2. • Section 13
• Transfer for benefit of unborn person
• Section 14
• Rule against perpetuity
Section 15 - Transfer to a
class, some of whom come
under sections 13 and 14
3. Transfer to Class
• A Class means Personas answering common
• An interest is created for the benefit of a class of
• A makes transfer of his
property to B for life and
then to B's Unborn children
with a condition that a
female child was to get only a
life interest. B dies leaving
three sons and one daughter.
The interest of the daughter
fails by reason of the rules
contained in Section 13 but it
does not fail in regard to the
whole class, that is other
three sons will take.
• An interest therein is created
for the benefit of a class of
persons with regard to some
of whom such interest fails
by reason of any of the rules
contained in sections 13 and
14, such interest fails in
regard to those persons only
and not in regard to the
5. Leak vs Robinson 35 ER 979, Volume 35
o Facts - Grandfather (Testator) created a trust in his will, the income of which was to be paid to his grandson, William Robinson
the will made provisions for Robinson’s issue, but Robinson died without issue. The will also made provisions for Robinson’s
brothers and sisters and it was argued that this provision violated the Rule Against Perpetuities.
o Court Held - It was decided by English Court that transfer should fail if it is void in favour of some of them and it shall fail if it is
valid in favour of some of them
o Prior to the Amendment Act, 1929 though old Section provided that when an interest was created in favour of a class of a
persons and it failed with regard to some of the persons on account of perpetuity, Such interest failed as regards the whole class.
• Transfer is partially valid in favour of those who can take.
• Transfer is partially void in favour of those who cannot take.
Amendment of 1929
6. Case Laws
Raja Bajrang Bahadur Singh vs Thakurain Bakhatraj
1953 AIR, 7 1953 SCR 232
• Court Held - Supreme Court held that when an interest is
created for the benefit of a class a person with regard to
some of whom such interest fails on account of the rule
against perpetuity, such interest fails in regard to those
person only and not in regard to the whole class
• Facts - The testator had no issue. His mother and his wife
were alive and he had four sisters living. Two were
childless widows. The other two had male offspring. After
Death of Mother and Wife, Sister’s son in existence and
those who may born hereafter
• Court Held - A gift to persons not in existence at the time
of the testator’s death was altogether void
Bhagabati Barmanya vs Kali Charan Singh
(1911) 13 BOMLR 375
• Facts - Malik kamil (owner) and naslan (generation after
generation) are descriptive of a heritable and alienable
estate in the done and they connote full proprietary
rights unless there is something in the context or in the
surrounding circumstances which indicate that
absolute rights were not intended to be conferred.
Section 16 - Transfer to take effect on failure of prior interest
• The restrictions contained
in section 14, 15,16 and 17
do not however apply to
the Transfer of Property for
the benefit of public and
object beneficial to
• Section 16 of Property Act
provides Where, by reason of
any of the rules contained in
sections 13 and 14, an
interest created for the
benefit of a person or of a
class of persons fails in
regard to such person or the
whole of such class, any
interest created in the same
transaction and intended to
take effect after or upon
failure of such prior interest
• A settles his property in trust for B and his intended wife, and then on eldest
son for life, and then to the eldest son of such oldest son for his life, and then
on C, the Prior interest in favour of the son of B fail. In the first instance under
section 13 and therefore the consequent interest both in favour of grandson
of B and in favour of C also fails.
Girjesh Dutt v. Data Din – AIR 1934
• Facts - A made a gift of her properties to her nephew's daughter B for life and then absolutely to B's
male descendants, if she should have any but in the absence of any male child of B, to B's daughter
without power of alienation and if B has no descendants male or female, then to A’s nephew. B died
• Court Held - It was held that the gift for life to B was valid as B was a living person at the date of the
transfer. The gift in favour of B's daughter was void under section 13 of the Act because it was a gift of
only limited interest; she had not been given absolute interest. Further, since this transfer was invalid,
the subsequent transfer depending on it also failed.
10. • Court Held - Hon’ble Court held that the bequest to daughter's son was dependent on
the absence of great grandsons in the Male Line, and as per section 16 any interest
created in the same transaction and intended to take effect after or upon failure of such
prior interest fails therefore, in this case the bequest of property is void.
Brojanath v. Anandamaji
• Facts - The testator bequeathed the property to great grandson, when they attains the
majority will receive the whole to their satisfaction and they will divide and take the same in
accordance with Hindu law, but if the testator have no great grandsons in the male Line,
then daughter's sons when they attains the age, shall take the said property from the trust
fund and divide accordingly.
11. • The rule embodied in Section 16 is not applicable where there is a limitation only in the
alternative of a prior limitation.
• In a transfer of property where there are two alternative limitations one of which is void for
remoteness and the other is capable of taking effect, the Court shall disregard the void
limitation and shall give effect to that which is legal.
• Where a person makes a gift which violates the rule against perpetuity and an alternative
independent gift which does not violate the rule against perpetuity, the second gift which does
not violate the rule against perpetuities, is valid and becomes operative.
12. • Court Held - It was held that although the bequest to the male issue was void but since
the 'power of appointment' was an independent alternative gift, it was valid.
Javerbai v. Kablibai - I.L.R. 16 BOM 492
• Facts - A property was bequeathed in favour of two persons for their lives and thereafter to
the male issue to one of them, failing which he was given power of appointment. In default
of male issue the appointment was made in favour of a daughter.