Indian Succession Act (Sec 138-140)

Gayathri bequeaths a sum of money towards purchasing a country residence for Aparna, or to purchase an annuity for Aparna, or to place her in any business. Aparna choses to receive the legacy in money. Is she entitled to do so.

• She is entitled to do so.

• She is not entitled to do so

• She is entitled to do so only if there weren't conditions mentioned by Gayathri.

• She is not entitled to do so since it is a conditional bequest.

Answer explanation

According to Sec 138, Where a fund is bequeathed absolutely to or for the benefit of any person, but the will contains a direction that it shall be applied or enjoyed in a particular manner, the legatee shall be entitled to receive the fund as if the will had contained no such direction.

Amrithnath directs his trustees to raise a sum of money for his daughter, and he then directs that they shall invest the fund and pay the income arising from it to her during her life, and divide the principal among her children after her death. The daughter dies without having ever had a child. What happens to the funds?

• The funds are equally shared between Amrithnath and his trustees.

• The representatives are entitled to the funds.

• The trustees are now entitled to the funds

• The funds go back to Amrithnath.

Answer explanation

According to Sec 139, Where a testator absolutely bequeaths a fund, so as to sever it from his own estate, but directs that the mode of enjoyment of it by the legatee shall be restricted so as to secure a specified benefit for the legatee; if that benefit cannot be obtained for the legatee, the fund belongs to him as if the will had contained no such direction.

Lakshmi (testator) bequeaths a part of her estate, to be divided equally among her sons, with a direction that they are to have the interest only during their lives, and that at their decease the fund shall go to their children. The sons have no children. What happens to the funds?

• The sons of the testator are entitled to the funds.

• The funds are equally divided between the testator and the sons of the testator.

• The fund belongs to the estate of the testator.

• The funds go back to the testator (Lakshmi).

Answer explanation

According to Sec 140, Where a testator does not absolutely bequeath a fund, so as to sever it from his own estate, but gives it for certain purposes, and part of those purposes cannot be fulfilled, the fund, or so much of it as has not been exhausted upon the objects contemplated by the will, remains a part of the estate of the testator

Which of the following cases deal with Sec 138 of the Indian Succession Act?

• Suresh Chand Mathur vs Harish Chand Mathur

  (9 November, 2010)

• Narikalathil Lekshmi vs Palakeel Suneethi

  (28 March, 2008)

• Dr. Rai Chandi Nath Sahay vs Animesh Ranjan & Ors (24 July, 2018)

• Both A & C

Answer explanation

The first case dealt with the issue of conditional bequest and how it is different from bequest under Sec 138 and the second case deals with restraining alienation of the property that prohibits imposition of any restriction in respect of enjoyment of the property, if absolute interest is created in the aforesaid property.

What is the major difference between Sec 139 and Sec 140?

• Under Section 139 the bequest is conditional and severed while under Sec 140 it is absolute and severed.

• Under Section 139 the bequest is absolute and is not severed while under Sec 140 it is conditional and not severed.

• Under Section 139 the bequest is absolute and severed while under Sec 140 it is not absolute and not severed.

• Under Sec 130 the bequest is abolsute and severed while under Sec 140 it is absolute and not severed.

---------------------is a trust established with language that expresses a future intent or a wish that the property will be applied for the benefit of a person or for a particular purpose.

• Precatory Trust

• Testamentary Trust

• Private Trust

• Conditional Trust

Answer explanation

This type of trust is what is envisaged under Sec 140 of the Act.

Where a property has been given aboslutely to the donee, he/she cannot be restrained from dealing with the property either by way of enjoyment or alienation in any way inconsistent with the incidents of the estate. This is the doctrine of -

• Doctrine of Defeasance

• Doctrine of Election

• Doctrine of Priority

• Doctrine of Repugnance

Answer explanation

This doctrine is reflected under Sec 138 of the Act.

Section 138 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 corresponds to which Section of the Transfer of Property Act 1882?

• Sec 14

• Sec 10

• Sec 15

• Sec 11

The rule in the case of "Govindaraja v. Mangalam Pillai AIR 1993" dealt with-

• Conditions in restraint of alienation.

• The difference between repugnant clause and defeasance clause.

• Exceptions to the doctrine of repugnance.

• Exceptions to Sec 138 of the Indian Succession Act 1925,

Answer explanation

Repugnant clause is that where the intention of the donor is to maintain the absolute estate conferred on the donee, but he simply adds some restrictions in derogation of the incidents of such absolute ownership.

Defeasance clause is where the grant of an absolute estate is expressly or impliedly made subject to defeasance on the happening of a contingency

The principle embodied in Sec 139 is a reflection of the rule in which of the follwing cases:

• Hancock v. Watson

• Howorth v. Kellett

• Yacob Yelhannan v. Rebacca Maria

• Lassence v. Tierney

Answer explanation

The concept that evolved in this case the "Accruer Clause". It means an express clause, frequently occurring In the case of gifts by deed or will to persons as tenants in common, providing that upon the death of one or more of the beneficiaries his or their shares shall go to the survivor or survivors.