RAM NEWAZ V NANKOO, AIR 1926 ALL 283
FACTS
- Ram Charan sold his agricultural land minus 2 bighas but the sale deed had a condition that a part of the property- the 2 bighas is to remain with him and his son and his son’s lineal ascendants who had no power to alienate the suit property.
- If none of the lineal descendants for to be alive, then the 2 bighas was to go to the vendee (purchaser) or his heirs.
- After the death of Ram Charan's issueless son, dispute arose between the vendee’s and the reversioners (a person who hopes to get the property on the death of another relation.
- He does not have a vested interest in the property but only has a contingent/dependent interest in it) of Ram Charan.
ISSUE
- Whether the condition stipulated with regard to 2 bighas of land is in violation of rule against perpetuity?
HELD
- This was a condition repugnant to the law as the maximum postponement limit is the life of the transferor and a period of 18 years. The interest created for the benefit of minor shall be absolute. Life interest cannot be created in favour of unborn. The vendee in the instant case tried to create limited interest in favour of minor. Therefore, it is void. So, the vendees, could not set up this document as entitling them to possession of the property.
- The court decided in favour of the reversioners.
- Therefore, whether there is a violation of the rule against perpetuity or not is to be seen from the terms and conditions as they appear on paper and not what actually had happened, i.e., in deciding the question of remoteness regard must be had to the possible and not to actual events.