The eldest son and his daughter filed a suit against Mrs. Bahl and her younger son. They sought for a permanent injunction against the defendants from dispossessing them of their shares. The Court framed two issues for the purposes of adjudication. Firstly, whether the will is a ‘mutual will’ and the date it came into effect. Secondly, whether section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act will have any effect. The section provides that a Hindu female is a full owner of any property acquired and possessed by her.
Decision of the Court
Justice Rajiv Sahai ruled that the will qualifies as a mutual will. Further, the mutual will came into effect when Mrs. Bahl took advantage of the benefits given to her thereunder. That, the rights of the ultimate beneficiaries of the will were crystallised when she did so. Thus, no changes whatsoever can be made to it. Moreover, Mrs. Bahl cannot claim her right under section 14(1) of the Hindu Succession Act. This is because she did not plead that the subject property was bequeathed to her in lieu of a pre-existing right.