What is the core issue in this case?

Whether the interest under the testator’s Will was vested or contingent, and if the appellant-wife could claim her late husband’s one-fifth share.

How did the Court read vested vs contingent interest?

A vested interest gives an immediate right of present or future enjoyment. A contingent interest depends on an uncertain event; it vests only if that event happens.

What did the Supreme Court finally hold?

The legacy in favour of the sons was a vested interest. Therefore, the appellant could claim her deceased husband’s one-fifth share.

Which statute guided vesting here?

Section 119 of the Indian Succession Act was applied; the Will showed no contrary intention, so the bequest was treated as vested.

Did failure to demand partition defeat the right?

No. The right had already vested. The ability to demand partition was procedural and did not destroy the vested title.

Law Easy

02 November, 2025

351

Usha Subbarao v. B. N. Vishveswaraiah (1996) 5 SCC 201 – Vested vs Contingent Interest | The Law Easy

Usha Subbarao v. B. N. Vishveswaraiah (1996) 5 SCC 201

Succession Will & Bequest Vested vs Contingent TPA ss.19 & 21

Supreme Court of India 1996 (1996) 5 SCC 201 8 min read India

By Gulzar Hashmi • Published on 1 November 2025

Quick Summary

The Supreme Court held that the sons of the testator took a vested interest under the Will. Since the interest had already vested, the appellant-wife could claim her late husband’s one-fifth share. The Court applied the rule of vesting under the Indian Succession Act and saw no contrary intention in the Will.

CASE_TITLE: Usha Subbarao v. B. N. Vishveswaraiah (1996) 5 SCC 201

PRIMARY_KEYWORDS: vested interest, contingent interest, Section 19 TPA, Section 21 TPA

SECONDARY_KEYWORDS: will, bequest, partition right, Indian Succession Act s.119

PUBLISH_DATE: 1 Nov 2025

AUTHOR_NAME: Gulzar Hashmi

LOCATION: India

Slug: usha-subbarao-v-b-n-vishveswaraiah-1996-5-scc-201

Issues

Can the appellant claim her husband’s one-fifth share under the Will?
Was the interest under the Will vested (ss.19 TPA) or contingent (s.21 TPA)?

Rules

Vested interest: immediate right to present enjoyment, or a present right to future enjoyment.
Contingent interest: depends on an uncertain event or condition; may or may not happen.
When the condition happens, a contingent interest converts into a vested interest.
If the Will shows no contrary intention, Section 119, Succession Act supports vesting.

Facts (Timeline)

Timeline graphic for Usha Subbarao v. B. N. Vishveswaraiah

13-03-1935: Dr. N. S. Nanjundiah executes a Will covering properties in Schedules A–D; all five sons are minors.

28-07-1938: The testator dies leaving his wife, Smt. Nadiga Nanjamma, and five sons including B. N. Subbarao.

21-02-1954: B. N. Subbarao (husband of the appellant) dies without issue.

28-03-1959: Smt. Nanjamma dies. The appellant files suit for her late husband’s one-fifth share.

Trial Court: Holds succession opened on testator’s death; sons entitled equally; partition to take place after Nanjamma’s death.

High Court: Reverses; says only a right to demand partition existed and since Subbarao did not demand, no share accrued.

Supreme Court: Restores Trial Court view; treats sons’ interest as vested; appellant entitled to one-fifth.

Arguments

Appellant

Will vested equal shares in all sons on testator’s death.
Section 119, Succession Act applies; no contrary intent to defer vesting.
Right to demand partition is procedural; title already vested.

Respondent

Interest was contingent on demand for partition after majority.
Since Subbarao did not demand during his life, no title accrued.

Judgment

The Supreme Court found no contrary intention in the Will. Applying Section 119 of the Succession Act, it held that the bequest to the sons was a vested interest. Thus, the appellant could claim her husband’s one-fifth share in Schedules A–D. The High Court’s view was set aside.

Ratio Decidendi

Where a Will creates benefits for named legatees and shows no clear intent to postpone vesting, the legacy vests on the testator’s death. A later right to demand partition does not turn the vested title into a contingent one.

Why It Matters

Clarifies drafting: Use clear words if you intend to delay vesting.
Secures heirs: Beneficiaries get a stable, vested right unless the Will says otherwise.
Exam help: Distinguish title (vesting) from remedy (partition demand).

Key Takeaways

Vested = immediate right; Contingent = depends on an uncertain event.
No contrary intent in Will → vesting at testator’s death.
Right to partition is separate from title; lack of demand does not kill vested rights.
Appellant entitled to her husband’s one-fifth share.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “Vests at Death—Unless Said Otherwise.”

Read the Will: is there a clause delaying vesting?
If no delay: title vests on death (s.119 Succession Act).
Partition demand ≠ title; it’s only the method to separate shares.

IRAC Outline

Issue

Was the interest under the Will vested or contingent, and could the appellant claim one-fifth?

Rule

TPA ss.19–21 and Succession Act s.119: absent contrary intention, legacy vests on death.

Application

The Will had no clear postponement. Sons took a vested interest at death; partition right did not affect vesting.

Conclusion

Interest was vested; appellant entitled to her husband’s one-fifth share in Schedules A–D.

Glossary

Vested Interest: An immediate right to property, either to use now or to use in future, not dependent on an uncertain event.
Contingent Interest: A right that arises only if a stated uncertain event happens.
Partition: Division of property into separate, enjoyable shares.
Contrary Intention: Words in a Will that clearly delay or deny vesting that would otherwise occur by law.

FAQs

No clause postponed vesting; therefore, by default rule, it vested on the testator’s death.

No. Partition is the method to separate shares. The title had already vested.

Sections 19 and 21 of the Transfer of Property Act and Section 119 of the Indian Succession Act.

She could claim her deceased husband’s one-fifth share in the properties listed in Schedules A–D.

Comment

Nothing for now