NATHALAL ICHHASHANKAR Vs. BAI MANEK

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal raises a question of interpretation of a will executed by one Prabhashankar Lakshmiram on December 8, 1904. He died leaving his widow, Bai Jekor, two daughters Bai Saraswati, the plaintiff, and Parwati, and a nephew Nathalal, the defendant. The execution of the will is not disputed. In that will he stated that some property was his self acquisition and some was joint property of himself and his brother Ichhashankar, the defendant's father, but that they were separated and were living separate for many years. He then proceeded to dispose of his share in the joint property as follows : After deducting three kumbhas which I have already given away, my half share is to be enjoyed by my wife during her lifetime and after her death it (that half share) should be given to my brother's son Natha Ichhashankar if he remains obedient to my wife and attends to her affairs and renders service to her. He should properly meet the expenses of her obsequies.

(2.) BAI Jekor, the widow of the testator Prabhashankar Lakshmiram, died in December, 1938, and her daughter BAI Saraswati filed this suit to recover her father's share in the joint property on the ground that as Nathalal, the defendant, had failed to remain obedient to her mother, had failed to attend to her affairs and had not rendered service to her, the bequest in his favour had failed and that she had become entitled to it by inheritance.

(3.) MR. Shah has referred to the case of Jeffreys v. Jeffreys (1901) 84 L.T. 417. In that case a testator gave a life interest to A followed by a declaration that if A " in any way associated, corresponded or visited with any of my present wife's nephews or nieces, the life estate was to be forfeited ", and then followed a gift over and it was held that the condition was void for uncertainty. The reason why the condition was regarded as vague and uncertain is elaborately given in the judgment of Farwell J. at p. 418. The words "associate" and "visit" were regarded as too uncertain, and instances were cited to show the difficulty of deciding whether a casual meeting could or could not be regarded as associating or visiting. The decision was based mainly upon the words used and no general principle was laid down.