Case Note & Summary
The present originating summons arose from disputes concerning the last will and testament of Mrs. Pillo M. Ghaswala, who died on 7 October 1989. The deceased left behind two daughters, Lyla Jahangir (the plaintiff) and Anita Ghaswala, and a granddaughter, Zenia Jahangir (the defendant). The will, executed on 12 April 1989, contained several clauses creating trusts for the benefit of Lyla and Zenia, with the ultimate bequests vesting in Zenia upon her attaining the age of 21 years. Probate of the will was granted by this court on 28 October 1994. One of the deceased's assets was an undivided one-third share in a property known as Gajdhar House, which was sold on 25 July 1989 for approximately Rs. 15 crores, yielding a share of Rs. 5 crores for the estate. The deceased also held a tenanted flat on the second floor of the same building. Clause 15 of the will directed the trustees to dispose of that flat and from the sale proceeds purchase two flats, one in the joint names of Lyla and Zenia and the other in the name of Anita. Instead, the executors purchased a bungalow in Pune for Rs. 75 lakhs and expended Rs. 9.44 crores on its renovation and furnishing, and invested the balance. The original executor was discharged on 8 July 1998. The plaintiff subsequently contended that the bungalow was overvalued and actually worth only Rs. 30 lakhs. Earlier, Miscellaneous Petition No. 55 of 1999 was filed and decided against the plaintiff on 22 December 1999, and an appeal from that order is pending before a division bench. Relations between the plaintiff and her daughter Zenia deteriorated, leading to Suit No. 686 of 2000 and Originating Summons No. 309 of 2003, filed when Zenia was about 18 years old. After Zenia attained majority on 29 October 2003, further disputes prompted the filing of Suit No. 738 of 2003 and Originating Summons No. 447 of 2003. Both originating summons were heard together. The court framed three questions for determination: firstly, whether the executors were legally justified in buying the bungalow instead of a flat under Clause 15; secondly, whether the bequests to the plaintiff vested absolutely or whether she was merely a limited holder until Zenia reached majority, with the properties thereafter vesting in Zenia; and thirdly, if the bequests vested in Zenia on majority, whether the income and benefits accrued during her minority should also pass to her or remain with the plaintiff. The judgment excerpt provided does not include the court's reasoning and final decision on these questions.
Issue of Consideration
Whether in view of Clause-15 of the last will and testament of Mrs. Ghaswala executors were legally justified in buying the bungalow in Pune in place and instead of flat as contemplated under the said Clause; Whether on reading of various clauses of the said last will and testament of Mrs. Ghaswala, the bequeath in favour of the Plaintiff in respect of various properties was absolutely vested in her favour and consequently further bequeath in favour of her daughter Zenia Jahangir becomes void and/or infructuous or whether a limited interest is vested in the Plaintiff to hold the assets till the daughter Zenia Jahangir attains the age of majority and thereafter the property must stand bequeath and/or vested in favour of the said daughter Zennia Jahangir; If the bequeath is vested in the defendant Zenia Jahangir on her attaining the age of majority then the interest accrued on the various investments and or benefits of the immovable properties during the period when she was a minor would accrue to her and vest in her along with all properties on her attaining majority or whether the plaintiff will be entitled to the said interest even if the properties and investments ultimately vest in daughter Zenia on her attaining the majority.
Case Details
2005 LawText (BOM) (01) 103
Originating Summons No.309 of 2003 and Originating Summons No.447 of 2003
Mr. Shailesh Shah with Mr. Vastal Shah i/b. C.N. Mehta for the plaintiffs; Mr. Dinesh Pednekar for defendant nos.2 and 3 in Suit 686 of 2000; Mr. Shyam Diwan with Mr. C.N. Kapadia with Lata Bachani i/b. I.R. Joshi and Co. for the defendants; Mr. Sanjay Jain for the Applicants in Ch.S.1143/2003.
Ms. Lyla Jehangir (nee Ghaswala)
R. Lentin & Ors. and Zenia Jehangir
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil - interpretation of will and executor's actions under High Court Original Side Rules
Remedy Sought
Plaintiff seeking determination of questions regarding validity of executors' purchase of bungalow and nature of bequeath under the will
Filing Reason
Dispute with defendant (granddaughter) over entitlement to estate properties and executors' actions after discharge of original executor
Previous Decisions
Probate granted on 28.10.1994; Original executor discharged on 8.7.1998; Miscellaneous Petition No.55 of 1999 decided against plaintiff on 22.12.1999, appeal admitted and pending
Issues
Whether in view of Clause-15 of the last will and testament of Mrs. Ghaswala executors were legally justified in buying the bungalow in Pune in place and instead of flat as contemplated under the said Clause.
Whether on reading of various clauses of the said last will and testament of Mrs. Ghaswala, the bequeath in favour of the Plaintiff in respect of various properties was absolutely vested in her favour and consequently further bequeath in favour of her daughter Zenia Jahangir becomes void and/or infructuous or whether a limited interest is vested in the Plaintiff to hold the assets till the daughter Zenia Jahangir attains the age of majority and thereafter the property must stand bequeath and/or vested in favour of the said daughter Zennia Jahangir.
If the bequeath is vested in the defendant Zenia Jahangir on her attaining the age of majority then the interest accrued on the various investments and or benefits of the immovable properties during the period when she was a minor would accrue to her and vest in her along with all properties on her attaining majority or whether the plaintiff will be entitled to the said interest even if the properties and investments ultimately vest in daughter Zenia on her attaining the majority.
Judgment Excerpts
I am called upon to determine these following questions of law. The first is whether in view of the Clause-15 of the last will and testament of Mrs. Ghaswala executors were legally justified in buying the bungalow in Pune in place and instead of flat as contemplated under the said Clause.
I have two daughters ... My elder daughter Mr. Lyla Darius Jehangir is an extravagant and irresponsible girl and is subject to fits of depression and it is for this reason that I DIRECT my Trustees by this my will under the trust created hereunder to hold all properties bequeathed and devised by me to her for the benefit of her daughter Zenia and the said property bequeathed to Lyla shall be held upon trust for the benefit of her daughter Zennia and upon Zennia completing the age of 21 years, my Trustees shall hand over all such property to Zennia absolutely.
I have a flat on the 2nd floor, of Gazdar House at 45, Warden Road, Bombay 400 026 belonging to me. I direct my Trustees to dispose of the said flat as they may in their sole discretion deem fit and out of the sale proceeds of the said flat, I direct my Trustees to purchase two flats, one to be bought in the joint names of my daughter Lyla and my grand-daughter Zenia and the other flat to be bought in the name of my daughter Anita to be held by them absolutely.
Procedural History
Deceased executed will on 12.4.1989, died 7.10.1989. Probate granted 28.10.1994. Property Gajdhar House sold, share Rs.5 crores. Executors purchased bungalow in Pune and spent on renovation. Original executor discharged 8.7.1998. Misc. Petition 55/1999 filed, order against plaintiff on 22.12.1999, appeal pending. Suit 686/2000 filed with Originating Summons 309/2003. Daughter Zenia attained majority on 29.10.2003. Second suit 738/2003 and Originating Summons 447/2003 filed. Both originating summons heard together.
Acts & Sections
- High Court Rules (Original Side): Rule 238
