-: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION AND AND AND TESTAMENTARY AND INTESTATE JURISDICTION TESTAMENTARY AND INTESTATE JURISDICTION TESTAMENTARY AND INTESTATE JURISDICTION APPEAL NO. 80 OF 2000 APPEAL NO. 80 OF 2000 APPEAL NO. 80 OF 2000 IN IN IN REPORT DATED 9TH MARCH 1999 SUBMITTED BY THE REPORT DATED 9TH MARCH 1999 SUBMITTED BY THE REPORT DATED 9TH MARCH 1999 SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED ADMINISTRATOR JUSTICE M.L.DUDHAT(RETD.) LEARNED ADMINISTRATOR JUSTICE M.L.DUDHAT(RETD.) LEARNED ADMINISTRATOR JUSTICE M.L.DUDHAT(RETD.) IN IN IN MISC.PETITION NO. 13 OF 1995 MISC.PETITION NO. 13 OF 1995 MISC.PETITION NO. 13 OF 1995 IN IN IN T.& I.J.PETITION NO.598 OF 1990 T.& I.J.PETITION NO.598 OF 1990 T.& I.J.PETITION NO.598 OF 1990 Mrs. Lyla Darius Jehangir ) (nee Ghaswala) of Mumbai ) Indian Inhabitant, residing ) .. Appellant. at Gazdar House, 45 Warden ) (Org.Respondent Road, Mumbai -400 026. ) No.1 to Petition) V/s. 1. Bakhtawar Lentin of Mumbai ) Parsi Zorastrain Inhabitant) residing at Chateau Marine,) Marine Drive, Mumbai-20. ) ) 2. Mohan Motiram Jaykar of ) Mumbai, Hindu Inhabitant, ) a Solicitor and Partner in ) the firm of M/s.Gagrat & ) Co.,Advocates, Solicitors ) and Notaries, Bombay ) having their office at ) Alli Chambers, Nagindas ) Master Road, Fort, ) Mumbai - 400 001. ) ) 3. Mrs. Roshan Mahendragir ) Chopra of Mumbai Muslim ) Inhabitant, residing at ) Samudar Mahal, Dr.Annie ) Beasant Rd., Worli, ) Mumbai- 400 018. ) ) All being the Executors, ) .. Respondents Executrix & Trustees - ) Nos.1 to 3 - -: 2 :- appointed by the deceased ) (Org.Petitioners Ms.Piloo Ghaswala Pursuant ) to petition). to her last Will and Testa- ) ment (since discharged). ) 4. Mrs.Anita Sanjeev Malhotra ) (nee Ghaswala) residing at ) Gazdar House, 45, Warden ) Road, Mumbai -400 026. ) ) 5. Ms.Zenia Darius Jehangir, ) .. Respondents a minor through her ) Nos.4 to 6 - guardian-ad-litem. ) (Org.Respondents ) Nos.2 to 4 to 6. The Administrator General ) Petition). of the State of Maharashtra), having his office at P.W.D.) Building, Fort,Mumbai-23. ) AND 7. Darius Jehangir of Mumbai ) Indian Inhabitant, ) .. Respondent residing at Himalaya Bldg. ) No.7. 2nd floor, Flat No.5, ) (Org.Applicant Worli Sea Face Rd., ) in Misc.Petition Mumbai - 400 018. ) No.50 of 1999). --- WITH WITH WITH APPEAL NO. 81 OF 2000 APPEAL NO. 81 OF 2000 APPEAL NO. 81 OF 2000 IN IN IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 2566 OF 1999 NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 2566 OF 1999 NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 2566 OF 1999 IN IN IN TESTAMENTARY PETITION NO. 598 OF 1990 TESTAMENTARY PETITION NO. 598 OF 1990 TESTAMENTARY PETITION NO. 598 OF 1990 Mrs. Lyla Darius Jehangir ) (nee Ghaswala) of Mumbai ) Indian Inhabitant, residing ) .. Appellant. at Gazdar House, 45 Warden ) (Org.Respondent Road, Mumbai -400 026. ) No.1 to Petition & N/ of Motion) V/s. -: 3 :- 1. Bakhtawar Lentin of Mumbai ) Parsi Zorastrain Inhabitant) residing at Chateau Marine,) Marine Drive, Mumbai-20. ) ) 2. Mohan Motiram Jaykar of ) Mumbai, Hindu Inhabitant, ) a Solicitor and Partner in ) the firm of M/s.Gagrat & ) Co.,Advocates, Solicitors ) and Notaries, Bombay ) having their office at ) Alli Chambers, Nagindas ) Master Road, Fort, ) Mumbai - 400 001. ) ) 3. Mrs. Roshan Mahendragir ) Chopra of Mumbai Muslim ) Inhabitant, residing at ) Samudar Mahal, Dr.Annie ) Beasant Rd., Worli, ) Mumbai- 400 018. ) ) All being the Executors, ) .. Respondents Executrix & Trustees - ) Nos.1 to 3 - appointed by the deceased ) (Org.Executors Ms.Piloo Ghaswala Pursuant ) appointed under to her last Will and Testa- ) the Will & Org. ment (since discharged). ) Petitioners, since discharged) 4. Mrs.Anita Sanjeev Malhotra ) (nee Ghaswala) residing at ) Gazdar House, 45, Warden ) Road, Mumbai -400 026. ) ) 5. Ms.Zenia Darius Jehangir, ) .. Respondents a minor through her ) Nos.4 to 6 - guardian-ad-litem. ) (Org.Respondents) ) 6. The Administrator General ) of the State of Maharashtra), having his office at P.W.D.) Building, Fort,Mumbai-23. ) AND 7. Darius Jehangir of Mumbai ) -: 4 :- Indian Inhabitant, ) .. Respondent No.7 residing at Himalaya Bldg. ) 2nd floor, Flat No.5, ) (Org.Applicant Worli Sea Face Rd., ) in N/of Motion) Mumbai - 400 018. ) 8. Justice M.L.Dudhat (Retd.) ) .. Respondent No.8 of Mumbai Indian Inhabi- ) tant, r/a. Hari Krupa, ) (Org.Respondent-2 10th Rd,Chembur,Mumbai-71 ) to N/M since dis- ) charged). AND 9. Lalu C. Tolat of Mumbai ) .. Respondent No.9 Indian Inhabitant prac- ) (Org.Respondent tising as an Advocate & ) No.2 to N/M.) Solicitor in the name & ) style of Messrs.L.C.Tolat ) & Co., and having office ) at Yashwant Chamber, 2nd ) floor, 18, B.Bharucha ) Marg, Mumbai-400 023. ) --- Mr.M.L.Palan with Ms. Neeta Solanki, Mr.Kiran Jain & Ms. Nadia Basiri i/by M/s. Kiran Jain and Co. for the Appellant (in both the Appeals). Mr. Rajeev Kumar with Miss P.L.Bachani and Shilpi Thakkar i/by I.R.Joshi & Co. for the Respondent Nos. 5 and 7. Mr.J.B.Chinoy with Mr.R.L.Tolat i/by M/s.Harakchand & Co.for the Respondent No.9 in Appeal No.81 of 2000 only. --- WITH WITH WITH APPEAL NO. 163 OF 2005 APPEAL NO. 163 OF 2005 APPEAL NO. 163 OF 2005 IN IN IN ORIGINATING SUMMONS NO. 309 OF 2000 ORIGINATING SUMMONS NO. 309 OF 2000 ORIGINATING SUMMONS NO. 309 OF 2000 IN IN IN SUIT NO. 686 OF 2000 SUIT NO. 686 OF 2000 SUIT NO. 686 OF 2000 -: 5 :- Mrs. Lyla Darius Jehangir ) (nee Ghaswala) of Mumbai ) Indian Inhabitant, residing ) .. Appellant. at Gazdar House, 45 Warden ) (Org.Plaintiff Road, Mumbai -400 026. ) in suit) V/s. 1. Bakhtawar Lentin (since ) deceased) of Mumbai ) Parsi Zorastrain Inhabitant) residing at Marine Drive, ) Mumbai-400 002. ) ) 2. Mohan Motiram Jaykar of ) Mumbai, Indian Inhabitant, ) a Solicitor and Partner in ) the firm of M/s.Gagrat & ) Co.,Advocates, Solicitors ) and Notaries, Bombay ) having their office at ) Alli Chambers, Nagindas ) Master Road, Fort, ) Mumbai - 400 001. ) ) 3. Mrs. Roshan Mahendragir ) Chopra of Mumbai Muslim ) Inhabitant, residing at ) Samudar Mahal, Dr.Annie ) Beasant Rd., Worli, ) Mumbai- 400 018. ) AND 4. Ms.Zenia Darius Jehangir, ) .. Respondents a minor through her ) guardian, mother of Plain- ) (Org.Defendants tiff Lyla Jehangir r/a. ) in Suit). Himalaya Building, Worli ) Sea Face Road,Mumbai. ) --- WITH WITH WITH APPEAL NO. 164 OF 2005 APPEAL NO. 164 OF 2005 APPEAL NO. 164 OF 2005 IN IN IN ORIGINATING SUMMONS NO. 447 OF 2003 ORIGINATING SUMMONS NO. 447 OF 2003 ORIGINATING SUMMONS NO. 447 OF 2003 IN IN IN -: 6 :- SUIT NO. 738 OF 2003 SUIT NO. 738 OF 2003 SUIT NO. 738 OF 2003 Lyla Darius Jehangir nee ) of Ghaswala of Mumbai, Indian ) .. Appellant. Inhabitant, residing at 2nd ) (Org.Plaintiff floor, B.Desai Road, Mumbai-26) in Suit). V/s. Zenia Darius Jehangir of Mumbai) .. Respondent. Indian Inhabitant, r/a.Himalaya) (Org.Defendant Building, Plot No.5, 2nd floor,) in suit). Worli Sea Face Rd, Mumbai-018. ) --- WITH WITH WITH APPEAL NO. 508 OF 2005 APPEAL NO. 508 OF 2005 APPEAL NO. 508 OF 2005 IN IN IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 3298 OF 2003 NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 3298 OF 2003 NOTICE OF MOTION NO. 3298 OF 2003 IN IN IN MISC. PETITION NO. 13 OF 1995 MISC. PETITION NO. 13 OF 1995 MISC. PETITION NO. 13 OF 1995 IN IN IN TESTAMENTARY PETITION NO. 598 OF 1990 TESTAMENTARY PETITION NO. 598 OF 1990 TESTAMENTARY PETITION NO. 598 OF 1990 Mrs. Lyla Darius Jehangir ) (nee Ghaswala) of Mumbai ) Indian Inhabitant, residing ) .. Appellant. at Gazdar House, 45 Warden ) (Org.Respondent Road, Mumbai -400 026. ) No.1) V/s. 1. Bakhtawar Lentin of Mumbai ) Parsi Zorastrain Inhabitant) residing at Chateau Marine,) Marine Drive, Mumbai-20. ) ) 2. Mohan Motiram Jaykar of ) Mumbai, Hindu Inhabitant, ) a Solicitor and Partner in ) the firm of M/s.Gagrat & ) Co.,Advocates, Solicitors ) and Notaries, Bombay ) -: 7 :- having their office at ) Alli Chambers, Nagindas ) Master Road, Fort, ) Mumbai - 400 001. ) ) 3. Mrs. Roshan Mahendragir ) .. Respondents. Chopra of Mumbai Muslim ) Inhabitant, residing at ) Samudar Mahal, Dr.Annie ) Beasant Rd., Worli, ) Mumbai- 400 018. ) ) All being the Executors, ) .. Respondents Executrix & Trustees - ) Nos.1 to 3 - appointed by the deceased ) (Org.Petitioners Ms.Piloo Ghaswala Pursuant ) to petition). to her last Will and Testa- ) ment.) 4. Ms.Zenia Darius Jehangir ) .. Respondent No.4 of Mumbai Indian Inhabitant) (Org.Applicant) r/a. Himalaya Bldg., Plot ) No.5, 2nd floor, Worli Sea ) Face Road, Mumbai-400018. ) ) 5. Mrs.Anita Sanjeev Malhotra ) (nee Ghaswala) residing at ) Gazdar House, 45, Warden ) Road, Mumbai -400 026. ) ) 6. The Manager, Bank of Baroda) Bhulabhai Desai Road, ) Mumbai 400 026. ) ) 7. The Manager, The Hongkong &) .. Respondents Shanghai Banking Corporation) Nos.5 to 8. Ltd., M.G.Road, ) (Org.Respondents Mumbai - 400023. ) Nos.2 to 5). ) 8. The Court Receiver, High ) Court, Bombay. ) --- Mr.M.L.Palan with Ms. Neeta Solanki, Mr.Kiran Jain & Ms. Nadia Basiri i/by M/s. Kiran Jain and Co. for the Appellant in all the Appeals. Mr. Rajeev Kumar with Miss P.L.Bachani and Shilpi Thakkar i/by I.R.Joshi & Co. for the Respondent in Appeal No.164/2005 and for the Respondent No.4 in Appeal -: 8 :- No.163 /2005 and Appeal No.508/2005. --- CORAM : R.M.LODHA & S.A.BOBDE,JJ. CORAM : R.M.LODHA & S.A.BOBDE,JJ. CORAM : R.M.LODHA & S.A.BOBDE,JJ. DATED : 12th DECEMBER, 2006 AND DATED : 12th DECEMBER, 2006 AND DATED : 12th DECEMBER, 2006 AND 13th DECEMBER, 2006 13th DECEMBER, 2006 13th DECEMBER, 2006. ORAL JUDGMENT : ( PER R.M.LODHA,J.): ORAL JUDGMENT : ( PER R.M.LODHA,J.): ORAL JUDGMENT : ( PER R.M.LODHA,J.): . This group of five Appeals is between the same parties and interconnected issues are raised therein and accordingly, by this common judgment, we shall dispose of these five Appeals. 2. The Appeal Nos. 163 of 2005 and 164 of 2005 are from Originating Summons Nos.309 of 2000 and 447 of 2003 respectively. We shall first deal with Appeal No. 164 of 2003, since the fate of other appeals is dependant on the decision in this appeal. As a matter of fact the whole focus of Mr.M.L.Palan, the counsel for the appellants was on appeal No.164 of 2005, arising from originating summons No.447 of 2003. According to him, the decision in appeal No.164 of 2005 shall virtually decide all appeals. 3. By originating summons No. 447 of 2003, the Appellant prayed for determination of the following issues by the Court : -: 9 :- (a) Whether the bequeaths made in favour of the Plaintiff by the deceased Pilloo under the said Will dated 12th April, 1989 interalia under clauses 11,13,14,15, 18,24,40 and 42 are absolute bequeaths to the Plaintiff ? (b) Whether the directions of the deceased Piloo interalia in said Will including in clauses 11,13,14,15,18,24,40 & 42 of the said Will viz. to hold the shares/ bequeathes of the Plaintiff upon trust to be handed over to Defendant on her attaining the age of 21 years are illegal and or in-operative or unenforceable against the Plaintiff or binding upon the Plaintiff or beyond the power and authority vested on the deceased Pilloo? (c) Assuming without admitting that the directions in the said Will including in clauses 11,13,14,15,18,24,40 & 42 to hold shares of Plaintiff upon trust to be handed over to Defendant on her attaining the age of 21 years are legal and binding upon the Plaintiff and/ or Defendant. Whether Plaintiff alone is entitled to enjoy all the bequeaths/ profit/ income and other benefits till Defendant attained age of 21 years. 