USHA SUBBARAO versus B.E. VISHVESWARIAH AND ORS.

USHA SUBBARAO versus B.E. VISHVESWARIAH AND ORS.

On proper construction of the Will, the legacy vested in the sons of the testator at the time of his death as a vested interest, not contingent on the mother's death. The appellant, as wife of a predeceased son, is entitled to claim her late husband's one-fifth share in properties mentioned in Schedules 'A', 'B', 'D', and 'C'.

Parties
Appellant: Usha Subbarao; Respondents: B.E. Vishveswariah and Others
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
08 July 1996
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Karnataka High Court Decision Dated 15.4.94 in R.fa. No. 593 of 1985
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Vesting of Legacies, Construction of Wills, Distinction Between Vested and Contingent Interests
Succession Property Law Vesting of Legacies Construction of Wills Distinction Between Vested and Contingent Interests

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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Usha Subbarao

Appellant

B.E. Vishveswariah and Others

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Karnataka High Court Decision Dated 15.4.94 in R.fa. No. 593 of 1985

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Date of vesting of legacy under the Will
  2. 2 Distinction between vested and contingent interest
  3. 3 Construction of expressions 'my surviving children' and 'her surviving children' in the Will

Ratio Decidendi

On proper construction of the Will, the legacy vested in the sons of the testator at the time of his death as a vested interest, not contingent on the mother's death. The appellant, as wife of a predeceased son, is entitled to claim her late husband's one-fifth share in properties mentioned in Schedules 'A', 'B', 'D', and 'C'.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • The impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside to the extent it denies the appellant one-fifth share in the properties mentioned in Schedules 'A', 'B', and 'D'.
  • Appellant is entitled to one-fifth share in the properties mentioned in Schedules 'A', 'B', 'D', and 'C'.