THAKURAIN RAJ RANI AND OTHERS versus THAKUR DWARKA NATH SINGH AND OTHERS

Citation: [1953] 1 S.C.R. 913 · Decided: 23-01-1953 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

S.C.R. 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
913 
mentioned in ihe section and could not mean a date 
1952 
antecedent to 30t,h September, 1952. 
B oppamna 
For the reasons given above, in our judgment, the Venkatcswaraloo 
detention of the petitioner in this petition and of those 
and Other• 
in the other petitions mentioned above, after the 30th 
v. 
September, 1952, became illegal and we therefore Superintend~nt, 
d. 
t h t th 
t't' 
· th' 
· · 
d . 
. 
Central Jail, 
rrec t a 
e pe 1 10ners m 
is pet1t10n an m pet1- Hyderabad State 
tions Nos. 350, 356, 362 and 366 of 1952 be released 
-
· 
forthwith. They are in detention by reason of the 
MaJwjan J. 
extension order made on the 22nd September extend-
ing their detention up to 31st December, 1952. On 
that date the State Government had no jurisdiction to 
make that order under the law in force as it stood on 
that date. 30th September, 1952, had been specified 
as the date up to which their detention was to last by a 
subsisting and perfectly valid order and their deten-
tion order beyond that date is illegal and cannot be 
justified on the provisions of section 11-A (2) or on the 
provisions of section 11 ( 1) of the original Act. 
Petitions allowed. 
Agent for the respondents and intervener : G. H. 
Rajadhyaksha. 
THAKURAIN RAJ RANI AND OTHERS 
v. 
THAKUR DWARKA NATH SINGH 
AND OTHERS. 
[MEHR CHAND MAHAJAN, s.R.DAS andBHAGWAnJJ,J 
Will--Agreement by cousiJ> of testator to make monthly poymm•t 
to testator in consideration of giving hirn and his sons the remainder 
after life-esta.te to wid,ow--Grant of letters of administration-
Question of animus testanfr-Whether res-judicata-Payments, 
11..vhether condition precedent or ?nere consideration-Death of cousin 
before widoiir--Efi'ect of. 
On the 7bh .T anuary, 1904, G, a cousin of S, executed au agree-
ment in favour of S, the material portion of which ran as follows: 
''Whereas my cousin S has proposed to make a bequest of his 
taluka in favour of his wife and after her death in my favour and 
118 
1953 
Jan. 23, 
914 
SUPREME CO~RT REPORTS 
[19.53] 
1003 
that of my sons ...... therefore by way of consicJ.eration for this 
concession and favour, I, tho executant, out of my O\Vn free will 
ThnkurahJ. Raj do hereby execute this agreement in favour of my cousin aforesaid 
Eani 
that in the month in which the said cousin may execute the said 
and Of/""' 
will in my favour.and that ol my sons and lays the same along 
v. 
with an application before the Deputy Commissioner, Sitapnr 
'fhnl,:ur Dwarka district, for sanction of the Members of the Board of Revenue, I 
Nath Singh 
shall from the 1st date of the month following that month con-
and Othera. 
tinne to pay the said cousin the sum of Rs. 50 in cash every 
month during his life so long as the said will remains in force ...... 
If I fail to perform the said contract the said cousin has power to 
have the same performed by me th1·ougb the Court." This agree· 
ment was registered on the 11th January. On the 18th January, 
S submitted a draft will for sanction and the will as amended and 
sanctioned was executed on the 28th .July, 1904. 
'rhis will pro-
vided as follows: "after my death my wife for her lifetime shall 
l'emain in possession of my entire estate ...... without the po,ver of 
any sort to transfer the said properties and rights, that on the 
death of the said wife all the aforesaid property and rights shall 
devolve on my cousin G with a,11 proprietary powers ancl that on 
the death of G, the said entire property and rights shall deYolve on 
X, Y, Z, sons of G, in the following shares .... " 
The will also 
provided for maintenance for the daughter, sister, aunt and mother 
of S. 
On tho application of G's sons (G having died) letters of 
administration with the will annexed were granted to them by 
the Chief Court of Oudh and this decision was affirmed by the 
Privy Conncil on appeal in 1937. 
'rhe heirs of S thereupon insti-
tuted a suit against the sons of G for a declaration that the will 
was inoperative and ineffectual and that G's sons had in any case 
no right to the properties of S, as S had no animns testandi and G 
had also failed to pay Rs. 50 to S as agreed: 
Held, (i) that the deed of agreement and the will formed parts 
of one transaction and formed one contract, consideration for the 
will being the agl'eement, and consideration for the agreement be-
ing the will; 
(ii) as the Privy Council had decided that the will was the 
last will and testament of 

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