Testamentary construction and territorial jurisdiction: successive life interests upheld, but estoppel and forum objections defeated related property claims.

The wills were construed as creating only successive life interests, because their dominant scheme was for the property to pass to named takers in sequence and then to persons selected in a specified manner, which was inconsistent with absolute estates. The respondent therefore succeeded only as next tenant for life in the Oudh and Juliana properties. The estoppel argument over the Rakh Khamba property failed because the appellant was not shown to derive title through an estopped predecessor. The Khalikabad claim also failed, as it involved a distinct cause of action requiring territorial jurisdiction in the court where the property was situated. Both appeals were dismissed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the wills created only successive life interests or conferred absolute interests on the first taker; (ii) whether the appellant was bound by estoppel in relation to the Rakh Khamba property; (iii) whether the suit for the Khalikabad property could be maintained in the Oudh court.

Issue (i): Whether the wills created only successive life interests or conferred absolute interests on the first taker.

Analysis: The controlling intention disclosed by both wills was that the property should pass in succession to named persons and thereafter to persons selected in a specified manner. That scheme was inconsistent with a series of absolute estates. The repeated references to each taker succeeding if alive and after the death of the previous taker supported a limited succession rather than absolute ownership. The gift of powers over the property had to be read consistently with the later dispositive clauses.

Conclusion: The wills conferred only life interests, and the respondent was entitled to succeed to the Oudh and Juliana properties as the next tenant for life.

Issue (ii): Whether the appellant was bound by estoppel in relation to the Rakh Khamba property.

Analysis: The respondent's estoppel case failed both on principle and on the facts. Any conduct of Sir Fateh could not create an estoppel against the appellant unless the appellant took through him on the relevant hypothesis. On the footing relied upon by the respondent, Sir Fateh had no title at all if no selection under the grant had occurred, and the appellant's possession after his father's death was independent possession, not a derivation through an estopped predecessor.

Conclusion: No estoppel operated against the appellant, and the respondent's claim to the Rakh Khamba property failed.

Issue (iii): Whether the suit for the Khalikabad property could be maintained in the Oudh court.

Analysis: The claim to the Khalikabad estate depended on a distinct cause of action arising from the wakf deed and required adjudication in the court of the district where the property was situate. Section 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure did not provide jurisdiction for joining that claim with the claims concerning the other properties in the Oudh court.

Conclusion: The Oudh court lacked jurisdiction over the Khalikabad claim, and that part of the respondent's case failed.

Final Conclusion: The construction of the wills favoured succession by life interest, but the remaining claims failed on estoppel and jurisdiction. Both appeals were therefore dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where the dominant testamentary intention is a planned succession of named takers, the instruments must be construed as creating limited life interests and not absolute estates, and a separate property claim cannot be sustained in a court lacking territorial jurisdiction.

---