Login : Advocate | Client
Home Post Your Case My Account Law College Law Library

Report No. 110

22.4. Illustration.-

There are two illustrations to the section. According to the first illustration, A bequeaths the residue of his property to be divided equally amongst his daughters, and directs that the shares of the daughters shall be settled upon themselves respectively for life, and be paid to their children after their death. All the daughters die unmarried. The representatives of each daughter are entitled to the share of the residue.

According to the second illustration, A directs his trustees to raise a sum of money for his daughter and he then directs that they (the trustees) shall invest the fund and pay the income arising from it to her during her life and divide the principal amongst her children after her death. The daughter dies without having ever had a child. Her representatives are entitled to this fund.

At the first sight, it may be difficult to link up the illustration with the main section, but it appears that in the main section the words "so as to secure a specified benefit for the legatee" are taken as including a benefit for the children of the legatee. In the illustrations, the benefit "cannot be obtained for the legatee", because there were no children. The result is that the fund belongs to the legatee (daughter or daughters), as if the will had contained no reason why their representatives take the entire interest.

22.5. Scope of section 139.-

The section would not apply where there is no intention to confer an absolute estate on the daughters.1

1. Soundarrajan v. Natarajan, 1921 ILR 48 Mad 906 (PC) overruling ILR Mad 446.

The Indian Succession Act, 1925 Back

Client Area | Advocate Area | Blogs | About Us | User Agreement | Privacy Policy | Advertise | Media Coverage | Contact Us | Site Map
powered and driven by neosys