PURMANUNDASS JEEVUNDASS Vs. VENAYEKRAO WASSOODEO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE suit which gives rise to this appeal is founded on the will of one Runchordass Chuttoor, who was a merchant carrying on business in the city of Bombay. By his will he devoted a lac of rupees to the establishment and maintenance of a dhurumsala in Bombay for the benefit of Sadhoos and Sauts. The Plaintiff and the present Respondent is one of the trustees named in the will, though he appears never to have acted in the trusts until he came forward to institute the present suit. His plaint is very brief. It consists substantially of a statement of the will; and a further statement that the directions of the testator were carried out by the acting executors, and that the dhurumsala was founded and endowed in compliance with those directions. Then he shews how it is that new trustees are wanted, and he prays that a new trustee or trustees be appointed under the order and direction of the Court to carry out the trusts " hereinbefore mentioned," meaning the trusts of the will. He prays no other specific relief; and the Court, in granting the relief that he prays for, have only made such declarations and given such consequential directions as are necessary for the purpose of that relief.

(2.) THE Appellant, who was Defendant in the suit below, is the son of the testator's only brother, who was dead at the date of the will; and the testator mentions the Appellant as being to him as a son. Either as heir or as the residuary devisee and legatee of his uncle the testator, he is entitled to the whole residue of the testator's property. He resisted the appointment of new trustees, and in his written statement he grounded his objection on the allegation that the will of the testator is void and inoperative under the Hindu law. He contended that no effect should be given to the provisions thereof, except to such extent and in such manner as he, the Appellant, might consent and agree that the same should be effective. The meaning of that plea is further explained in the written statement, and by the evidence and arguments in the case. In effect the Appellant contends that the property of which the testator was in possession during his lifetime was joint family property, and that under the provisions of the Mitakshara law the testator had no power of disposing of it to the dhurumsala or other charitable objects indicated by his will.

(3.) THERE has been a considerable amount of argument, both in the Courts below and at the Ear here, upon the question whether or no the testator Runchordass had such an ownership of this property as entitled him to devote a lac of rupees to the charity in question. Their Lordships are not disposed to express any opinion upon that point, because they consider that if it were held that the power of the testator was doubtful, or even that it did not exist, the case must still turn upon the effect of transactions which have taken place since his death.