MULCHAND JEKISONDAS Vs. BAI RUKSHMANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One Ranchhoddas died seven years back leaving a lunatic son by name Chimanlal and a widow. He left a will in which he stated after setting out his property: So long as I am living I am heir and owner of the said property, the same I may consume, enjoy, use or do what I like. Rut if by the will of God I die, on my death I appoint my wife Bai Rukhi alias Juma to be the owner of my property. Therefore after my death my wife is to take ray property into her possession with full authority, and is to perform the funeral and obsequious ceremonies with respect; to my death. And after doing the same my wife Bai Rukhi alias Juma is to consume, enjoy or do what she like with respect to what remains out of my property, and after the death of my wife, my son Chimanlal is the owner of my estate, the said Chimanlal may do what he likes with respect to my property. Therein none of my relatives, friends or other persons have a right or claim.

(2.) Chimanlal died before the widow, and the present suit has been brought by persons asserting their rights as reversioners to restrain the widow from wasting the estate. The suit has been dismissed in both the lower Courts on the ground that under the terms of the will the widow took an absolute estate.

(3.) The principles of construction to be applied to a will of this kind have been quite clearly laid down by various decisions of the Privy Council. At one time it was considered by the Indian Courts that the husband did not confer an absolute estate by his will on his wife, unless he gave express powers of disposition, that it was not sufficient for him to say that the wife was the owner of the property, he must also say that she had the power of alienation. But in Surajmani V/s. Rabi Nath Ojha (1908) L.R. 35 I.A. 17 : 10 Bom. L.R. 59 it was held that if words were used conferring absolute ownership upon the wife, the wife enjoyed the rights of ownership without their being conferred by express and additional terms, unless the circumstances or the context were sufficient to show that such absolute ownership was not intended.