PAWAN GOEL Vs. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant Smt. Rajrani Sehgal is one of the daughters of deceased Shri Godar Mal, respondent No. I, Dr. Parshottam Lal, being the son. The said Shri Godar Mal died on 14th February, 1980 and shortly thereafter a petition for grant of probate/letter of administration under the provisions of Section 276/278 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (for short 'the Act') was filed by respondent No. I on the basis of a will, dated 9th September, 1974 alleged to have been executed by his late father, bequeathing all his moveable and immoveable properties to him. All the daughters of the deceased including the present appellant were impleaded as respondents; two of whom, namely appellant Smt. Rajrani and Smt. Shakuntla, respondent No. 5 in the petition filed objections to the grant of probate/letter of administration in favour Dr. Parshottam Lal. The other two daughters Smt. Shanti Devi and Savitri Devi and legal heirs of a pre-deceased daughter named Smt. Bimla Devi did not, however, file any objections. The petition was allowed after rejection of all the objections by order dated 3rd March, 1986, and it is this order which is subject matter of the present appeal.

(2.) The appellant contends that the will suffered from a legal infirmity inasmuch as it offended the rule against perpetuity as contemplated by Section 114 of the Act. The objection is elaborated by reference to the terms of the will, (Ex. P. 1) whereby as per appellant's contentions, the testator bad created perpetuity in his family and had tended to limit the absolute enjoyment of the estate for an indefinite period because the impugned will imposed restrictions on the legatee, namely, his son against alienation, sale or transfer and thereafter on son's sons, son's sons and so on. It is contended that this is tantamount to creation of successive life estates, which was prohibited by law, and was not permissible under the Hindu Law of Inheritance and thus the entire bequest by this will was void and inoperative, and the learned District Judge erred in holding the objections in this respect to be not tenable, and that it was a case where bequest in favour of the son was absolute, certain restrictions imposed, which being repugnant to the main purpose of the will, were liable to be ignored.

(3.) The appellant has also reiterated other objections taken in her objections filed in the probate proceedings, namely, as to the execution of the will having not been proved and the will propounded by respondent No. I not being a genuine will of the deceased father and not in any case the last one, and that there was certain suspicious circumstances surrounding the will, which had not been explained by the propounder, and for that reason also, the order of grant of letter of administration was liable to be set aside.