1. This is an application under Section 232 of the Succession Act, for grant of letters of administration with the will annexed. One Dhansingh died on 20th October 1926 survived by his widow Mt. Chuniabai and two daughters, Chhabibai and Jugibai, and the latter's sons Jugalkishore and Nandkishore. Dhansingh had made a will on 9th September 1926 devising and bequeathing his immoveable and moveable property in favour, of his wife with directions to her to pay certain amount to certain named persons and spend some amount in charities every year. After her death the property was to devolve on his two daughters and on their death on their existing and future offspring. The terms of the will do not in any way derogate from the rule of devolution of property prescribed by the Hindu law according to which the property of a Hindu vests on his death in his widow and then in his daughters and daughters' sons. Even if the will were regarded as departing from the Hindu law it could only be said, to borrow the phraseology of English law, that the estate stood limited to the testator's widow for life with remainder to the daughters for their lives with the ultimate remainder to the daughters' sons.
2. In this application the testator's daughters and daughters' sons claim that they are residuary legatees under the will and that they are entitled to letters of administration with the will annexed for the reason that the testa, for's widow who is in possession of the estate has been guilty of waste and malversation and therefore incompetent to administer the estate.
3. The issue that has been raised in limine is whether the applicants are residuary legatees and as such are entitled to letters of administration with the will annexed, The Indian Succession Act does not contain any formal definition of the expression “residuary legatee,” but its meaning is evident from Ss. 102 and 103 of that Act. A residuary legatee is the person designated by the testator as one who will take the surplus or residue of his property; and residuary bequest implies that the legatee is entitled to all property belonging to the testator at the time of his death of which he has not made any other testamentary disposition which is capable of taking effect. So it means that whatever is not effectually disposed of goes to the residuary legatee. As pointed out in William's Law of Executors and Administrators (Vol. II, p. 1316, Edn. 9), no particular mode of expression is necessary to constitute a residuary legatee. It is sufficient if the intention of the testator be plainly expressed in the will that the surplus of his estate after payment of debts and legacies shall be taken by person there designated. It is clear that the residuary legatee becomes vested with the surplus or residue of the property left by the testator at his death, now this cannot be said of the daughters and daughters' sons in the present case. According to the terms of the will the entire property vests in the widow at the testator's death and in part of the property actually vests in the daughters and daughters' sons all though they have a vested interest in the property to the extent that in the event of the widow's death the daughters and after them the daughters' some may succeed to the property. The daughters and the daughter's sons can be said to have a vested remainder at the testator's death, but they can in no sense be regarded as residuary legatees. On behalf of the applicants reliance is placet on 31 Cal 166(1).
4. In that case the testator devised specific immoveable property to a certain named person for life only and directed his executors to sell the residue of his moveable and immoveable property and transfer it to the University of Calcutta. It was held that the reversion in the property devised to the person for life passed on his death under the specific residuary devise to the University. I am unable to see how this case can be of any assistance to the applicants, since in this case the University was already designated as the residuary legatee, and consequently on the determination of the life estate the reversion would naturally pass to the University. In the present case no part of the testator's property was intended to pass to the daughters or daughters' sons during the lifetime of the widow, and moreover the testator has clearly indicated his intention that on the termination of the life interest of the widow the reversion was to pass to the daughters. The daughters get the reversion not because of their being entitled to any residue of the testator's property but because of the intention clearly expressed by the testator that they should have it after the widow's death. The position of the daughters and the daughters' sons is that of a remainder man or reversioners and not that of residuary legatees. While the former two have an estate in expectancy, the last have an estate in possession. The applicants are therefore not entitled to letters of administration with the will annexed under Section 232 of the Succession Act. Their application is dismissed with costs. Pleader's fees Rs. 50.
R.M/R.K
5. Application dismissed.