on the language of the instrument. In the present case, I do not wish to rely merely on the language of the condition. Nor
can it be said in the present case that the testators's intention in the loose sense of the word was to give the residue to the grand-daughters even if a
grandson existed. This case is, therefore' stronger than the cases of Wing v. Angrave 125 R.R. 99 and Underwood v. Wing 1 Jur. (W.S.) 169 : 3
W.R. 228 . seeing that the English Judges decided these cases in the way they decided in spite of the principle of the other group of cases Jones v.
Westcomb (1711) 1 Eq. Ca. Abr. 245 , Murray v. Jones (1813) 2 V. & B. 313 : 13 R.R. 104 and in spite of the hardship involved, and seeing
that the Indian Legislature adopted those decisions as their illustration to Section 117 to show what they meant by "an intention that the second
bequest shall take effect only in the event of the first bequest failing in a particular manner". I do not feel any hesitation in applying Section 117 to
the case before us. The illustration in (e) to Section 92 also leads to the same conclusion. It seems to be based on the passage in Jarman, 6th
Edition, at page 2203. This illustration might well have been an illustration to Section 117 also. It likewise relates to the intention of the testator that,
the second gift should not take effect unless the failure of the first happens in the particular manner.
10. If, in Wing v. Angrave (1860) 8 H.L.G. 183 : 30 L.J. Ch. 65 : 125 R.R. 99, as Theobald puts it (at page 664) that the event that happened
(simultaneous death) and the event contemplated (one dying before the other) are two distinct and independent events and if in illustration (e)to
Section 92 the death of the first legatee before the eighteenth year and his death after the eighteenth year in the lifetime of the testator are two
distinct and independent events, in the present case, the event contemplated non-existence of the grandson, and the event that happened, the birth
of a grandson, are not only two distinct and independent events but contrary or opposite events. The case in Elliot v. Smith (1883) 22 Ch. D. 266 :
31 W.R. 336 is a further illustration of the rule. Section 117 is, therefore, applicable a fortiori.
11. The consideration that the Court should, if possible, lean against intestacy is not sufficient, in my opinion, to shake the above conclusion. In
Underwood v. Wing 3 W.R. 228 : 102 R.R. 310 , and Wing v. Angrave (1860) 8 H.L.G. 183 : 30 L.J. Ch. 65 : 125 R.R. 99, and the illustration
to Section 92(e), this consideration was not strong enough to affect the result. I am not able to follow our learned brother Kumara-swami Sastri,
J., when he says in his judgment in appeal "Reference was made to Underwood v. Wing (1885) 4 De G.M. & G. 633 : 24 L.J. Ch. 293 : 1 Jur.
(W.S.) 169 : 3 W.R. 228 : 102 R.R. 310, but I do not think that the facts of the present case fall under this decision as I do not think that the
imitation was a condition precedent".
12. It cannot be deduced from Hall v. Warren (1861) 9 H.L.C. 420 : 5 L.T. 190 : 10 W.R. 66 : 131 R.R. 258, as the learned Vakil for the
respondent argued that whenever the first devise is ab initio void, the second bequest must be given effect to, whatever the condition may be. He
also wished us to construe the words "such grandson as aforesaid" to mean "such grandson so taking". I think that the words mean "grandson born
within ten years after my death". We cannot add the words so taking as we have been invited to do on the basis of Section 64 of the Act and
Abbott v. Middleton (1858) 7 H.L.C. 68 : 115 R.R. 38. It cannot be said that any words material to the full expression of the meaning are omitted
in this case. Nor can we construe the Will as a gift to the grand-daughter, subject to be defeated on the birth of a grandson within ten years after
the testator's death. The mere fact that the testator wished to deprive his son of all the benefits of the Will beyond the sum of Rs. 500 as capital for
his trade and Rs. 250 for funeral expenses is not also strong enough to displace the application of Section 117, for, in case of intestacy, the son
and grandsons take as members of a joint Hindu family if grandsons are born, with the right to enforce partition by or on behalf of grandsons. But it
is unnecessary to speculate in this direction as the testator never contemplated the event that happened, viz., the devise to the grandsons being void
under the Tagore case 9 B.L.R. 377 : 18 W.R. 359 : 2 Suth. P.C.J. 692 .