4. The answers to the aforesaid questions have to be found from the Will dated 12th April, 1989 executed by Pilloo M.Ghaswala, as her last testamentary disposition. 5. The Will indicates that Pillo Ghaswala was the lady of wealth. Her estate comprised of immovable and movable properties. Pillo had two daughters -Lyla and -: 10 :- Anita. Lyla has one daughter by name Zenia. Anita is divorcee and issue less. Pillo died on 7th October, 1989. 6. Before we turn to the Will which is to be construed by us, we deem it proper to refer to the relevant provisions of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, particularly Chapter VI of Part VI, which deals with the construction of Wills. . Section 74 says that it is not necessary that any technical words or terms of art be used in a Will, but only that the wording be such that the intentions of the testator can be known therefrom. . Section 75 enables the court to inquire into the questions as to the object or subject of a will and for determination thereof, take evidence, if necessary. . While section 80 permits an extrinsic evidence to be taken where the words of a Will are unambiguous, but for its applications extrinsic evidence may be necessary. But section 81 makes extrinsic evidence inadmissible -: 11 :- in case of patent ambiguity or deficiency. . Section 82 highlights that the meaning of any clause in a Will is to be collected from the entire instrument, and all its parts are to be construed with reference to each other. . Section 85 provides that no part of a Will shall be rejected as destitute of meaning if it is possible to put a reasonable construction upon it. With regard to interpretation of words repeated in different parts of Will, Section 86 provides that if the same words occur in different parts of the same Will, they shall be taken to have been used everywhere in the same sense, unless a contrary intention appears. . Section 87 provides the Testator’s intention to be effectuated as far as possible. In a case where the inconsistent clauses of gifts in a Will are irreconcilable, Section 88 says that the last shall prevail. . Section 95 provides that the property by way of bequest to any person, he is entitled to -: 12 :- the whole interest of the testator therein, unless it appears from the Will that only a restricted interest was intended to him. . As per section 104, if a legacy is given in general terms, without specifying the time when it is to be paid, the legatee has a vested interest in it from the day of the death of the testator, and, if he dies, it shall pass to his representatives. . Section 119 makes a provision where by the terms of a bequest the legatee is not entitled to immediate possession of the thing bequeathed, a right to receive it at the proper time shall, unless a contrary intention appears by the will, become vested in the legatee on the testator’s death,and shall pass to the legatee’s representatives if he dies before that time and without having received the legacy, and in such cases the legacy is from the testator’s death said to be vested in interest. 7. The construction of the Wills has been the -: 13 :- subject matter of consideration before the Supreme Court from time to time. In long line of cases the Supreme Court has dealt with this subject. Some of these cases, being Ram Gopal vs. Nand Lal-A.I.R.1951 S.C.139; Venkata Narasimha’s case and Gnanambal Ammal vs. T.Raju Ayyar-1951 S.C.103; Raj Bajrang Bahadur Singh vs. Bakhtraj Kuer-A.I.R.1953 S.C.7; Pearey Lal vs. Rameshwar Das-A.I.R.1963 S.C.1703 and Ramchandra Shenoy & anr. vs. Mrs.Hilda Brite & Ors.