KAIKHUSHRU JEHANGIR Vs. BAI BACHUBAI JEHANGIR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an originating summons taken out for the purpose of determining the effect of the revocation of a codicil by the testatrix on 27 -3 -1947. The testatrix made and published her first will on 22 -3 -1934. Thereafter on 1 -5 -1939, she made and published her second will (hereinafter referred to as "the second will") wherein she stated at the outset that she thereby revoked all wills, codicils and other testamentary dispositions theretofore made by her and declared that to be her last will and testament. On 4 -1 -1944, she made and published a first codicil to the second will and she made and published her second codicil to the second will on 28 -2 -1946, (hereinafter referred to as "the second codicil"). On 6 -5 -1946, she made and published her third will and on the very same day she cancelled by an endorsement written at the foot of the various documents, the first will, the first codicil to the second will and the second codicil. In the third will which she made and published on 6 -5 -1946, she again stated at the outset that she thereby revoked all wills, codicils and other testamentary dispositions made by her and declared that to be her last will and testament. The effect of this third will therefore was to revoke all the earlier wills and codicils which she had made and published theretofore and the third will was the only testamentary disposition which survived on 6 -5 -1946. Even though no endorsement of cancellation was made on the second will as in the case of the first will and the first and the second codicils to the second will, the effect of the provision hereinbefore mentioned in the beginning of the third will was that the second will also was revoked and the third will remained the only testamentary disposition on 6 - 5 -1946.

(2.) ON 31 -1 -1947, the testatrix made and published a document which she described as the third codicil to her "will dated 1 -5 -1939". She declared that document to be the third codicil to the second will. She revoked the bequest made by clause (3) of the second will to Bachubai and in all other respects she thereby confirmed her said will and the second codicil thereto. All the parties appearing before me are agreed that the effect of this third codicil to the second will (hereinafter referred to as "the third codicil") made and published on 31 -1 -1947, was that the second will and the second codicil thereto were revived and republished with the modification thereby effected, viz. the revocation of the bequest made by clause (3) of the second will to Bachubai.

(3.) AS I have stated before the question that I have to determine is what is the effect of the revocation of the third codicil by the endorsement as it was made at the foot thereof on 27 -3 -1947. There is no doubt that by the execution of the third codicil the second will and the second codicil thereto were revived and republished. The dispute, however, between the parties is what is exactly the effect of this revival or republication of the second will and the second codicil thereto.