FATEH CHAND Vs. PANDIT RUP CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these consolidated appeals it has been admitted in the argument submitted to the Board by the counsel for the appellant that substantially only one question falls now to be determined. That question has reference to the construction of a will dated the 18th September, 1901, of one Musammat Gomti Kunwar. In that document there is a description of the title of the testatrix given in the following words : " I am the sole owner in possession of his " [her husband s] " entire estate and possess all the proprietary powers." Their Lordships note that throughout this will the term thus translated " sole owner in possession " or " owner in possession " is " malik-o-qabiz."

(2.) Having thus described the property she proceeds to bequeath " the entire estate of my husband to Fateh Chand. There is, however, appended to this bequest of the entire estate the subjection of the whole of the estate " to the following conditions," and a covenant in writing by herself that she would abide by those conditions. One of those conditions is in the following terms :-(4.) " I have bequeathed Mauza Khudda, with all the property to Musaramat Gomti, the daughter of my priest (purohit) whose marriage was celebrated by my father-in-law, and whom I have brought up as my own daughter. After my death, she shall be the owner in possession of the entire property in Mauza Khudda aforesaid."

(3.) Their Lordships hold that there can be but little doubt that under the first sentence of condition 4 there would have been a competent bequest of Khudda, the village, with the totality of rights falling under the designation "jumla-i-hakiat."