In Reof the Trusts of the Will of Premji Dhanji; In Re - of the Minor Sons (Trust Cause No. 7 of 1950 (Mombasa))
Observed later treatment
No later-treatment classification is recorded for this judgment.
Citator coverage is limited to judgments in the Wakilii corpus and source-matched treatment records. Absence of a signal is not an assertion that the case remains good law.
AI-generated summary. This summary was generated by AI from the full text of the judgment. It may contain errors or omissions—always read the source judgment before relying on it.
Holding
The Hindu Wills Act 1870 does not apply to Esmailia Khojas. Although Esmailia Khojas are governed by Hindu customary law for inheritance and succession, they are not Hindus within the meaning of the Act as they practice the Mohamedan religion. The law of succession and inheritance does not include the forms of wills. An undated, unsigned and unattested codicil in the deceased's handwriting is valid under customary Hindu and Mohamedan law and must be given effect.
Outcome
Executors directed to give effect to the codicil
Facts
Premji Dhanji, an Esmailia Khoja, died in Mombasa on 12 November 1949. He left a properly executed will dated 19 December 1946 and a document entitled 'This will is for daughters' written in his own handwriting about one month before his death. The document was undated, unattested and unsigned. It was found among his papers after his death. The executors of the will applied for directions as to whether they should give effect to this alleged codicil modifying the will. The codicil would be valid under customary Hindu and Mohamedan law but invalid under the Hindu Wills Act 1870.
Issues
- Whether the Hindu Wills Act 1870 applies to Esmailia Khojas.
- Whether an undated, unsigned and unattested codicil in the handwriting of the deceased is valid.
Orders
- The codicil is declared valid and must be given effect to.
- Costs of these proceedings to be paid out of the estate.
Rules and key headnotes
Legislation cited (1)
- Hindu Wills Act 1870 s.2
Cases cited (5)
- Abdul Karim and Others v Kermali (A.I.R. (1920) Bombay 140)
- Re Ali Lalji Gulamani (Tanganyika Territory Probate and Administration Cause No. 15 of 1943)
- Abdulla Karim and Another v Saleh Hassan (Zanzibar Protectorate Law Reports Vol. 1 p. 150)
- Framroze P. Doctor v Mohamed Premji and Others (Zanzibar Protectorate Law Reports Vol. 1 p. 306)
- Fazal Haji Khakoo v Fatamabai (Zanzibar Protectorate Law Reports Vol. 1 p. 598)
Full judgment
The original judgment as reported. Read the original PDF before relying on any passage.