Demand for possession under a will may be inferred from suit conduct, and foreign exchange breaches do not defeat title recovery.

A testamentary direction requiring the defendant to manage property until demand did not make the beneficiary's personal return a condition precedent, and a valid demand for possession could be inferred from the suit itself and repeated requests made on the beneficiary's behalf. A foreign citizen's status, and an alleged contravention of foreign exchange law, did not by itself invalidate title or extinguish the right to recover possession, because the statute did not render such property rights void. On those findings, the concurrent decree for recovery of possession was upheld and the second appeal was dismissed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the plaintiff had made a valid demand for delivery of possession of the suit property in terms of the Will. (ii) Whether the plaintiff's status as a foreign citizen and the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act barred recovery of possession of the property.

Issue (i): Whether the plaintiff had made a valid demand for delivery of possession of the suit property in terms of the Will.

Analysis: The Will required the defendant to manage the property until the plaintiff demanded possession. The condition did not make the plaintiff's personal return from Singapore a prerequisite. The filing of the suit, coupled with the evidence showing repeated requests made on the plaintiff's behalf, was sufficient to establish demand. The concurrent factual findings of the courts below supported that conclusion.

Conclusion: The issue was answered in favour of the respondent.

Issue (ii): Whether the plaintiff's status as a foreign citizen and the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act barred recovery of possession of the property.

Analysis: A contravention of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act may expose a person to statutory action, but it does not, by itself, invalidate title or extinguish the right to recover possession. The Act did not provide that transfer or holding of property in breach of the provision became void. The appellant therefore had no locus to resist delivery of possession on that ground.

Conclusion: The issue was answered in favour of the respondent.

Final Conclusion: The concurrent decree for recovery of possession was upheld and the second appeal was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: A foreign national's alleged contravention of the foreign exchange law does not, by itself, nullify title or defeat a suit for recovery of possession, and a valid demand may be inferred from the institution of the suit and surrounding conduct where the testamentary direction does not prescribe a personal return as a condition precedent.

---