Sections 106-110 explained: this guide covers what it means, who it applies to, the step-by-step process, documents required, fees, due dates and penalties in India — so you can stay compliant with confidence and avoid costly mistakes.
The general rule in section 105 is that a legacy lapses if the legatee dies before the testator. Sections 106 to 110 set out five situations in which the legacy either does not lapse, or lapses in a particular way. Each is short, and each turns on the exact words of the will.
As per the text of the Act consulted: a legacy given to two persons jointly does not lapse if one dies before the testator, because the other takes the whole (s.106). If the will shows distinct shares, a dead legatee's share falls into the residue (s.107), and a lapsed share of the residue goes as undisposed of (s.108). A bequest to the testator's child or lineal descendant does not lapse if a lineal descendant of that legatee survives the testator, unless the will shows a contrary intention (s.109). A bequest made for the benefit of another does not lapse by the death of the person to whom it is made (s.110).
How these sections sit with section 105
Section 105 says a legacy lapses if the legatee does not survive the testator, unless the will shows another intention. Our article on sections 104 and 105 sets out that rule. The five sections that follow are the Act's own answers to the recurring problem cases. If you are reading a will where a legatee has died first, the question is which of these sections the words of the clause match. A legal consultation before distribution is a sensible step when the clause is not clear.
Section 106: joint legatees
Section 106 reads: if a legacy is given to two persons jointly, and one of them dies before the testator, the other legatee takes the whole.
The Act's illustration: the legacy is simply to A and B. A dies before the testator. B takes the legacy. The key word is "jointly". The section turns on how the will describes the gift, not on how the family would describe it.
Section 107: words showing distinct shares
If a legacy is given to legatees in words which show that the testator intended to give them distinct shares of it, then, if any legatee dies before the testator, so much of the legacy as was intended for him falls into the residue of the testator's property.
The Act's illustration: a sum of money is bequeathed to A, B and C, to be equally divided among them. A dies before the testator. B and C take only so much as they would have had if A had survived. A's third goes to the residue.
Section 108: a lapsed share of the residue
Where a share which lapses is a part of the general residue bequeathed by the will, that share goes as undisposed of. The Act's illustration: the testator bequeaths the residue of his estate to A, B and C, to be equally divided between them. A dies before the testator. His one-third of the residue goes as undisposed of.
The section tells the reader that there is no further residue to catch the lapsed share. The words "undisposed of" mean that the will has not given that share to anyone, so it is dealt with as part of the property the will did not dispose of. The text of this section does not say more about how that property is then divided; it leaves that to the other provisions of the Act and the law that applies. Our article on residuary legatee under sections 102 and 103 explains how a residuary legatee is constituted.
Section 109: the testator's child or other lineal descendant
Where a bequest has been made to any child or other lineal descendant of the testator, and the legatee dies in the lifetime of the testator but any lineal descendant of his survives the testator, the bequest does not lapse. It "shall take effect as if the death of the legatee had happened immediately after the death of the testator", unless a contrary intention appears by the will.
The Act's illustration: A makes his will bequeathing a sum of money to his son B "for his own absolute use and benefit". B dies before A, leaving a son C who survives A, and having made a will leaving all his property to his widow D. The money goes to D.
The effect of the illustration is worth noticing. The money does not go to C, the grandchild who survived A, merely because C survived. It goes as if B had died just after A, so it forms part of B's property and passes under B's will, here to D. The grandchild's survival is the condition that keeps the legacy alive.
Adoption under Schedule III
Restriction 5 printed in Schedule III names section 109, with sections 105, 111 and others, and says the words "son", "sons", "child" and "children" are to be deemed to include an adopted child when these sections are applied to the wills and codicils described in section 57. That is a statement about how the section reads for those wills.
Section 110: a bequest to one for the benefit of another
Where a bequest is made to one person for the benefit of another, the legacy does not lapse by the death, in the testator's lifetime, of the person to whom the bequest is made. The section gives no illustration and does not say who then takes; it states only that the legacy does not lapse.
The five sections side by side
| Section | Situation | Result |
|---|---|---|
| 106 | Legacy to two persons jointly; one dies before the testator | The other takes the whole |
| 107 | Words show distinct shares; a legatee dies before the testator | His share falls into the residue |
| 108 | A lapsing share is part of the general residue | That share goes as undisposed of |
| 109 | Bequest to testator's child or lineal descendant who dies first; a lineal descendant survives the testator | No lapse, unless a contrary intention appears |
| 110 | Bequest to one person for the benefit of another; the first person dies | No lapse |
Examples with invented names
Joint gift. Rukmini's will says: "I give my flat to my brothers Sohan and Mohan." Sohan dies before Rukmini. If the words are a joint gift, section 106 gives the whole to Mohan.
Divided gift. Another will says: "I give 90,000 rupees to Neha, Pooja and Ritu in equal shares." Ritu dies first. Under section 107 Neha and Pooja each take 30,000 rupees and Ritu's 30,000 falls into the residue.
Child who died first. Anwar's will leaves 5 lakh rupees to his daughter Zara. Zara dies before Anwar and her son Kabir survives him. Under section 109, absent a contrary intention in the will, the bequest takes effect as if Zara had died immediately after Anwar.
Where the sections apply
Schedule III lists sections 106 to 110 among the sections of Part VI that section 57 applies to the wills and codicils of Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs and Jainas described there. Section 58 as printed says Part VI does not apply to the testamentary succession to the property of any Muhammadan. Our article on wills of Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs and Jainas sets out the application sections. The print consulted shows amendments only up to the Indian Succession (Amendment) Act, 2002 (26 of 2002); check for later amendments.
Need help with a will where a legatee has died?
If a legatee named in a will has died and you are unsure who is now entitled, our legal consultation can help you read the clause against these five sections, so that the estate is not distributed on a wrong assumption.
Key takeaways
- Joint legatees: if one dies before the testator, the other takes the whole (s.106).
- Distinct shares: the dead legatee's share goes into the residue (s.107).
- A lapsed share of the residue goes as undisposed of (s.108).
- A child or lineal descendant of the testator who dies first does not cause a lapse if a lineal descendant of that legatee survives the testator (s.109).
- A bequest to one for the benefit of another does not lapse by the first person's death (s.110).
Read next
- Sections 104 and 105: time of vesting and when a legacy lapses
- Section 111: survivorship in a bequest to a described class
- Residuary legatee under sections 102 and 103
- Section 101: two bequests to the same person
Disclaimer: Based on an unofficial print of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 showing amendments up to the Indian Succession (Amendment) Act, 2002 (26 of 2002), as consulted on 2 October 2026. It explains the words of the statute only; later amendments, State amendments and rules, court fees and the way courts apply these sections should be checked. This article is general information, not legal advice; check the official text before acting.