A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE
This landmark judgment in Thakurain Raj Rani and Others v. Thakur Dwarka Nath Singh and Others (1953 SCR 913) involves a critical examination of testamentary disposition, contractual consideration, and the application of res judicata in matters relating to probate and inheritance under Indian law. The dispute centered on whether the testator, Shankar Bux Singh, had executed a valid will conferring remainder interests on his cousin, Ganga Bux Singh, and his sons, after a life estate to his wife. The legitimacy of the bequest was challenged on grounds of failure of contractual obligations and lack of animus testandi. The court extensively analyzed whether the will and agreement were parts of a singular contractual arrangement and whether breach of the agreement impacted the vesting of the legacy. Furthermore, it addressed the scope of res judicata following a prior Privy Council ruling and clarified the legal implications of conditional bequests versus mere contractual consideration. The Supreme Court conclusively upheld the validity of the will and the vesting of the remainder interest, thereby affirming the application of principles of contract and testamentary law in harmony with the doctrine of res judicata.

Keywords: testamentary disposition, res judicata, conditional legacy, contract consideration, vested remainder, animus testandi, Court of Wards, Indian Succession Act.

B) CASE DETAILS

i) Judgment Cause Title: Thakurain Raj Rani and Others v. Thakur Dwarka Nath Singh and Others

ii) Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 153 of 1951

iii) Judgment Date: 23 January 1953

iv) Court: Supreme Court of India

v) Quorum: Mehr Chand Mahajan C.J., S.R. Das J., and Bhagwati J.

vi) Author: Justice Bhagwati

vii) Citation: (1953) SCR 913

viii) Legal Provisions Involved:

• Section 81, Indian Trusts Act, 1882

• Sections 2(h), 10, 11, and 56, Indian Contract Act, 1872

• Sections 59 to 63, Indian Succession Act, 1925

• Doctrine of Res Judicata under Section 11, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

ix) Judgments overruled by the Case: None explicitly overruled.

x) Case is Related to: Constitutional Law, Civil Law (Succession and Trusts), Contract Law.

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGMENT

The genesis of the case lies in a testamentary disposition executed by Shankar Bux Singh, a taluqdari proprietor of the Rampur Kelau estate in Sitapur, who was previously under the supervision of the Court of Wards due to his disqualified status. On January 7, 1904, he executed an agreement with his cousin Ganga Bux Singh, who agreed to pay him ₹50 monthly in exchange for a promise that the remainder interest in his estate (after his wife’s life interest) would vest in Ganga Bux Singh and his sons. A corresponding will was executed on July 28, 1904, in favor of the cousin and his sons.

The heirs of the testator later contended that the will was invalid due to lack of animus testandi and breach of contract by Ganga Bux Singh, who allegedly never paid the promised sum. Notably, the Privy Council had already confirmed the validity of the will and granted letters of administration to the sons of Ganga Bux Singh, prompting a plea of res judicata. The Supreme Court was thus called upon to adjudicate the status of the will, its enforceability, and the effect of non-performance of contractual consideration.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

Shankar Bux Singh, who held significant estates in Sitapur, executed several wills, the last being in 1901 favoring his wife absolutely. However, after being declared a disqualified proprietor, his estate came under the Court of Wards’ control, restricting his power to make wills without approval. In 1904, he planned to create a bequest favoring his cousin Ganga Bux Singh and executed a registered agreement where Ganga promised to pay ₹50 monthly if the will was executed and submitted for approval.

Shankar prepared a draft will, got the Board’s nod, and executed the final will on July 28, 1904. The will gave his wife a life interest and the remainder to Ganga and his sons. It also made maintenance provisions for his daughters, aunt, sister, and mother. However, Ganga Bux never paid the monthly amount, allegedly breaching the agreement.

Years later, upon Ganga’s death, his sons obtained letters of administration through the Oudh Chief Court and ultimately from the Privy Council in 1937. However, in 1937, the original heirs challenged the will’s validity and its enforceability in the present case, leading to this appeal.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i) Whether the will executed by Shankar Bux Singh was void due to lack of animus testandi.
ii) Whether the non-payment of ₹50 monthly by Ganga Bux Singh rendered the testamentary bequest inoperative.
iii) Whether the earlier Privy Council judgment operated as res judicata against such claims.
iv) Whether the bequest to Ganga Bux Singh was conditional and lapsed on breach.
v) Whether the interest granted under the will vested in Ganga Bux Singh and devolved upon his sons.

F) PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

i) The counsels for Petitioner / Appellant submitted that the testator lacked animus testandi and merely executed the will under contractual compulsion. They argued the will was in form only, without genuine intent to confer testamentary benefits. They highlighted the breach of the ₹50 monthly payment clause by Ganga Bux Singh, asserting that the will should be declared inoperative or at least that the bequest to Ganga and his sons should lapse. They relied on doctrines of conditional gifts and argued the failure to fulfill the condition voided the legacy.

They contended that Section 81 of the Indian Trusts Act, 1882 supported the view that the estate must revert in trust due to the failure of consideration. They also argued for the application of the equitable principle “He who seeks equity must do equity,” claiming that the sons of Ganga Bux Singh should be estopped from claiming the estate due to their father’s default.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

i) The counsels for Respondent submitted that the Privy Council judgment had conclusively upheld the will and its testamentary nature, thereby barring re-litigation of the issue under the doctrine of res judicata. They argued that the agreement and the will were part of one contract, but the ₹50 payment was not a condition precedent but a mere consideration. They further contended that breach of such consideration did not void the bequest, especially where the testator never revoked the will despite knowing of the breach.

They emphasized that the legacy had vested in Ganga Bux Singh at the time of the testator’s death and passed to his heirs upon his death. They rejected the petitioners’ claim under Section 81 of the Trusts Act, stating that a valid vesting had occurred and no resulting trust could be implied.

H) RELATED LEGAL PROVISIONS

i) Section 81, Indian Trusts Act, 1882
ii) Section 59-63, Indian Succession Act, 1925 – Relating to the capacity and execution of wills
iii) Section 11, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Res judicata
iv) Section 10, Indian Contract Act, 1872 – Conditions for valid agreements
v) Doctrine: Cujus est dare, ejus est disponere – One who gives has the right to impose conditions

H) JUDGEMENT

a. RATIO DECIDENDI
The Supreme Court held that the will and agreement constituted one transaction, but the monthly payment was not a condition precedent. It was a contractual consideration, breach of which gave rise to a right to sue, not a right to void the will. The court ruled that the legacy vested in Ganga Bux Singh, and upon his death, passed to his sons. The Privy Council’s decision operated as res judicata with respect to animus testandi and the will’s execution.

b. OBITER DICTA
Justice Bhagwati noted that even if breach occurred, the proper course was for the testator to revoke the will or seek legal remedy. The non-revocation indicated continued intention to vest the estate as per the will. The court emphasized the principle that mere breach of consideration in testamentary arrangements does not void vesting unless explicitly made conditional.

c. GUIDELINES 

• Breach of contractual consideration does not nullify a bequest unless the will expressly states the condition.

• Res judicata bars reconsideration of testamentary intention once probate is granted.

• Testamentary and contractual instruments forming a single transaction must be interpreted in harmony.

• Courts will not imply conditional bequests absent explicit language.

• Will’s validity must be assessed on date of execution, not based on post-execution conduct.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The judgment provides a foundational exposition on how testamentary intentions interplay with contractual obligations. The court rightly delineated the difference between consideration and condition precedent, which is crucial in estate and succession matters. The ruling upheld testamentary freedom while ensuring that breaches of collateral contracts do not defeat testator’s expressed wishes absent revocation.

This decision continues to be a significant precedent in interpreting testamentary documents and applying doctrines like res judicata and conditional vesting in India.

J) REFERENCES

a. Important Cases Referred
i) Acherley v. Vernon, (125 ER 1106) – On conditions precedent
ii) Turner v. Goodwin, P. 13 Anne – On consideration as condition precedent
iii) Privy Council Decision (1937) – Upholding will and administration rights
iv) Peters v. Opie, 1 Ventr. 177 – Principle of performance before claiming benefit
v) Thorpe v. Thorpe, 1 Salk. 171 – Equitable conditions

b. Important Statutes Referred
i) Indian Trusts Act, 1882, Section 81
ii) Indian Contract Act, 1872, Sections 10, 56
iii) Indian Succession Act, 1925, Sections 59 to 63
iv) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Section 11