-A.I.R.1964 S.C. 1323 were considered by the Supreme Court in the case of Navneet Lal alias Rangi vs. Gokul & Ors., AIR 1976 S.C. Navneet Lal alias Rangi vs. Gokul & Ors., AIR 1976 S.C. Navneet Lal alias Rangi vs. Gokul & Ors., AIR 1976 S.C. 794 794 794 and culled out the following principles :- "(1) In construing a document whether in English or in vernacular the fundamental rule is to ascertain the intention from the words used; the surrounding circumstances are to be considered; but that is only for the purpose of finding out the intended meaning of the words which have actually been employed. (2) In construing the language of the will the court is entitled to put itself into the testator’s armchair and is bound to bear in mind also other matters than merely the words used. It must consider the surrounding circumstances, the position of the testators, his family relationship, the probability that he would use words in a particular sense. But all this is solely as an aid to arriving at a right construction of the will, and to ascertain the meaning of its language when used by that particular testator in that document. (3) The true intention of the testator has to be gathered not by attaching importance to isolated expressions but by reading the will as -: 14 :- a whole with all its provisions and ignoring none of them as redundant or contradictory. (4) The court must accept, if possible, such construction as would give to every expression some effect rather than that which would render any of the expressions inoperative. The court will look at the circumstances under which the testator makes his will, such as the state of his property, of his family and the like. Where apparently conflicting dispositions can be reconciled by giving full effect to every word used in a document, such a construction should be accepted instead of a construction which would have the effect of cutting down the clear meaning of the words used by the testator. Further where one of the two reasonable constructions would lead to intestacy, that should be discarded in favour of a construction which does not create any such hiatus. (5) To the extent that it is legally possible, effect should be given to every disposition contained in the will unless the law prevents effect being given to it. Of course, if there are two repugnant provisions conferring successive interests, if the first interest created is valid the subsequent interest cannot take effect but a Court of construction will proceed to the farthest extent to avoid repugnancy, so that effect could be given as far as possible to every testamentary intention contained in the Will." 8. We need not multiply the authorities as the legal provisions enshrined in the Indian Succession Act and the principles culled out by the Supreme Court in respect of construction of the Wills, provide enough guidance, approach and direction for construction of the Wills. -: 15 :- 9. At this stage, we may also refer to the provisions of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules, 1980 relating to the Originating Summons. Rule 238 provides for an application for the issue of originating summons in respect of the matters contained therein, interalia, the question affecting the rights or interest of the persons claiming to be devisee, legatee or beneficiary under an instrument. The whole object of this procedure for issuance of the originating summons is to make a procedure available to the parties which is inexpensive but at the same time in substance for determination of the disputes as to construction of the written instrument. In the proceeding by way of Originating Summons, the dispute is settled by the court, interpreting the instrument and determining what the rights of the parties are. Pratt,J. in Vithaldas Vithaldas Vithaldas Cursondas vs. Dulsukhbhai Vadilal Vol. XXI The Bombay Cursondas vs. Dulsukhbhai Vadilal Vol. XXI The Bombay Cursondas vs. Dulsukhbhai Vadilal Vol. XXI The Bombay Law Reporter- 