S.NAINAR SUNDARAM - (1.) In this Letters Patent Appeal the controversy stems out of the Will of one Motilal Ranchhoddas dated 3-10-1908, and registered on 10-10-1908. The parties clamour and counterclamour for rights under the terms of the Will, putting respective constructions of their own on the said terms. A question of limitation and a question of proof of the Will have also arisen on the pleadings put forth in the case.
(2.) The facts preceding the litigation and in the litigation run as follows. One Motilal Ranchhoddas, hereinafter referred to as the Testator, who died in the year 1912, left behind him his widow Bai Parson, two sons - Narayanlal and Vasantlal; and two daughters - Parvati and Kamla. The Testator owned properties movable and immovable. As per the terms of the Will the properties were distributed amongst the heirs of the Testator, when Vasantlal attained the age of 21 years. Narayanlal died leaving behind two sons - Vadilal and Thakorelal. Bai Parson, widow of the Testator died in 1942. Vasantlal died issueless in 1967-68 leaving behind him his widow Bai Rukshmani as his only heir. Vadilal and Thakorelal, hereinafter referred to as the plaintiffs, coming to know that Bai Rukshmani, hereinafter referred to as the defendant, was about to deal with the properties of Vasantlal claiming to be the absolute owner thereof and was about to dispose of the suit house, filed Civil Suit No. 1081 of 1976 on the file of the City Civil Court, Ahmedabad for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from selling or alienating the suit house and from handing over possession thereof to a third party.
(3.) The case of the plaintiffs is that Vasantlal, the deceased husband of the defendant had inherited the suit house under the Will of the Testator and one of the conditions of the bequest thereunder was that if any one of the two sons of the Testator died issueless, then the surviving son and his children should become the owners of the properties of the predeceased son; and as Vasantlal died issueless, the plaintiffs being the sons of the other son Narayanlal became the owners of the suit house and therefore, the defendant has no right to sell or alienate the suit house.;