LexRAJ BAJRANG BAHADUR SINGH versus THAKURAIN BAKHTRAJ KUER
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
1951!
lfitporters and
Man1,facturdr1
Ltd.
v.
P.herote
Framroze
Tai·aporewala
and Others.
1952
Nov. 'l.
233
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(1953j
and the tenant under or throi;rgh whom he claims aud
to seek protection under the Act, if he is entitled to
any.
Such a person may be joined as a party to the
suifl' from the beginning of the suit or at any later
stage of the suit if the Court thinks fit to do so. The
joinder of such a proper party cannot alter the
character of the suit and does not make the suit any
the less a suit between the landlord and the tenant or
take it out of section 28 of the Act.
'ro hold other·
wise will be to encourage multiplicity of suits which will
result in no end of inconvenience and confusion.
In
our view the decision and the reasoning of Chagla
C.J. are substantially correct and this appeal must
fail.
We, therefore, dismiss the appeal ·with costs.
Appeal dismissed.
Agent for the appellants: RaJinder Narain.
A.gent for respondents Nos. 1, _2 & 3 : R. A. Ga.grat.
RAJ BAJRANG BAHADUR SINGH
v . .
THAKURAIN BAKHTRAJ KUER.
[MuKHERJEA, CHANDRASEKHARA A!YAH and
BHAGWATI JJ.J
OudhEstates Act (I of 1861>) s.14-Will of Taluqdar-Bequest
as "absol~tte owner" without right to transfer-Validity-Succession
to legatee whether governed by Act or ordinary law-C1·eation of
su .. ccessive estates - Validity-Rule aaainst perpetuities-Construction
-
11Ma1ik Kamil", "Naslan bad naslan".
The Oudh Estates Act (Act,! of 1869) does not interdict
the creation of future estates and limitations provided they do not
transgress the rule of perpetuities and where a disposition by a
will made by a taluqdar does not make the legatee an absolute
owner but gives him only an interest for life which is followed by
subsequent interests created in favour of other persons the rule of
succession laid down in s. 14 of the Act will not apply on the death
of the donee and the property bequeathed to him will pass accord·
in~ to the 1'rill to the next person entitled to it under the will.
S.C.R.
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
233
The words malik kamii (absolute o·wner) and · naslan bad
1952
naslan (generation after generation) are descriptive of a heritable
-
and aliertable estate in the donee and they connote full proprietary
Raj Bajrarig
rights unless there is something in the context or in the surr01md- Bahadur Singh.
ing circumstances which indicate that absolute rights were not
v.
intended to be conferred. In all such cases the true intention of
Thakura-iii
the testator has to be gathered not by attaching importance to Baf,,h{rn.,i J(uer.
isolated expressions but by reading the will as a whole with all its
provisions and ignoring none of them as redundant or contradic-
tory.
•
In cases where the intention of the testator is to grant an
absolute estate, an attempt to reduce the powers of the owner by
imposing restraint on alienation would be repelled on the ground
of repugnancy; but where the restrictions are the primary things·
which the testator desires and they are consistent with the whole
tenor of the will, it is a material circumstance to be relied on for
displacing the presumption of absolute ownership implied in the·
use of the word malik.
Though under the rule laid down in Tagore v. Tagore (18
W.R. 359) no interest could be created in favour of unborn persons,
yet when a gift is made to · a class or series of persons, some of
whom are in existence at the time of the testator's death and some
are not, it does not fail in its entirety; it will be valid with re-
gard to the persons who are in existence at the time of the testa-
tor's death and invalid as to the rest.
A will made by a taluqdar of Oudh recited that with a view
that after his death his younger son D and his heirs and succes-
sors, generation after generation, may not feel any trouble or
create any quarrel, D shall after the testlttor's death remain in
possession of certain villages as absolute owner with the reserva-
tion that he will have no right to transfer, that if D may not be
living at the time of his death D's son or whoever may be his
male heir or widow may remain in possession and that although D
and his heirs are not given the power of transfer they will exercise
all other rights of absolute ownership: Held, that the will did not
confer an absolute estate on D and on D's death the successi~n
was not governed bys. 14 of the Oudh Estates Act and D's widow
was entitled to succeed Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.