Mohammedan Law – Will – Challenge – Limitation of three years starts from date author of Will expires – Bequest to heir is not valid unless consent of all other legal heirs is obtained. [Limitation Act Art 137 and Mohammedan Law – Rule 192].

Saira Begum, the mother of the appellant had executed Will in the year 1995. She expired on 18th January, 2003. The appellant filed the suit on 12th November, 2003 for cancellation of the Will. The short point was from which date limitation is to be counted i.e. from 1995 or from 18th January, 2003. There is no dispute that a Will is a legal declaration of the intention of the testatrix with respect to her property and takes effect after her death. A Will is a voluntary posthumous disposition of property. Since a Will takes effect after death, the argument that the appellant was aware of the same in the year 1995 is of no significance. In the instant case, the author of the Will, the mother, expired on 18th January, 2003. The right to sue begins to run from 18th January, 2003 and the period of limitation is three years. The suit was filed on 12th November, 2003. Therefore, it was held that the suit was filed within the period of limitation.

The other issue was regarding the validity of the Will, submission was though a Will under the Mohammedan Law, in order to be valid and enforceable in law, it has to fulfill certain conditions under Rule 192. In the instant case, however, the Will of Saira Begum, the mother of the appellant falls short of the requirements stipulated therein since the Appellant had not given consent. It was held that as far as the consent of the appellant is concerned, under Rule 192, a bequest to an heir is not valid unless the other heirs consent. It appears from the Will dated 28th September, 1995, which was registered subsequently in 1998, that the signature of the appellant, an heir, is absent. Therefore, as the consent of the appellant is missing, the Will or the testamentary disposition is invalid. Though it was emphasised on behalf of the respondent that the Will in question speaks that “I further declare voluntarily that I do not wish to give any part of my said property to my any other children or relatives and I make this Will with the consent of all my other children and without any objection from any of them”, the same is of little significance as though the Will contains the signature of other heirs, it does not bear the signature of the appellant. The said sentence in the Will, as noted, could have been of some significance if other heirs had not put their signature. Since the signature of the appellant was absent, it was held that the Will was not valid under Rule 192 and not binding on the appellant.