Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Such is not the case here.

121. Mr. Jethmalani has relied upon a decision in Walker and Another v. Gaskill and Others [1914] P. 192. Therein, Wills were made between the wife and husband in October, 1907. A Codicil and subsequent Will were made in breach of a definite arrangement. Plaintiffs thereof were appointed as executors under the Will of 22nd January, 1913. The husband died on 20th October, 1911 Terming the two Wills of 1907 as mutual Wills, a contention was raised that the stipulations made therein remained irrevocable despite the death of the husband. It was held "the function of this Court as a Court of Probate is to ascertain and pronounce that is the last Will, or what are the testamentary documents constituting the last Will, of a testator, which is or are entitled to be admitted to probate".

122. The contention that such a Will was irrevocable was held to be lacking any foundation. The court refused to go into the question as to whether the court having the jurisdiction to decide both the contentions independently should go thereinto by holding that it being a court of probate and not a court of construction, it could only construe testamentary documents to the extent of determining those testamentary documents that should be admitted for probate.

123. What could be done and has not been done by a court of equity does not create a precedent. It does not even have a persuasive value. In this country, we are bound to follow the law laid down under the statute or the decision which create binding precedents. An observation made by a Court of Probate would not persuade us to hold that the High Court should have taken recourse to "advance from the region of testamentary disposition into that of contracts and trusts and to declare certain trusts upon the footing of contract" which could be done by the Chancery Division.