TALKESHWARI DEVI versus RAM RAN BIKAT PRASAD SINGH & ANR.

Citation: [1972] 3 S.C.R. 71 · Decided: 12-01-1972 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K.S. HEGDE · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
A 
B 
71 
TALKESHWARI DEVI 
v. 
-'AM RAN BI.KAT PRASAD SINGH & ANR. 
January 12, 1972 
[K. S. Hl!GDE, P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY. AND D. G. PALEKAll, JJ.] 
Indian Succession Act 1925-Ss. 124, 131-Scope-Will, construc-
tion of. 
By clause 4 of a will the testator bequeathed to his grand daughters 
T and S an absolute right in the properties that were to devolve on them 
after the death of his wife. Clause 5 further provided that if one of 
the two grand daughters were to die 
issueless the other living 
grand daughter was to enter into possession of the entire pro-
C 
perty as absolute owner. After the death of the testator's wife T and S 
divided the properties which devolved on them in equal shares. On S 
dying issueless T instituted a 1uit for poasession of the properties that 
fell to the share of S basin& her claim on clause 5 of the will. The suit 
was dismi!!led. Dismissing the appeal, 
HELD : Clause 5 of the will rela·es to devolution, it does not provide 
for any divestment of an estate which had vested. The estate that vested 
D in S under clause 4 of the will was not a conditional estate, it was an 
absolute one. The will does not provide for the divestment of that estate. 
Clause 5 would have come into operation if the contingency mentioned 
therein had happened before the properties absolutely devol\-ed on T and 
S. What the testator intended was that if any of his grand daughters 
died issueless before the devolution took place then the entire property 
should go to another grand daughter. The intention of the testator is plain 
E 
from the language of the will. [73 BJ 
Section 124 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 applies to the facts 
of the case and not s. 131. The legacy claimed by the 
ap~llant is 
unavailable as the contemplated con'ingency did not occur· before the 
fund bequeathed was payable or distributable. Section 131 provides for 
the divestment of an estate which had already vested; it ·speaks l}f an 
estate going over to another peraon. 174 Bl 
F 
Norendra Nath Sircar and anr. v. Kamal Basini Dasi, I.L.R. 23, Cal. 
563, referred to. 
CML APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Civil Appeal No. 213 of 
1967. 
Appeal from the Judgment and order dated February, 17th 
1965 of the Patna High Court in First Appeal No. 113 of 1960. 
G 
M. C. Chagla, D. P. Singh, S. C. Agarwal, V. I. Francis, 
R. Gqburdhun and D. Goburdhun, lor the appellant. 
M. C. Setalvad, Sarjoo Prasad, A. G. Ratnaparkhi and Rajiv 
Shah, for respondent No. 1. 
The Jud~ent of the Court was decided by 
II 
Hegde, J, In this appeal by certificate we are to consider the 
effect of the will executed by one Ral!hunath Prasad Singh, on 
August 31, 1938. The said testator died very soon after the exe-
cution of the will leaving behind him his widow 1ageshwar Kuer, 
72 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1972} 3 S.C.R. 
his dau,ghter Satrupa Kuer and his two grand daughters Talkesh-
wari Devi (the appellant herein) and Sheorani. The appellant 
and Sheorani are the dau,ghters of Sukhdeo Prasad Sin,gh, the son 
A 
of the testator who had pre-deceased the testator. 
Jageshwar 
Kuer died in November 1948 and Sheorani Devi on November 1, 
1949 without Jeavinl!: any issue. The dispute in thiS case is as 
to who is entitled to the properties devolved on Sheorani under 
B 
the provisions of the will left by the testator. For deciding that 
question we have to refer to the relevant provisions of the will, 
the l(eni,tineness or validity of which is not in dispute. 
The will in ques'.ion provides that after the death of the 
testator a portion of his properties (detailed in the will) was to 
C 
devolve on Jaj!;CShwar Kuer absolutoly and tho remaining pro·. 
perties are also to devolve on her but therein she was to have 
only a life interest. The will fur.her provides that after her death 
"the entire property will be l!reated as 16 annas property out of 
which S annas 4 pies (five annas four pies) share constituting 
proprietary interest will pass to Shrimati Satrupa Kuer alias Nan 
dau,ghter of me, the executant and her heirs as absolute owners 
and the remaining 10 annas 8 pies ( annas ten and eight pies) 
share will pass to both the minor grand daughters, (1) Shrimati 
Talkeshwari Kuer alias Babu and (2) Sbrimati Sheorani Kuer 
alias Bachan in equal shares as absolute proprietary interest" 
(cl. 4 of the will) . Clause 5 of the will says : 
D 
"That if one of the tw0 grand dau,ghters named 
E 
abow dies issueless, then under such circumstances the 
other livinl!; grand d

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.