Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

8. The finding of the Subordinate Judge in the administration suit, so far as they are relevant, to the appeals were (i) the testator had died intestate except with regard to the legacies; (ii) the residue of the estate devolved upon his heirs according to his personal law; (iii) the testator had no power to give, directions with regard to the management of the trust properties, which also devolved upon his heirs; (iv) the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act, 1937, was intra vires the Legislature; (v) by reason of that Act the plaintiff was an heir and was entitled to a half of the residue of the personal estate of the deceased; (vi) the testator's widows were entitled to the other half in equal shares; (vii) the Hindu Women's Rights to Property Act, 1937, did not make the plaintiff an heir so far as the trust properties were concerned; (viii) the testator's widows alone could claim the right to possession and management of the trust properties; (ix) the estate was of such magnitude that it would be dangerous to entrust the assets to the plaintiff and defendants l and 2 without safeguards and it was desirable that the properties should be left in charge of an officer or officers of the Court until safeguards had been furnished; and (x) the receivers already appointed should continue to act pending the passing of the final decree.

10. It is quite clear that the testator died intestate with regard to the bulk of his estate. In fact the appeals have proceeded on that basis. At present the Court is not in a position to decide on whom devolve the immovable properties left by the deceased outside British India because succession here will, it is agreed, be determined by the lex loci rei sita and there has been no inquiry into the law of succession in the various foreign countries. In these circumstances the parties desire that the trial Court shall, in the course of the administration of the estate, investigate this matter and in the final decree direct on whom the foreign immovables are to devolve. It has also been agreed that the plaintiff's claim to the moneys described by her as stridhanam shall be investigated by the trial Court in the course of the administration and likewise dealt with in the final decree. Further, it has been accepted that the Subordinate Judge erred in directing the estate to remain in the hands of an officer or officers of the Court until the heirs have provided safeguards against waste. The heirs of the testator are entitled to a division of his personal estate without furnishing such safeguards. A female heir only takes a limited interest, but she is entitled as of right to be placed in possession of her share. Should it transpire that she is dissipating moneys which have come to her and is thereby defeating the reversioner he can ask the Court to insist on security being furnished, but such a position could only arise after partition. An unlawful alienation of immovable property does not affect the reversioner's rights. He is entitled to gain possession of it when the estate falls in. The same principles apply to the trust properties. Either the heirs or the executors are entitled to be placed in possession of them as soon as it is conveniently possible. Therefore the directions given by the Subordinate Judge in this connexion must be set aside.

When a Hindu governed by the Dayabagh School of Hindu Law dies intestate his property, and when a Hindu governed by any other school of Hindu law or by customary law dies intestate leaving separate property that separate property shall, subject to the provisions of Sub-section (3) devolve upon Ms widow along with his lineal descendants, if any, in like manner as it devolves upon a son;

Provided that the widow of a predeceased son shall inherit in like manner as a son if there is no son surviving of such predeceased son, and shall inherit in like manner as a son's son if there is surviving a son or son's son of such predeceased son; Provided further that the same provision shall apply mutatis mutandis to the widow of a predeceased son of a predeceased son.

Exhibit 5 is a deed of a similar nature and contains the same provision.

18. As in England the law in this country is that where a trustee is the sole or surviving trustee the estate descends to his personal representative unless the deed of foundation otherwise provides. Therefore all the trusts of which the testator was the trustee devolved upon his personal representatives. The executors say that they are his personal representatives by reason of S, 211, Indian Succession Act, 1925, and this is true, but this does not mean that they are entitled in law to retain possession of the trust properties. These properties devolve on the testator's heirs, who are here his widows and the duty of the executors, had receivers not been appointed, would have been to deliver them to the widows. The testator had no power to direct that the executors should remain in possession until such time as his directions with regard to adoption were fulfilled. In Varada Narayana Iyengar v. Vengu Ammal See(38) 47 M.L.W. 217 this Court held that a widow could not be compelled to follow her husband's wishes in the matter of adopting a son, however strong the directions of her husband might have been and the could not be deprived of her widow's interest in his property because she might at some ... later stage decide to follow his directions. In this case there has been no adoption and for the time being the testator's directions in that respect must be ignored, even if they are all valid as to which we express no opinion.