13. Our brother Kumaraswami Sastri, J., thought the decision in Narandass Vrjubhukhandas v. Bai Saraswati 23 Ind. Cas. 130 : 16 Bom. L.R.
577 is on all fours ?with the present case In that case, the testator wished to give a life-estate to his widow Parvathi and on her death to his
daughter's sons. He expected his daughter to have sons by the death of Parvathi. Not only did he not contemplate the gift of the daughter's sons
being void under the Tagore case 9 B.L.R. 377 : 18 W.R. 359 : I.A. Sup. Vol. 47 : 3 Sar. P.C.J. 82 but also he did not provide for the case of his
daughter having no sons at Parvathi's death but having sons sometime after it. Either he did not contemplate it or thought a gift to them valid though
it may not immediately follow the preceding life-estate. The events that happened are incompletely stated in the reports in the Indian Law Reports,
a material date being omitted. The case is reported also in 16 Bom. L.E. 577. From this report it appears that Saraswathi's son was born in
December 1907. As the son did not come into existence on the termination of the preceding life-estate Parvathi having died in April, 1907, the gift
to him was void, apart from the Tagore case 9 B.L.R. 377 : 18 W.R. 359 : 2 Suth. P.C.J. 692 (P.C.). On the analogy of Section Ill of the
Succession Act (cf. Section 23 of the Transfer of Property Act), the clause "my daughter Saraswathi's sons, if any, shall be the heirs" should be
construed to relate to the termination of the preceding life-estate, i.e., to the time of Parvathi's death. It then means "my daughter Saraswathi's sons
if any, existing at the time of Parvatih's death shall be the heirs". As Parvathi's son was born later he could not take. The question then arises
whether there is an intestacy on the death of Parvathi. The testator proceeded to give a life-estate to Saraswathi, "In case my daughter may not
have sons". This clause can mean only "In case my daughter may not have sons at the time of Parvathi's death" in which case, Saraswathi's life-
testate takes effefet and there is no alternative possible at this stage so as to result in intestacy. The clause is not a condition subsequent, defeating
Saraswathi's life-estate on the birth of a son later than Pdivathi's death. The question next arises, do the cousins take after Saraswathi's death. It
may be said that the words "after the death of my daughter Saraswathi" (towards the end of the paragraph quoted in the report) may be construed
as if the words "without sons" are added to them, on the principle of Abott v. Middleton (14), but, if this cannot be done, the cousins' estate takes
effect which is the actual decision. The derision maybe perhaps correct. But it is difficult to see where the principle of Jone v. Westcomb (1711) 1
Eq. Ca. Abr. 245 : 21 E.R. 1022 and similar cases on which Section 116 of the Succession Act was based came in or the necessity for discussing
whether Section 116 or Section 117 applied arose. In that case there was a life estate before the grandson's estate but there is no life estate in the
case before us. I do not see how that case can be on all fours with the one before us. Neither the Hindu Wills Act nor the Succession Act applied
to it as the case did not arise in the city of Bombay. Nor was there any reference to Sections 116 and 117 of the Succession Act, nor any
discussion as between two opposing principles. But there is another ground on which the bequest to the grand-daughters fails. The testator
intended the estate to wait for ten years after his death, and, if by that time, grandsons are born (through his son) they shall take but, if no
grandsons are born, the three grand-daughters named shall take. The disposition in favour of the grandson does not vest until the birth of the first
grandson within 10 years after the testator's death. Until then, the estate does not vest in any person. If no grandson is born within 10 years then
also the estate does not vest in any person for 10 years or up to his son's death, if within that time. As Section 179 of the Indian Succession Act is
not made applicable to Hindus the Estate does not vest in the executors. The result is, in either case, there is an interval after the testator's death
during which the estate is not vested in any person. On this ground apart from the Tagore case 9 B.L.R. 377 : 18 W.R. 359 the disposition in
favour of the grandson is void and that in favour of grand-daughters is likewise void. The Vakil for the respondent conceded this and even, relied
on was or inviting us to construe the Will as devise to the granddaughters in the first instance, subject to be defeated by the birth of a grandson
competent to take. This will be re-writing the Will, Thus, there is an intestacy on this ground also.
14. I agree with the order of my learned brother.

© Manupatra Information Solutions Pvt. Ltd.