BALABHAI RAGHUNATH AGASKAR Vs. MOTABHAI BABAJI RANE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The questions in this appeal arise upon the proper construction of a deed of trust executed on May 1, 1889, by a Hindu gentleman, Janardan Wassoodev. The table set out at p. 53 of the paper-book shows the relationship of the persons interested in these questions. The settlor's descendants who were in existence at the date of the said deed were : his son Raghunath; his two daughters Krishnabai and Pootlabai; five sons of Raghunath; six sons of Krishuabai; Anandrao son of his predeceased daughter; and Sonabai, the daughter of Pootlabai.

(2.) The settlor died in the year 1894. Krishnabai died in 1897, all her six sons surviving her; but three of them died between 1912 and 1919. Pootlabai died in February 1898 leaving Sonabai who is a party to these proceedings. Anaudrao died in August 1898 leaving a son Venkat. On Venkat's death in 1921, it was held in certain proceedings, to which it is unnecessary to refer in detail, that as he was not in existence at the data of the said trust deed, there was a resulting trust in favour of the settlor's heirs as regards the one-fourth share allotted to Anandrao's branch.

(3.) The Originating Summons which has given rise to this appeal was taken out by the two plaintiffs who are members of Raghunath's branch; they are supported by other members of the same branch Their contention as set out in paragraph 10 of the plaint is that the gift of the one-fourth share of the rents and income of the mile heirs of Krishnabai is invalid in law and on the death of the said Kriahnabai there was a resulting trust in respect of the said one-fourth share and the name reverts to the heirs of the settlor, and the plaintiffs with the other heirs have in the events that have happened become entitled to the same in their own right Similarly the gift of the said one- fourth share of the rents and income to the male heirs of Raghunath is also invalid and on the death of the said Raghunath the plaintiffs with the other heirs of the settlor have become entitled thereto in their own right. The plaintiffs and the either heirs have thus become entitled to three-fourth shares of the said rents and income in their own right.