972, Law Reporter- 972, Law Reporter- 972, while dealing with the similar proposition under Rule 223 of the High Court Rules, held that an originating summons is not a proper procedure to be adopted where the disputed facts are of such complexity as to involve considerable amount of oral evidence. This is an action which should be confined to matters being capable of decision in a summary way; not that it forbids the questions of fact being determined on an originating summons in all class of cases. -: 16 :- 10. In yet another case of Rama Aziz Parpia and Rama Aziz Parpia and Rama Aziz Parpia and others vs. Balkrishna K. Mehta, others vs. Balkrishna K. Mehta, others vs. Balkrishna K. Mehta, the learned single Judge of this Court held that an originating summons is not a process for declaration of the rights of the parties, nor is it a lis, as popularly understood. By this, the court is not adjudicating the rights and liabilities of the parties; particularly, when the parties are the legatees and executors, both of whom, being interested in true execution of the terms of the Will. In the words of the learned single Judge : "An originating summons is a means for getting over unexpected, uncontemplated difficulties which crop up during the administration of the estate by Executors or trustees. Finding the difficulty insuperable, the parties approach the Court for indicating the most just and equitable manner of administering the estate, in the circumstances, consistent with the wishes of the testator or settlor, as the case may be." 11. The nature of the proceedings of the originating summons highlighted by the learned single Judges of this court in the case of Vithaldas Cursondas and Rama Aziz Parpia (supra) appear to us to be sound; we approve the same. -: 17 :- 12. Now we advert to the instrument (Will) dated 12th April, 1989. By this Will, the testatrix Piloo M. Ghaswala appointed Mr.Justice Bakhtawar Lentin, Mr. Mohan Jayakar and Mrs. Roshan Chopra to be the executors and trustees. The executors and trustees have been collectively referred to in the Will as "My Trustees". Clauses 6 and 7 of the Will are material. These clauses throw strong beam of light on the intention of the testatrix. Clauses 6 and 7 read thus : "6. I HAVE two daughters viz. Mrs. Lyla Darius Jehangir and Miss Anita Ghaswala ( I have called my daughter Anita Ghaswala by her maiden name as she has already filed a petition for divorce in respect of her marriage to Mr.Balla Toddywalla). My elder daughter Mrs.Lyla Darius Jehangir is an extravagant and irresponsible girl and is subject to fits of depression and it is for this reason that I DIRECT my Trustee by this my Will under the Trust created hereunder to hold all properties bequeathed and devised by me to her for the benefit of her daughter Zenia and the said property bequeathed to Lyla shall be held upon trust for the benefit of her daughter Zenia and upon Zenia completing the age of 21 years, my Trustees shall hand over all such property to Zenia absolutely. 7. AS STATED above in view of my daughter Lyla being an extravagant and irresponsible girl and being subject to fits of depression, in the matter of sale and dispose off the flat on the 2nd floor of Gazdar House at 45, Warden Road, Bombay 400 026, as mentioned in clause 15 herein, the decision of my Trustee shall be binding on her and the bequest to her shall therefore, be subject to the decision of my Trustees." 13. What is to be seen from these two clauses is -: 18 :- that the Testatrix considered her daughter Lyla an extravagant and irresponsible girl; Lyla suffered from fits of depression. She, therefore, directed the trustees by her Will with regard to the trust created thereunder to hold all the properties bequeathed and devised by her to Lyla for the benefit of Zenia (Lyla’s daughter) and the