Legal heirs under a will include daughters absent contrary intent; subsequent events can cure prematurity and support relief.

The term "heirs" in a will was construed in its legal sense, so that daughters were included as legal heirs after the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, unless the testament showed a contrary intention. The will had to be read as a whole, and the differing use of "heirs" and "children" supported rejection of a sex-based exclusion. A suit challenging a sale deed based on a limited life interest was also not dismissed as premature or time-barred, because the enforceable cause of action matured on the life holder's death and subsequent events could be considered to mould relief. The High Court's relief was upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the expression "heirs" in the will was confined to male lineal descendants or included the daughters as legal heirs after the commencement of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956; and (ii) whether the suit and challenge to the sale deed were defeated by prematurity or limitation, in view of the father's life interest and the subsequent death of the life holder during pendency of the suit.

Issue (i): Whether the expression "heirs" in the will was confined to male lineal descendants or included the daughters as legal heirs after the commencement of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

Analysis: The will had to be construed as a whole and effect given to the testator's intention. The word "heirs" was used in the clause governing succession after the sons' life interest, while the word "children" was used in other clauses dealing with female legatees, showing that the testator did not intend a rigid exclusion based on sex alone. The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 effected a statutory change in the law of inheritance, and the daughters became heirs of their father under Section 8. The expression "heirs" in the will was therefore to be understood in the legal sense of legal heirs, not as confined to sons only.

Conclusion: The daughters were entitled to be treated as heirs within the meaning of the will, and the construction limiting the term to male descendants was rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the suit and challenge to the sale deed were defeated by prematurity or limitation, in view of the father's life interest and the subsequent death of the life holder during pendency of the suit.

Analysis: The sons under the will had only a limited life interest and could not transfer the property absolutely during the father's lifetime. Succession to the relevant interest opened only on the death of the life holder, and the plaintiffs' enforceable cause of action matured only then. Since the father died during the pendency of the suit, the appellate court was entitled to take subsequent events into account and mould the relief. The challenge was not treated as barred by limitation on the facts of the case, and the discretionary jurisdiction was not to be disturbed where no manifest injustice was shown.

Conclusion: The suit was not liable to be dismissed as premature or time-barred on the facts, and the relief granted by the High Court was sustained.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed, and the High Court's grant of relief in favour of the plaintiffs was upheld on the footing that the daughters were legal heirs under the will and that subsequent events justified moulding of relief.

Ratio Decidendi: A will must be construed in light of the testator's intention and the law in force when succession opens; where the word "heirs" is used without a contrary intent, it denotes legal heirs, and an appellate court may mould relief on the basis of subsequent events in a suit that was premature at inception but became actionable during its pendency.

---