The court emphasized the importance of interpreting the language used in the will to determine the testator's intentions and upheld the validity of the dedication of property to religious uses and the appointment of the shebait.

JUDGMENT

Richardson, J. - This is an appeal from the judgment of Mr. Justice Buckland in a suit brought for the construction of the will of Sreeman Chandra Mukherji who died in the year 1878.

2. The plaintiff, as the learned Judge states is one of the heirs of the testator and the defendants Nos. 2 to 12 are also heirs. The first defendant, Lakhi Narain Ganguly, is a great-nephew of the testator. He was not alive at the death of the testator, as he was born in the year 1886, and he is interested in this will as having been appointed by the will of Rama Sundari Debi, the widow of the testator, who died in 1918, the shebait of the property to which the former will referred and dedication and management of which are in question.

2. By the first clause of his will the testator gave his interest in a taluq called Dehee Ulasee to his only daughter and her husband.

3. The second clause calls for no mention.

4. By the third clause the testator made provisions for the performance of his sradha and for the monthly expenses of his widow. By that clause he also provided annuities for certain persons and directed his widow to perform his annual sradha and also to perform pilgrimages to Ishur Gyadham and other shrines and other religious ceremonies." The moneys necessary for these purposes was to come-out of a taluq named Fatiabad. The clause ends with these words : "After deducting all these expenses whatever surplus shall remain from the profits of the said taluq to my share shall be devoted to the undermentioned Debseva and Atithiseva (entertainment of strangers)."

5. The fourth clause calls for no comment.

6. The fifth clause is in these terms : "I do hereby dedicate to the Ishur Debseva the whole of my immovable property and all the residue of the profits save and except the said share in Dehee Ulasee and1 the aforesaid profits of the said Taluk Fatiabad. My hereinafter named executrix shall for my salvation consecrate a Shivaloy and a Shiva and shall performs the seva, etc., of the said Shiva from .the profits of the whole of my property that is to say she will out of the profits of all the said immovable properties cause to be performed the daily and periodical seva of the said Shiva, the feeding of Brahmins and entertainment of strangers. My hereinafter named executrix will be able, if she shall so desire, to consecrate a Shivaloy and Shiva out of my estate for her own salvation. It is my heart felt desire that the said Debseva, the feeding of Brahmins and the entertainment of strangers shall be performed daily out of profits of my said immovable properties."

7. In the sixth clause the testator referred to certain provisions which he had already made for his widow during his life-time.

8. The seventh clause is important. It runs : "I do hereby appoint my wife, Srimati Rama Sundari Debi, my executrix and the shebait, she will perform all the acts according to my aforesaid instructions and the person whom she, shall appoint to the duties of executrix and shebait shall be vested with the power to perform all the said acts after her death."

9. The first point raised before the learned Judge turns upon the meaning of the word "surplus" in the concluding sentence of the third clause which I have quoted. The question, as stated by the learned Judge, was what was to be done with the amounts of the annuities formerly payable under the will to persons who are now dead. The learned Judge said : "In my opinion the amounts of such annuities will fall into the surplus and should be devoted to the sevas to be performed under the 5th paragraph of the will."

10. In my opinion, that is the natural meaning of the language used and I see no reason to differ from the learned Judge.

11. Then as to the fifth paragraph of the "will, it seems to have been suggested that a dedication of property to the Ishur Debseva" was not a sufficient dedication to a particular Hindu deity. But as the learned Judge indicates, the clause must be read as a whole, and if the objection m