Charge on estate: properties held by the heir subject to a charge for worship expenses, not absolute vesting.

Whether four properties vested absolutely in the deities or remained part of the residuary estate subject to a charge for worship expenses was decided by construing the will, codicil, preliminary decree and the commissioner's report. The court held that the decree and report created an obligation to apply income for sheba and worship rather than an outright transfer of title: the phrase "set apart" denotes allocation of income for specified expenses, and absence of partition by metes and bounds does not effect absolute charitable vesting. Outcome: the properties vested in the heir subject to a charge to meet worship expenses (answer against the assessee).

---

---

Issues: Whether the four properties set apart by the High Court's commissioner and final decree vested absolutely in the deities or vested in the heir (assessee) subject to a charge to meet the expenses of sheba and worship.

Analysis: The preliminary decree declared the bequest to the deities invalid and directed an inquiry into what provision should be made out of the testator's estate for the performance of sheba and worship, followed by division of the residuary estate between the heirs. The commissioner's report recommended that a fixed annual sum be provided for worship and identified four properties from whose income that sum should be met. The language of the decree and the report shows an obligation to apply income for worship rather than an absolute transfer of title to the deities. The phrase "set apart" in the report indicates allocation of income for specified expenses, not a gift of ownership. The absence of partition by metes and bounds does not convert those properties into vested charitable property when read in the context of the decree and report. On a true construction of the will, codicil, and the decrees, the four properties remained part of the residuary estate subject to a charge to meet the expenses of sheba and worship as directed.

Conclusion: The four properties did not vest absolutely in the deities; they vested in the heir subject to a charge to meet the expenses of sheba and worship. The answer to the referred question is against the assessee.

---