JAMNADAS GORDHANDAS Vs. DAMODARDAS CHUNILAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) One Jamnadas Lalbhai, who is the testator in this case, died leaving a will dated March 23, 1908, by the terms of which he appointed one Ratanlal and Jamnadas as his executors. Jamnadas is the plaintiff in this suit. The deceased also left a minor daughter Buchibai and with regard to her the direction in his will was that, "she alone is the only person truly entitled to my property", and later on, "on Ben Buchi attaining proper age, my executors shall make over the whole of my property to her." Further on, "my executors shall have full (entire) authority to make, consistently with my reputation, proper outlays in connection with my death and on the occasion of the marriage of Ben Buchi," and at the end of his will is the following clause.; "Should the death of Ben Buchi take place which may Narayan (God) forbid before (her) marriage or should she die without issue after her marriage then my executors shall use the whole of my property for (some) proper charitable purposes." The will further directed that "Bhai Ratanlal shall keep (in his) possession ray entire property."

(2.) On February 1, 1908, probate of the will was granted to both the executors. In 1913 Buchibai married. According to the plaintiff she was then but twelve years old and in 1916 a child was born to her, who at the date of this suit is still a minor. The plaintiff says that in 1919 Buchibai attained majority. She died in 1920, and, on January 27, 1925, the executor Ratanlal died. On April 3, 1925, letters of administration to the estate of Ratanlal were granted to the defendant. From May 20 to 25 certain correspondence ensued between the plaintiff's and the defendant's attorneys. The plaintiff's suit is against the defendant praying for a declaration that certain property mentioned in list (B) belonged to the deceased testator and is in the defendant's possession, that the defendant may be ordered to hand it or the value over to the plaintiff, for an account from the defendant of the properties taken possession of by him; and in the alternative that as the heir and legal representative of Ratanlal, the defendant may be ordered to render an account of the testator's property. The prayers of the plaint further pray for a first charge on the property in the hands of the defendant to the extent of Rs. 7,000 for an inventory, a receiver and an injunction pending the suit.

(3.) The management of the property appears, in accordance with the will of the testator, to have remained with the deceased executor Ratanlal. There was, the plaintiff alleges, a sum of Rs. 1,500 deposited by Ratanlal with his firm, which the plaintiff says was the residue after the funeral expenses had been paid for. He further says that the property of the deceased has not been exhausted in paying for the funeral expenses and marriage ceremony and that there is a residue of the property which has come to the hands of the defendant.