The testator's intention, as gathered from the entire will, determines whether an absolute estate or a life estate is conferred, and any subsequent clauses that contradict the initial grant of absolute ownership are of no effect.

( 1 ) THE plaintiffs instituted the suit for the grant of Letters of Administration, They alleged that on the 21st Nov. 1955, their father, Nagendra Nath Mondal, executed a will. On the 18th Dec, 1967. he expired. The executrix under the will was his wife, Aiswarjyamoyee Dasi. She instituted Original Suit No. 13 of 1968 for grant of a probate in her favour. But she was prevailed upon by the interested parties to withdraw that suit. The plaintiffs, who are three of his sons, are the beneficiaries under the will.

( 2 ) DEFENDANTS Nos. 1 and 2. who are Nagen's sons, filed a written statement. It has been alleged, inter alia, that the suit is not maintainable and the plaintiffs have no locus standi to bring it. Nagendra Nath Mondal did not execute any such will. It is not at all a genuine document. He had been suffering from illness from before the execution of the alleged will. There was no reason to deprive his two sons (contesting defendants) of his property. Moreover, Nagendra Nath Mondal filed Title Suit No. 714 of 1965 in the 3rd Munsifs Court, Sealdah. After his death, all his legal heirs and representatives including the defendants were duly substituted in his place.

( 3 ) THE learned Additional District Judge accepted the plaintiff's version, decreed the suit and issued Letters of Administration with a copy of the will annexed. Hence this appeal.

( 4 ) IT has been argued on behalf of the appellants that the suit is not maintainable. Reference has been made to Jarman on Wills, 7th Edition. Vol. III, page 2080, to show that it has become an established rule, that where the bequest is simply to 'a', and in ease of his death, or if he dies, to 'b', 'a' surviving the testator takes it absolutely. Reference has also been made to Williams on Executors and Administrators 14th Edition. Vol. II, paragraph 1022, at page 665, to show that if there is an immediate absolute grant, to which is annexed a condition, no matter how it is worded, to the effect that if the legatee 'dies, then the property shall go over to another, this condition will be held to refer to the death of the legatee in the testator's lifetime, unless there appears in the will an intention to the contrary. The case of Jehangir Dadabhoy v. Kaikhusuru Kavasha in L. R. , (1915) 42 Ind App 71 at Page 78 : (AIR 1914 PC 18 at p. 20) has been cited to show, how after the testator's death, his estate has to be made over.

( 5 ) THE learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents has stated that the suit was rightly decreed. Reference has been made to Ss, 87 and 88 of the Indian Succession Act. Section 87 shows that the testator's intention shall not be set aside because it cannot take effect to the full extent. Section 88 provides for a contingency where two clauses of a will are incongruous so that they cannot possibly stand together and in that event, the last one shall prevail. It has been stated that the will in question clearly shows that no absolute interest was given by Nagendra Nath Mondal to his wife, Aiswarjyamoyee Dasi. On the contrary, the entire reading of the will shows that a life interest was given to her because it has been stated that in case she dies leaving any portion of those properties, the testator's third son, Amulya Kumar Mondal, fourth son, Sankar Hari Mondal, and youngest son, Rabindra Nath Mondal, or in the absence of any of them, his or their heirs will receive the same. These clauses are inconsistent. So, the last one will prevail and the Court will find that the testator's intention was to confer a mere life estate on her.

( 6 ) REFERENCE has also been made for the respondents to Theobold on the Law of Wills. 10th Edition, page 303, to show that the fact that the will contains other devises with words of limitation will not prevent a devise without such words from passing the fee, a devise without words of limitation, followed by a devise of the same property to another person with words of limitation, will give