The Indian Decisions (New Series) Being a re-print of all the decisions of the Privy Council on appeals from India and of the various High Courts and other Superior Courts in India reported both in the official and non-official reports from 1875 Bombay (1897-1898) I.L.R. 21 and 22 Bombay

[5] The second defendant, the plaintiff’s son, in his written statement submitted that after the death of the plaintiff and the first defendant he was absolutely entitled to the house and the residue, and that the plaintiff and the first defendant had no power to alienate any of the property beyond the term of heir natural lives. [...] 13 and 18 of the said will, while on the other hand the plaintiff and his son (the second defendant) contend that he (the plaintiff) and the first defendant are entitled to a life- interest only in the houses and the residue of the property referred to in els. [...] 8, 13 and 18 of the said will, and that after the death of the plaintiff and of the first defendant the sscond defendant will be absolutely entitled to the houses and the said property. [...] Do the further directions cut down the devise as regards the estate of the two sons named in the will ? In the thirteenth clause the testator passes from the possibility of there being a third son born to him, and directs that the sons of his two sons Damodardas and Dayabhai should not have the power to claim during the lifetime of their fathers. [...] 5. In the negative—the Court cannot say what will be the interest of the second defendant in the properties in question after the death of the plaintiff and the first defendant.