PARVATIBHAI Vs. RUNCHORDAS VANDRA WANDAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) KALLIANJI Sewji, a Hindu who died on January 6, 1809, made his will on the previous day in the following terms.

(2.) AFTER specifying his immovable and movable property, and giving to his wife Nenavahoo a piece of land and a house, and to his other wife Cooverbai a garden and a house, the will says: According to these particulars out of the above-mentioned estates belonging to me the above-mentioned estates four in number have been given to my wives for enjoying the rent (thereof) and for making dharam dhan (charitable or religious gifts &c.) (of the same) and whatever other estates belonging to me remain and whatever profit appertaining to my share may remain after deducting the debts &c. in my books belong wholly to me personally I have during my lifetime appointed three persons trustees over the same. (Here follow the names of the trustees.) According to these particulars I have appointed trustees. The said trustees are to act in such manner as they think proper for preserving my name so that my money might always be used for some good dharam (religious or charitable purpose) after my death (and) by which good might be done to me. No one shall have any right (or) claim whatsoever thereto. (Then there is a direction to make certain monthly payments out of the dharam fund to his brother, stepmother, and step-brother.) Further it is as follows. As to the estates which have been given by me to my wives they are to enjoy the rents of the said estates during their natural lives and on the death of my wives the said estates are to revert to my dharam (religious or charitable fund) and whatever income may be derivable from the said estates is to be expended for my dharam (religious or charitable purposes).

(3.) THE plaintiff in his plaint submitted that the bequests in the will for dharam were void and inoperative, and that the property which was the subject of them was undisposed of by the will, and prayed that the estate might be administered under the direction of the Court, and it might be declared that the bequests for dharam were void. This was disputed by the first defendant, the Advocate-General submitting himself to the order of the Court. Issues were settled, one being whether the suit is barred by limitation and another whether the bequests to dharam are void. The other issues need not be noticed. The learned judge of the High Court who tried the suit held "that the provisions constituting the dharam and directing the executors to expend the income of the estate for dharam were void, and that the suit was not barred by limitation." Vandrawandas Purshotumdas appealed, and the Appeal Court held that the devise to dharam "is too general and too indefinite for the Court to enforce and is therefore void." It also held that the suit was not barred by limitation as to the immovable properties.