PRINCE SULEMAN KADR Vs. DARAB ALI KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is one of many actions brought by servants and retainers of one of the widows of the late King of Oudh, asserting their right to certain legacies under her will. The Defendant is her only son, and the principal devisee under that will. This may be considered a test action, inasmuch as it is understood that upon its decision the other actions pending, to the number of ten, will depend.

(2.) IN order to make the case intelligible, a short statement of the facts is necessary. It appears that the late King of Oudh desired to have a Government guarantee for the payment of annuities to many persons, and for that purpose he deposited a large sum of money with the Government, obtaining from the Government promissory notes in favour of these persons. It becomes, however, necessary in this case only to refer to the principal of those persons, namely, his Queen. He obtained from the Government a promissory note for four lacs and Rs. 80,000 for the purpose of securing her an annuity of Rs. 2000 a month. Subsequently, upon the rate of interest being lowered from 5 per cent to 4 per cent., he deposited the further sum of a lac of rupees, and received a note corresponding in value. He died, and subsequently, the Queen died, having made a will on the 24th of August, 1866, which is in these terms : " Whereas the life of mankind is altogether uncertain,"--and so on,--"after my death my son, Mirza Suleman Kadr Sahah Alam Bahadur, will be my sole heir and proprietor of all my assets, including movable and immovable property, groves, company's promissory notes, &c, without there being a participator thereof, and all my relations and Government officers are to recognise him as my son and heir after my death. No one but Sahah Aham Bahadur has any right to be my heir after my death." Then comes the important bequest--now in question : " I desire Mirza Suleman Kadr Sahah Alam Bahadur, under this will, to pay every month Rs. 644. 1a. 7p. (being one-third of Rs. 1933. 5a. 4p., my monthly pay allowed by Government for Government promissory notes which are deposited) to my dependents and personal servants as detailed below; and they will give their receipts for the same. It will also be the duty of Mirza Suleman Kadr Sahah Alam Bahadur to defray the expenses of the imambara, of mourning assemblies, of illumination of imambara during the Moharram, and of monthly assemblies. Sahah Alam Bahadur and all Government officers are to hold this my last will to be of sufficient force for ever, and to carry out its provisions without any alterations. They will not, in the least, contravene the provisions of this will. Sahah Alam Bahadur will treat all the dependents and servants with such kindness and affability as will secure him fame and good name, and give satisfaction to the soul of his deceased father, King Amjad Ali Sahah. I have, therefore, executed this will,"--and so on. " Be it known that the expenses of imambara, & c., will be continued for ever, and also the pay of Gumani Khanam and Mir Amjad will be defrayed for ever, i.e., generation after generation. The rest of the servants will be paid for life only." At the end of the will there is a detail of expenses, and first we have: " Expenses of inambara, assemblies, Koran readers, &c, to be continued for ever under the management of Dorab Ali Khan, Rs. 214. 7a. 1p." Then there is: " Gumani Khanam Sahaba, my sister, to be paid " Rs. 20 per month; then comes the present Plaintiff, who was. the principal eunuch, Mahomed Darab Ali Khan, Rs. 100, and then come the rest of the servants.

(3.) THIS appeal has been preferred by her son Mirza. The main grounds which have been contended for are, first, that there is no absolute bequest, but a mere expression of a wish that Mirza shall pay the legacies; secondly, that, if there is a specific bequest of the legacies, it is a bequest of legacies to be paid out of a certain specified fund, and no other, viz., Rs. 1933, which was the actual amount which the lady received from her Government promissory notes; that the lady had only a life interest in that fund, and therefore could not exercise any testamentary power over it. It was contended further that the legacies were only to be paid during the continuance of the services of the servants, but that point has been abandoned.