Section 130: When second bequest not to take effect on failure of first

Indian Succession Act • Official Statutory Text & Practice Guide

Statutory Regulation
Legal Standard
Competent Court / Tribunal
Act 1925

Legal Commentary & Landmark Judgments: Section 130

Section 130 establishes an exception to the doctrine of acceleration, declaring that a second bequest will not take effect on the failure of the first if the will expressly made the second gift conditional on an unfulfilled event.

  • Specific Failure Contingency: Where the will indicates that the second bequest shall take effect only in a specified event, and the first bequest fails in a manner different from that event, the second bequest fails.
  • Strict Contingent Intent: Respects the testator's explicit intent where the gift over was designed to operate only under precise factual conditions.
  • Resulting Partial Intestacy: Upon the failure of both the first and second bequests under this section, the property falls into the residuary estate or passes by partial intestacy under Section 30.
Key Landmark Precedents:
  • Navneet Lal v. Gokul (1976) 1 SCC 630: The Supreme Court stressed that the plain intention of the testator governs testamentary construction, and where a gift over is restricted to an exclusive contingency, Section 130 bars acceleration under different circumstances.
  • Rameshwar Bakhsh Singh v. Balraj Kuar AIR 1935 PC 187: The Privy Council held that courts cannot rewrite a will to accelerate a contingent gift over when the precise contingency framed by the testator never occurred.
Courtroom Practice & Strategic Litigation Guidance:

When advising remaindermen, check whether the gift over is general ('and if A dies, then to B') or strictly contingent ('and if A dies without leaving male issue, then to B'); if A dies leaving issue but disclaims, Section 130 may bar B from taking.