https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301748 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. en-us Thu, 21 Apr 1932 00:00:00 +0530 Mon, 18 Apr 2022 16:02:06 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301748 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 21 Apr 1932 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=301748