Case Note & Summary
The dispute concerned the interpretation of a will executed by one Appanna on 14 July 1948. Appanna died on 12 March 1953 without a wife or lineal descendant, leaving properties described in Schedules A to E. The plaintiff, claiming to be a father's sister's son and thus a nearest heir, filed a suit for partition and separate possession of his half share, alleging that Appanna died intestate. The defendants, including the husband of the sister of Appanna's predeceased wife Mangamma and his sons, set up the will and contended that the estate was disposed of as per its terms. The trial court found the will genuine but held that the bequests of Schedules C and E properties lapsed because Mangamma, the legatee under the will, had predeceased the testator, and thus the properties fell into intestacy. The High Court reversed that finding: Chandrasekhar Sastry J. held that the bequest for a Ramamandiram survived and that the remainder in Schedule E accelerated. A Letters Patent appeal was dismissed. In the Supreme Court, the primary legal issues were (i) how to treat the bequest of Schedule C properties directed to be sold and the proceeds used for celebrating the marriage of Seetharatnam and constructing a Ramamandiram, when the marriage had already been performed by Appanna himself, and Mangamma died before Appanna; and (ii) whether the gift of Schedule E properties to Mangamma with absolute powers and thereafter to Venkataswamy and Seshagirirao lapsed or accelerated. The Court held that there was no joint tenancy; in the absence of allocation, the fund was to be applied in equal moieties. Since the marriage purpose had failed, half the proceeds fell into the residue. Under the will, Mangamma was the residuary legatee, but because she predeceased Appanna, that half of the residue vested in the nearest heirs as on intestacy. The other half earmarked for the temple constituted a valid charitable trust and did not fail for want of an executor; the trial court was directed to give effect to it. Regarding Schedule E, the Court invoked Section 105 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, explaining that it does not require an express provision to exclude lapse; an intention to prevent lapse can be inferred. Here, the gift to the remaindermen was held to have accelerated upon Mangamma's death during the testator's lifetime, so the plaintiffs were not entitled to any share in Schedule E properties. The appeal was thus partly allowed: the plaintiffs obtained a share in half of the Schedule C proceeds, but not in Schedule E.
Headnote
A) Succession - Bequest for Two Purposes - Presumption of Equal Allocation - Indian Succession Act, 1925, Section 105 - In the absence of allocation of the amount between two purposes of a bequest, it is presumed that the fund is to be utilised in equal moieties; failure of one purpose results in a moiety falling into the residue. In this case, the legacy for marriage failed as the marriage was celebrated by the testator during his lifetime; the moiety for that purpose lapsed and vested in the residuary legatee, but because the residuary legatee predeceased the testator, it passed by intestacy to the nearest heirs. B) Succession - Charitable Trust - Survival on Death of Legatee - Indian Succession Act, 1925 - A bequest for a charitable purpose, such as constructing a temple, does not fail merely because the legatee appointed to carry it out dies before the testator; the trust subsists and the court must give directions to give effect to it. Here, the moiety for building a Ramamandiram was held valid and the trust had to be carried out. C) Succession - Acceleration of Remainder - Life Estate Lapse - Indian Succession Act, 1925, Section 105 - Where a testator grants an absolute interest to a legatee for life with a gift over to another, and the life legatee predeceases the testator, the gift over is accelerated unless a contrary intention appears. Section 105 does not require an express provision for lapse; intention to exclude lapse may be inferred from the will. In this case, the estate in E Schedule properties accelerated to the named remainder-men, and the nearest heirs of the testator were not entitled to any share.
Issue of Consideration
Whether the bequest of Schedule C properties for marriage and temple construction lapsed when the sole legatee predeceased the testator and one purpose was already fulfilled; whether the bequest of Schedule E properties to the wife for life with remainder to others lapsed or accelerated when the wife predeceased the testator.
Final Decision
Appeal partly allowed. With respect to Schedule C, the fund was to be applied in equal moieties: one moiety for the temple stands as a valid charitable trust; the other moiety, meant for the marriage, fell into the residue and, because the residuary legatee predeceased the testator, passed to the plaintiffs as on intestacy. As to Schedule E, the remainder in favour of Venkataswamy and Seshagirirao accelerated upon Mangamma's death during the testator's lifetime, so the plaintiffs were not entitled to any share therein. The trial court was directed to give effect to the charitable trust for constructing a Ramamandiram.
Law Points
- Legal points not extracted
- Bequest for two purposes without allocation presumed to be in equal moieties
- failure of one purpose results in moiety falling into residue
- Section 105 of Indian Succession Act does not require express provision for excluding lapse
- acceleration of remainder upon life legatee's death during testator's lifetime
- charitable trust survives death of legatee
