AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Arthur Strachey, C.J. and Banerji, J.—Our answer to this reference is that such portions, if any, of the document propounded, as the Court below, after taking evidence, may hold to be a legal declaration of the intentions of Musammat Gulab Kunwar with respect to her property which she desired to be carried into effect after her death, amount, in our opinion, to a will, within the meaning of Section 3 of the Probate and Administration Act of 1881, notwithstanding that the same document may contain other provisions which she desired should be carried into effect during her life-time,
We may refer the Court of the Chief Commissioner to the case of Doe d. Elizabeth Cross v. Arthur Cross (1846) 8 Q.B., 714 : S.C. 15 L.J., (N.S.) CL 217, the effect of which is stated in Jarman on Wills (5th ed., vol. 1, p. 25). It was there held that "there was no objection to one part of an instrument operating in praesenti as a deed and another in futuro as a will."
The costs will be disposed of in accordance with Section 20 of the Ajmere Courts'' Regulation of 1877. Let the ease be returned.