CHINUBHAI BHIKHABHAI Vs. BAI MANEKBAI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By a consent order dated March 7, 1930, this suit has been ordered to be placed on board for the trial of a preliminary issue, viz., whether the bequest of Rs. 20,001 for constructing a public building for Hindus on the testator's land at Pethapur contained in the will of the testator Mansukhlal Lallubhai dated January 16, 1922, is void,

(2.) The clause of the will, relating to this bequest, is as follows:- Rs. 20,001 (rupees twenty thousand and one) a building for Hindus exclusively for general purposes to be erected on land which is bought at Pethapur.

(3.) This bequest is disputed by defendant No. 1 who is the widow of the testator and the residuary legatee under the will. The Advocate General, on behalf of the alleged charity, has contended that the bequest is valid inasmuch as it discloses a charitable intention on the part of the testator. The amount is to be utilised by the executors for a building which is to be for the Hindu public. According to the Advocate General's contention, the purpose of the charity is sufficiently well-defined by these words. He urges that the clause should be construed as meaning that the building is to be for the benefit of the Hindu public. He relies on the rulings in Goodman V/s. Mayor of Saltash (1882) 7 App. Cas. 633, 644, In re Christchurch in closure Act (1888) 38 Ch. D. 520, 531. In re Foveaux: Cross V/s. London Antivivisection Society (1895) 2 Ch. 501, 504. Mann, In re: Hardy V/s. Attorney General (1903) 1 Ch. 232. and Monk, In re: Giffen V/s. Wedd (1927) 2 Ch. 197, that a trust for the benefit of the inhabitants of a particular place is charitable and that a trust for the benefit of a particular class of inhabitants of a particular place is likewise charitable. In Mitford V/s. Reynolds (1842) 1 Ph. 185, it was held that a bequest for the benefit of the native inhabitants of a town in India was charitable.