<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>2006 (12) TMI 582 - BOMBAY HIGH  COURT</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313710</link>
    <description>A will must be construed as a whole to give effect to the testatrix&#039;s intention, and clauses expressing limited enjoyment can create a trust rather than an absolute bequest. Where the instrument showed that property was to be held for a grand-daughter until she attained 21 years, the daughter&#039;s temporary enjoyment did not convert the gift into full ownership. Under testamentary construction, vesting occurred on the testatrix&#039;s death unless a contrary intention was clearly expressed, and postponement of possession did not postpone vesting. The directions were therefore treated as regulating possession and income, not ownership, with the daughter bound by the will after accepting its benefits.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Tue, 12 Dec 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 May 2024 14:10:00 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=751436" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>2006 (12) TMI 582 - BOMBAY HIGH  COURT</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313710</link>
      <description>A will must be construed as a whole to give effect to the testatrix&#039;s intention, and clauses expressing limited enjoyment can create a trust rather than an absolute bequest. Where the instrument showed that property was to be held for a grand-daughter until she attained 21 years, the daughter&#039;s temporary enjoyment did not convert the gift into full ownership. Under testamentary construction, vesting occurred on the testatrix&#039;s death unless a contrary intention was clearly expressed, and postponement of possession did not postpone vesting. The directions were therefore treated as regulating possession and income, not ownership, with the daughter bound by the will after accepting its benefits.</description>
      <category>Case-Laws</category>
      <law>Indian Laws</law>
      <pubDate>Tue, 12 Dec 2006 00:00:00 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=313710</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>