Ratio-Wife was in possession of family house without any conditions attached thereto.

The plaintiffs have instituted this proceeding for the construction of the will of the late Narayana Guruviah Chetty, dated 12th October, 1915, marked as Exhibit P-l, by which amongst other things the testator had created certain religious and charitable endowments, and the point on which the decision of this Court is sought relates to the question whether house and ground bearing Municipal door No. 133, Audiappa Naicken Street (more fully described in the schedule appended to the plaint) still forms part of the trust estate as being covered by the terms of the will.

2. Late Narayana Guruviah Chetty amassed large properties as his self-acquisitions by his own exertions and the trade that he was carrying on. His wife was one Narayana Ethirajamma and they had no issues. Guruviah Chetty had adopted a son who predeceased the adoptive father, leaving a widow. The will left behind by Guruviah Chetty was a detailed and an elaborate one prepared under the instructions and with the assistance of a lawyer and contains 95 paragraphs. Under this will the testator made several bequests and legacies in favour of his near relatives and substantial portions of the properties have been endowed for religious and charitable trusts. Guruviah Chetty died on 28th October, 1915, i.e., about a fortnight after the execution of the will aforesaid. Under the will the testator had appointed the following eight persons, including his wife as trustees to his estate and also to act as executors to get probate of the will and carry out the directions contained in the will: (1) Wife, Narayana Ethirajamma; (2) Prathy Kanniah Chetty; (3) Pabbichetty Bashyakarloo Chetty; (4) Pabbichetty Venkatramiah Chetty; (5) Vemulapatti Rangiah; (6) Vutukuri Narayana Chetty ; (7) Pabbichetty Basaviah Chetty and (8) Pabbichetty Ramanujam Chetty. The widow, Narayana Ethirajamma died on 25th July, 1964 leaving behind her a will under which she had bequeathed her properties including House No. 133 Audiappa Naicken Street to the second defendant, her sister’s son. Of the eight trustees appointed under the will of the testator, all are dead except the first defendant, P. Ramanujam Chetty. In the vacancies caused by the death of the other trustees the plaintiffs and the second defendant have been chosen and appointed as trustees for administering the trusts. The point which is in controversy turning upon the true construction of the will, Exhibit P-1, with particular reference to the conduct of the testator even during his lifetime and the uniform course of conduct and actings of the trustees for about fifty years past is whether this property, door No. 133, Audiappa Naicken Street, is trust property or whether this property has been excluded from the will and is the separate property of the widow, Narayana Ethirajamma and therefore validly conveyed to the second defendant under her will. The contention of the present trustees, the plaintiffs, is that as per the provisions of the will the widow Ethirajamma is only entitled to a right of residence in the house No. 133, Audiappa Naicken Street, and that on her death trustees are entitled to take possession of the same for and on behalf of the trusts. The contenion of the second defendant, in which he is fully supported by the first defendant (the only surviving trustee out of the board of trustees appointed by the testator), is that the disputed property has been excluded from the operation of the will, that even during the testator’s lifetime he had gifted this property to his wife, Ethirajamma, and had also banded over to her all the title deeds relating thereto as part and. parcel of the transaction of gift, that throughout, all the trustees and executors have acted (during his unbroken period of fifty years) on the footing that the property is excluded from the operation of the will, and that the same has been gifted by the testator to his wife even during his lifetime, and that the widow Narayana Ethirajamma obtained po