PEAREY LAL versus RAMESHWAR DAS

PEAREY LAL versus RAMESHWAR DAS

Under the will of 1897, Mst. Kishen Dei received an absolute interest in the property; the gift over to the adopted son was by way of defeasance only, which failed on his predeceasing the testator; thus, on proper construction, the widow acquired absolute ownership. The subsequent will set up by the appellant was not proved or considered below and could not be raised for the first time before the Supreme Court.

Parties
Appellant: Pearey Lal; Respondent: Rameshwar Das
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
10 December 1962
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From Judgment and Order Dated August 31, 1951, of the Punjab High Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 64 of 1949
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Construction of Will, Widow's Estate, Absolute Ownership, Defeasance Clause
Succession Law Hindu Law Construction of Will Widow's Estate Absolute Ownership Defeasance Clause

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pearey Lal

Appellant

Rameshwar Das

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal by Special Leave From Judgment and Order Dated August 31, 1951, of the Punjab High Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 64 of 1949

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether under the will executed by Girdhari Lal in 1897, Mst. Kishen Dei obtained an absolute interest in the property or only a limited estate
  2. 2 Whether the High Court erred in not considering the truth and validity of a subsequent will alleged to have been executed by Girdhari Lal

Ratio Decidendi

Under the will of 1897, Mst. Kishen Dei received an absolute interest in the property; the gift over to the adopted son was by way of defeasance only, which failed on his predeceasing the testator; thus, on proper construction, the widow acquired absolute ownership. The subsequent will set up by the appellant was not proved or considered below and could not be raised for the first time before the Supreme Court.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appellant will pay the court fee on the memo of appeal.