JUDGMENT

GOSWAMI, J.:—This appeal by certificate from the judgment and decree of the Allahabad High Court raises an important question with regard to the construction of a will. The respondent Gokul (whose heirs have been impleaded after his death) was the original plaintiff in a suit for declaration that he was the absolute owner under a will of the property in suit and for possession of certain of them. He also claimed certain movable properties with which we are not concerned in this appeal.

2. The property in suit was originally in exclusive ownership and possession of Bhola Chaubey, the testator, Bhola Chaubey, was governed by the Mitakshra School of Hindu Law. He belonged to the class of priests and was an old man of 67 years at the time when he executed the will on September 21, 1916. He had then a legally wedded wife Smt. Jarian, approaching nearly her forty fifth year and they had no issue in wedlock. The only person whom the testator appeared to have almost treated like a son was the respondent Gokul, doubly related to the testator, being his sister s son and also his wife s brother s son. Gokul had been with him since childhood and the testator got him married. Gokul in return had been serving the testator to his satisfaction and was in enjoyment of his full confidence and affection till the testator s death in 1918. Gokul was then aged about 23 years. It was directed in the will that Smt. Jarain would get the obsequies and other religious rites of the testator performed by Gokul.

3. After the death of the testator Smt. Jarain and Gokul continued to live in cordiality for nearly 18 years. Feelings, however, got estranged some time after that and there was even litigation, criminal and civil, between Smt. Jarain and Gokul. It appears Smt. Jarain, who died in March, 1948, had executed a gift deed and a will in respect of certain properties in suit in favour of the appellant, Navneet Lal. All this led to the institution of the present suit out of which this appeal has arisen.

4. The case of the appellant was that Bhola Chaubey had given an absolute estate under the will to his wife, Smt. Jarain, and she was, therefore, entitled to deal with the property as she liked and hence the deed of gift and the will in favour of the appellant were perfectly valid. According to the appellant the respondent had no right to file the suit basing upon the will executed by Bhola Chaubey.

5. According to the respondent the will conferred on Smt. Jarain only a life estate during her life and after her death an absolute estate of the testator s entire property on the respondent.

6. The Civil Judge, Mathura, decreed the respondent s suit except with reference to the movable property mentioned in Schedule C to the plaint as well as in respect of certain muafi zamindari property in Schedule A to the plaint. The appellant appealed to the High Court at Allahabad and when the matter came up for disposal by a Division Bench of that court, there was a difference of opinion between the Judges. Srivastava, J. held that the testator had no 797 intention of conferring a limited life estate only on his wife and that he acquire an absolute estate by virtue of the will. On the other hand, B. Dayal, J. took a contrary view holding that Bhola Chaubey intended to give merely a life estate to Smt. Jarain and to make Gokul full owner of the property after her death. The appeal was then set down for hearing before a third Judge, (Dhawan, J.), who agreed with B. Dayal, J. resulting in dismissal of the appeal.

7. We are concerned in this appeal only with the construction of the will executed in the year 1916.

8. From the earlier decisions of this Court the following principles, inter alia, are well established:-

(1) In construing a document whether in English or in vernacular the fundamental rule is to ascertain the intention from the words used; the surrounding circumstances are to be considered; but that is only for the purpose of finding out the intended meaning of