The central legal point established in the judgment is the importance of ascertaining the intention of the testator and considering the surrounding circumstances and family relationship to interpret a Will, and the nature of the right of enjoyment in respect of the pathway reserved in the Will.

This Second Appeal arises from a suit for mandatory injunction. The plaintiffs 1, 2, 4 and 5 are the appellants. Fifth respondent in the appeal is third plaintiff. The respondents 1 to 4 are the defendants. The trial court granted a decree directing the defendants "to dismantle and remove closed portions of two gates in the compound wails and restore B schedule pathway to its original position". In the appeal by the defendants, the above decree was reversed and suit was accordingly dismissed. Hence this second appeal.

2. The facts are summarized briefly thus: One Kesava Prabhu had executed a Will (Ext.A1) in the year 1122 M.E. bequeathing his properties to his three sons and others. Ext.A1 deals with the properties set apart in different schedules. The schedules B, C & D are alone relevant in this case. Item No.1 in B schedule was allotted to Rama Prabhu, father of defendants 1 and 2. Item No.1 in B Schedule was allotted to Guna Prabhu. Item No.1 in D schedule was allotted to Vasudeva Prabhu (first plaintiff). Three street houses and their site measuring 18 cents are the properties allotted to these three sharers. There is a public road on the northern side of B schedule item No. 1. On the rear of three houses, there is a plot of land, 65 feet long and 11/2 koles wide used as a pathway leading to the road. In Ext.A1 Will, the testator had reserved this pathway for the use of all sharers as common property. This pathway was there mainly for the purpose of scavenging and for other purposes in relation to the convenient enjoyment of D schedule Item No.l. After the death of testator, the properties as per Schedules B, C and D were devolved on the sharers subject to the reservation relating to pathway. The plaintiffs had been using the pathway without any obstruction from others. The allegation of the plaintiffs was that in the first week of December, 1981 the defendants had removed two gates in the boundary walls and closed the pathway and thus they were prevented from using it for the enjoyment of their properties, It was under that situation the present suit was filed. The first item of D schedule to this Will is the plaint A schedule property. The plaint B schedule is the pathway reserved for common use.

3. The suit claim was resisted by the defendants contending that the use of the pathway was unnecessary inasmuch as plaintiffs and other sharers were having road frontage to their properties. It was further claimed that the bucket-type of latrines having been discontinued, the right reserved in Ext.A1 Will for the use of pathway had been extinguished. According to them, the pathway was meant for scavenging alone. However, the defendants did not deny the removal of gates and closure of pat] way but according to them it was done not during the period as alleged by the plaintiffs.

4. The lower appellate court agreed with the findings of the trial court that the grant treserved in respect of plaint B schedule property was for the purpose of scavenging alone and the right so granted had not extinguished as a result of the subsequent events. The appellants had raised a plea that the plaint B schedule pathway was meant for other purposes also besides scavenging. In order to hold that the right of pathway had been extinguished the lower appellate court placed reliance on S.38 of the Indian Easements Act, 1882.

5. The decision in this appeal largely centres round the interpretation of Ext. Al Will executed by deceased Kesava Prabhu. The cardinal rule to be observed by courts while construing a Will is to ascertain the intention of the testator. It is not always an easy task to bring out the real intention of the testator by reading the deed alone. The Privy Council in Venkata Narasimha Appa Row v. Parthasarathy Appa Row (41 I.A. 51) while construing a Will observed:

".... Which are often summed up in somewhat picturesque figure. The court is entitled to put itself into the testator's armchair'."

While discussing the law on the sub