Section 116: Bequest to take effect upon failure of prior bequest

Indian Succession Act • Official Statutory Text & Practice Guide

Statutory Regulation
Legal Standard
Competent Court / Tribunal
Act 1925

Legal Commentary & Landmark Judgments: Section 116

Section 116 provides that where a bequest fails by reason of Section 113 or 114, any subsequent bequest intended to take effect upon the failure of such prior bequest is also completely void.

  • Core Legal Standard: Section 116 establishes the doctrine of the contagious invalidity of subsequent remainders.
  • Operational Mechanism: Where, by reason of any of the rules contained in Sections 113 and 114, any bequest in favor of a person or of a class of persons is void in its inception, any subsequent bequest contained in the same will and intended to take effect after or upon the failure of such prior bequest is likewise void.

The rationale is that the ultimate remainder is contaminated by the illegality of the preceding perpetuity. The court cannot accelerate the subsequent gift because doing so would distort the testator's dispositive scheme, which intended the remainder to take effect only after the determination of the prior invalid estate.

Key Landmark Precedents:
  • Raj Bajrang Bahadur Singh v. Thakurain Bakhtraj Kuer, AIR 1953 SC 7: The Supreme Court affirmed that under Section 116, an ultimate remainder that is dependent upon or follows an invalid prior perpetuity is infected with invalidity and fails entirely.
  • Soundararajan v. Natarajan, AIR 1925 PC 244: The Privy Council held that gifts over following a void prior bequest fail under the statutory mandate of Section 116.
Legal Commentary:

Section 116 creates a domino effect: if the primary gift to unborn descendants collapses under Section 113 or 114, the ultimate fallback gift to charity or cousins also collapses under Section 116. The entire property falls into the residue or intestacy.