BAI SAVITA Vs. GIRJASHANKAR MOHANLAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE point that arises for consideration in this second appeal is about the construction of a will of one Sadashiv Laxmiram Bhatt who died on May 13, 1939, leaving a will dated April 23, 1939. He left behind him his wife Bai Shiva and his daughter Bai Savita who was married to one Tripurashankar Shiva shankar. After referring to these relatives and giving the description of his moveable and immoveable properties, he proceeded to state as follows in exhibit 27: I appoint my wife Bai Shiva waras of all this because Bai Shiva stays with me and she serves me very well and I have full faith that in future also she will serve me very well and hence by this will I make my wife Bai Shiva waras of all the properties, moveable and immoveable, after my death.

(2.) THE testator then stated that during his lifetime he was full owner of this property and thus entitled to add to or decrease it. But that after his death, all the properties, moveable and immoveable, and all the dues that were due and that might be due and what was omitted to be written in the will but may be found, Bai Shiva was to take in her own possession of her own free-will, that out of the same according to his reputation and custom, Bai Shiva and his daughter Bai Savita and his nephew Lalshankar and his son-in-law Tripurashankar were to perform the funeral obsequies and ceremonies. After the performance of these obsequies and ceremonies, "bai Shiva was to enjoy independently all the remaining property, moveable and immoveable, in a way that was according to her liking and in such way as she liked. " THE testator then went on to say: After the death of my wife Bai Shiva whatever moveable and immoveable property may be left by her the said property both moveable and immoveable is to be taken possession of by my daughter and out of that property my daughter Savita, my nephew Lalshankar and my son-in-law Tripurashankar should perform the funeral rights of my wife Bai Shiva, and whatever moveable or immoveable property was then left should be taken possession of by Savita and, if Savita was not alive, by her waras sons and they should make dispositions of it in any manner they liked.

(3.) IN Shalig Ram v. Charanjit Lal (1930) L. R. 57 I. A. 282, s. c. 32 Bom. L. R. 1578 the Privy Council again emphasised the same point when they observed at p. 289 as follows: The intention of the testator must be gathered from the terms of the will, reading it as a whole, and not much assistance is to be gathered from the numerous cases which were cited to the Board, and in which the terms of the wills under consideration differed from the terms of the will in the present appeal.