Section 114 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.
A testator may want to keep property in the family for generations. Section 114 limits how long a will can delay the moment when the thing bequeathed vests, that is, becomes the legatee's. The limit is a life, or lives, in being at the testator's death, plus a minority.
As per the text of the Act consulted, no bequest is valid whereby the vesting of the thing bequeathed may be delayed beyond the lifetime of one or more persons living at the testator's death and the minority of some person who shall be in existence at the expiration of that period, and to whom, if he attains full age, the thing bequeathed is to belong. A bequest that could vest later than that is void. The Act's illustrations use the ages of 25 and 18.
The rule in the Act's words
Section 114 is one sentence: "No bequest is valid whereby the vesting of the thing bequeathed may be delayed beyond the life-time of one or more persons living at the testator's death and the minority of some person who shall be in existence at the expiration of that period, and to whom, if he attains full age, the thing bequeathed is to belong."
Taken in parts:
- "may be delayed". The test is possibility. It is not enough that the bequest will in fact vest in time; if it could be delayed too long, it is invalid.
- "the lifetime of one or more persons living at the testator's death". These are the lives that count. They must be alive when the testator dies.
- "and the minority of some person who shall be in existence at the expiration of that period". After the last of those lives ends, the period may continue for the minority of one person already in existence at that moment, who is to take the thing if he reaches full age.
Together these are the outer limit. A bequest within it is valid; one that may go beyond it is void. The Act defines minor and minority in section 2; see our article on the definitions in section 2.
For a will with a long chain of interests, consider a legal consultation before relying on any clause that holds property back from the beneficiaries.
The Act's four illustrations
The illustrations print the numbers 25 and 18 and use old drafting. They are the Act's illustrations, not current facts.
| No. | Facts | Result |
|---|---|---|
| (i) | A fund to A for life, then to B for life, then to such of B's sons as first attain 25. A and B survive the testator | The bequest after B's death is void: a son of B born after the testator's death may not reach 25 until more than 18 years after the death of the longer liver of A and B, so vesting may be delayed beyond the lifetime of A and B and the minority of B's sons |
| (ii) | Same chain, but B dies in the testator's lifetime, leaving one or more sons | Valid: B's sons are living at the testator's death, and the time when either reaches 25 necessarily falls within his own lifetime |
| (iii) | A fund to A for life, then to B for life, with a direction to divide it, after B's death, among such of B's children as attain 18; if none does, to C | All the bequests are valid: the time for division arrives at the latest 18 years from the death of B, a person living at the testator's death |
| (iv) | A fund to trustees for the testator's daughters, with a direction that if any marries under age her share be settled to devolve after her death on such of her children as attain 18 | All valid: the daughters must be in existence at his death, and any settled portion must vest not later than 18 years from the death of the daughters whose share it was |
How to read illustration (i)
The chain is A, then B, then the sons of B who first attain 25. A and B are living at the testator's death, so their lives are the lives in being. But the son who is to take could be born after the testator's death, and could be a baby on the day the second life ends. As the illustration puts it, such a son may not attain 25 until more than 18 years have elapsed from the death of the longer liver of A and B, so the vesting may be delayed beyond the lives and the minority of the sons of B. The gift therefore fails from the start. The words "18 years" in the illustration point to the period of minority counted in that illustration.
In illustration (ii) the facts change in the one way that matters: the sons are all alive when the testator dies. Each son's 25th year falls within his own life, so it is a life in being, and the gift passes the test.
A printing slip in the copy: illustration (i) reads "the visiting of the fund", where the sense is the vesting of the fund. It is flagged here and not corrected in the text.
Illustrations (iii) and (iv)
These show the other side, where the contingency is tied to age 18, and the period after the last life in being is the minority of a person already in existence. The words "at the latest 18 years from the death of B" in illustration (iii) show how the period is measured: from the death of a person living at the testator's death.
Examples with invented names
Void. Meghna's will leaves a plot to her son Ajay for life, then to her granddaughter Tara (born after Meghna's death) for life, then to whichever of Tara's children first reaches 30. Tara was not alive at Meghna's death, so she is not one of the lives that count, and her children may not reach 30 until long after Ajay's life has ended. Section 114 asks whether vesting "may be delayed" beyond the limit; here it may be, so on the printed test the last gift is void.
Valid. Darshan's will leaves a fund to his wife for life, then to be divided among his children who are alive when she dies. His children are living at his death, so the lives in being are his wife's and, at the latest, the children's. The vesting occurs on the wife's death, which is inside the limit.
Related sections
Section 113 deals with a bequest to a person not in existence at the testator's death; see the article on section 113. Sections 115 and 116 deal with what happens to a class gift and to a later bequest when section 113 or 114 voids part of the bequest; see the article on sections 115 and 116. For transfers between living persons, the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 has its own provision; see our article on sections 13 and 14 of that Act and check the current law for the corresponding provision.
To whom the section applies
Schedule III lists section 114 among the sections of Part VI that section 57 applies to the wills and codicils of Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs and Jainas described there. Restriction 5 in the Schedule names section 114 among the sections in which "son", "sons", "child" and "children" are deemed to include an adopted child. Restriction 2 adds that nothing in the listed sections authorises any Hindu, Buddhist, Sikh or Jaina to create in property any interest which he could not have created before the first day of September, 1870. Section 58 as printed says Part VI does not apply to the testamentary succession to the property of any Muhammadan. See our article on wills of Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs and Jainas.
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 long-term bequest?
Wills that hold property for children or grandchildren yet to be born need their timing tested against section 114. If you are drafting or reviewing one, you can start with a legal consultation.
Key takeaways
- A bequest is invalid if its vesting may be delayed beyond the lifetime of persons living at the testator's death plus a minority.
- The minority counted is that of a person in existence at the end of those lives, who is to take on reaching full age.
- The test is whether vesting may be delayed, not whether it will be.
- Illustration (ii) is valid because the sons were alive at the testator's death.
- Section 116 deals with the effect on a later bequest of a bequest void under section 113 or 114.
Read next
- Section 113: bequest to an unborn person subject to a prior bequest
- Sections 115 and 116: bequest to a class partly void and bequest after a void bequest
- Section 117: direction for accumulation of income in a will
- Sections 13 and 14 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882
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.