This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree of the learned Additional Subordinate Judge of Madurai, in A.S. No. 55 of 1957 which was an appeal from the decision of the District Munsif of Madurai Taluk at Madurai, in O.S. No. 244 of 1955.

The facts of the case so far as they are necessary for the consideration of the points in issue in this Second Appeal are the following:

The suit property is 54 cents of nanja land. It originally belonged to one Subbiah Pillai. Subbiah Pillai executed a will, Exhibit A-1, dated 5th August, 1931 and died soon afterwards He left behind his widow, Lakshmi Animal, and two daughters, Amirihammal and Ammakutti alias Vadamalai Ammal. The will purported to deal with the suit property (item 1) and another item of property (item 2). It give3 these two properties to the widow with absolute rights and also provided that after her lifetime, item 1 (suit property) should go to Amirthammal and item 2 should go to Ammakutti. Amirthammal was married to Muthuswami Pillai, the fourth defendant, and they had a son Muthukamakshia Pillai, the fifth defendant, and a daughter, sixth defendant. Ammakutti is the third defendant. The plaintiff obtained item 1 under a sale deed (Exhibit A-3, dated 20th October, 1952) executed by the fourth defendant, the husband of Amirthammal, on behalf of his minor daughter, Nacharammal. It may be mentioned at this stage that the widow, Lakshmi Ammal died in 1948 and Amirihammal pre-deceased her, she having died in 1941. Defendants 4 and 5 subsequently executed some documents by way of mortgage and sale in favour of defendants 2 and 3. There is also some more history of alienations showing that the parties dealt with the properties in a somewhat haphazard manner. For example, the fourth defendant, as guardian of the fifth defendant, executed a mortgage in respect of the suit property to the third defendant who sub-mortgaged it to the second defendant. Subsequently the third defendant executed a sale deed of the said property asserting title as against Amirthammal in favour of the first defendant. The second defendant who is a co-wife (the first wife being the first defendant) of one Pambal Asari had also taken a sale deed from defendants 4 and 5 admitting title in Amirthammal. It is unnecessary to go into these alienations because the point in controversy has reduced itself to a short one namely to determine whether the will of Subbiah Pillai granted an absolute estate to Lakshmi Ammal or only a limited estate with a vested remainder in the two daughters.

The trial Court found that the first part of the will granted an absolute estate to Lakshmi Ammal and the gift over to the daughters was a repugnant clause and, therefore, invalid. The appellate Court however decided that the will had to be construed as a whole, and if so construed, the subsequent clause had the effect of reducing the interest of Lakshmi Ammal to a life estate. The result of this finding of the appellate Court, was that the alienation in favour of the plaintiff was upheld and the plaintiff obtained a decree declaring his title to the suit property and permitting him to recover possession on payment of certain amounts covered by the mortgages to some of the defendants. Mesne profits were also ordered to be determined in separate proceedings. It may be mentioned that in this Second Appeal no attack is made regarding the latter provisions of the appellate Court’s decree. They flow from the main decision about the nature of the estate conferred upon Lakshmi Ammal; that was the sole point urged for consideration in this Second Appeal ; the other provisions of the decree following as a result of the finding on the main point, are not in dispute.

It is, therefore, necessary to consider the terms of the will carefully. It is a brief document and the entire document is put down below:

“ The will dated 21st Audi Prajorpathi, corresponding to 5th August, 1931, executed by Subbiah Pillai, son of Muthu Pillai, Ka