Will executed to daughter-in-law giving different devices.

The defendants in O.S. No, 278 of 1964 on the file of the Sub-Court, Coimbatore, are the appellants. The respondent-plaintiff filed the suit for a declaration that his mother Poovathal had acquired a vested interest in the suit properties under the terms of the will dated 12th December, 1929, executed by his maternal grand-father, one Ramana Goundar, that he has inherited the said vested right on the death of his mother and that the will dated 4th August, 1964, executed by the first defendant in favour of the second defendant as though she had an absolute right over the property was not valid and binding on him.

2. The defendants resisted the suit contending that the will dated 12th December, 1929, executed by Ramana Goundar gave an absolute right to the first defendant in the suit properties, that the first defendant could dispose of the same by her will dated 4th August, 1964, and that the plaintiff had not acquired any vested interest in the suit properties under the will of Ramana Goundar.

3. The trial Court held that the plaintiff did not acquire any vested interest under the will of Ramana Gounder dated 12th December, 1929. The lower appellate Court, however, disagreed with the trial Court and passed a decree in favour of the plaintiff upholding his case that he acquired a vested interest in the suit properties under the said will.

4. In this Second Appeal the dependents contend that the view taken by the lower appellate Court is erroreous and that the view taken by the trial Court is the correct one.

5. The suit properties originally belonged to the family of Ramana Goundar. He had an only son, Chinnappa Goundar. The first defendant is the wife of the said, Chinnappa Goundar. Chinnappa Goundar had two daughters, the second defendant Pappammal and the plairtiff’s mother Poovathal. The third defendant is the husband of the second defendant. After the death of Chinnappa Goundar, Ramana Goundar executed a will dated 12th December, 1929. According to the plaintiff under the will the first defendant was given a right to enjoy the suit properties, with a vested remainder in favour of the plaintiff’s mother and the second defendant, each being entitled to a half. According to the defendants the will had given an absolute right in favour of the first defendant with no vested interest in favour of the daughters. The properties covered by the will dated 12th December, 1929, are about 15 acres of garden lands with electric motor and pump-set etc., in addition to houses and sheds. The same properties have been bequeathed by the first defendant under her will Exhibit B-1 dated 4th August, 1964, in favour of her daughter, second defendant purporting to deal with the property as an absolute owner. Thus the main question relates to the construction of the will Exhibit A-1 dated 12th December, 1929.

6. A perusal of the will shows that the testator has addressed the will to his widowed daughter-in-law, Kaliakkal, the first defendant It recites that after the death of the testator, Kaliakkal should; enter into possession and enjoy the properties, that she should discharge the debts of the testator, if any, that she should continue to maintain a “ thanneer pandal dharmam” in the local Pilliarkoil. at a cost of not less than Rs. 100 per year from the income of the properties, that that “ thanneer pandal dharmam” should continue even after her life-time and that whoever gets the properties after her life-time and whoever may be in possession of the properties by virtue of any alienation, are bound to continue the dharmam as aforesaid. The will further directs that after the life-time of Kaliakkal her daughters, Pappammal and Poovathal should get the properties absolutely. The devise in favour of the first defendant is as follows:—

7. Regarding the devise in favour of the two grand-daughters the terms are as follows:—

8. Thus, it is seen that the testator used a different phraseology in respect of the two devises which he had made one in fa