Plain meaning of will clauses and accrual of limitation rights determined widow's entitlement and timeliness of suit.

A testamentary clause was construed according to its plain and natural meaning, with the defeasance provision treated as operating if the son died during the mother's lifetime rather than only in limited circumstances. On that construction, the widow took an absolute interest in the relevant one-half share, and the other widow had no interest in it. On limitation, time began to run only when the asserted right was infringed or clearly threatened; because no hostile assertion was shown until the later proceedings, the suit was held to be within time. The widow's appeal succeeded, the opposing appeal failed, and the matter was remitted for implementation of the declaration and partition directions.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether, on the true construction of the will, the widow became entitled to the deceased son's half share on his death; (ii) whether the suit was barred by limitation under the Limitation Act.

Issue (i): Whether, on the true construction of the will, the widow became entitled to the deceased son's half share on his death.

Analysis: The dispositive words of the will were read according to their plain and natural meaning. The defeasance clause was expressed to operate upon the death of the son if that event occurred during the mother's lifetime, and there was no warrant for restricting the clause to death before the testator or during minority only. In construing the will, due weight could be given to Hindu testamentary expectations, but the specific language of the instrument remained controlling.

Conclusion: The widow became entitled to an absolute interest in the one-half share in which she and the deceased son were interested at the time of his death, and the other widow had no interest in that half share.

Issue (ii): Whether the suit was barred by limitation under the Limitation Act.

Analysis: A right to sue accrues only when the asserted right is infringed or there is a clear and unequivocal threat to infringe it. Although the widow's right arose on the son's death, the surrounding family arrangement and management of the joint property showed no hostile assertion until the institution of the 1922 proceedings. On that footing, the applicable limitation period had not expired when the present suit was brought.

Conclusion: The suit was not barred by limitation.

Final Conclusion: The appeal of the widow succeeded, the opposing appeal failed, and the matter was sent back for implementation of the declaration and partition directions.

Ratio Decidendi: A testamentary clause must be given its plain and natural meaning, and for limitation purposes time begins to run only when the right asserted is infringed or clearly threatened.

---