The main legal point established in the judgment is the principle that each will must be construed by itself, and the intention of the testator must be ascertained. The court also emphasized the rule of construction in construing a will to give effect to every word in the will and try to effectuate the intention of the testator as far as possible and not frustrate it.

Venkataramana Rao, J.

1. The question in this second appeal turns upon the construction of a will Ex. III, dated 27th November, 1917, left by one Vijiaraghavalu Naidu. It was his last will and testament. He executed the previous wills Exs. I and II dated 25th July, 1917 and 21st November, 1917, respectively. Before July, 1917, the testator was ill. He had no male issue. He had only a daughter by name Kuppammal. The persons who were the objects of his affection were his wife Chinnammal, the said daughter Kuppammal and her husband Rangaswami Naidu the seventh defendant in this case. He had properties in four villages, namely, Vallam, Nemili, Mazhayur and Vadakku-mangalam in the North Arcot District. By his will dated 25th July, 1917, he purported to bequeath his properties in the Vallam village to his daughter Kuppammal and the extent of the bequest is thus stated in the said will:

She shall hold and enjoy the same from generation to generation with powers of alienation by gift, mortgage, sale, etc.

2. By his second will dated 21st November, 1917, he purported to make a bequest of the properties both in favour of his daughter and son-in-law the seventh defendant. There are two schedules to the said Will A and B. The A schedule properties tomprise the properties in the Vallam village the subject-matter of the prior will and also the properties in Mazhayur village and these he gave to his daughter Kuppammal. The B schedule comprises the properties in the village of Nemili and these he - gave to his son-in-law the seventh defendant. The extent of the bequest is stated thus in the said will:

They shall hold and enjoy the same from generation to generation with powers of alienation by gift, mortgage, sale, etc. If besides these any other properties have been left out, the same shall be got by my daughter Kuppammal.

3. Six days later he made a third will the construction of which is now in question. It will be seen from the first two wills that no provision was made for his wife Chinnammal and so he purported to make one. It may be necessary to give the terms thereof so far as they ma} be relevant for the decision of the question in issue. It runs thus:

I am at present physically weak on account of asthma, as I apprehend that I may not live long, as you are my wife, and as, in the wills previously executed (by me), no mention is made about your maintenance, all the properties that belong to me, that is, all the immovable and movable properties in these villages, namely, Vellam, Vadakkumangalam and Mazhayur, shall after my lifetime be enjoyed by you with powers of alienation by gift, mortgage, sale, etc., and after you, the properties then remaining shall, according to the wills executed by me on 25th July, 1917 and 21st November, 1917, be held and enjoyed by our daughter, Kuppammal, with powers of alienation by gift, mortgage, sale, etc.

4. On the date of his death Chinnammal, Kuppammal and Rangaswami Naidu were alive. Kuppammal died first in 1924 leaving a daughter Vijialakshmi who died six months later. Chinnammal died after June, 1927, having before her death executed three deeds of settlement dated 1st June, 1927, in and by which she disposed all the properties that were bequeathed to her under the said will in favour of defendants 1 to 3, defendants 1 and 2 being her brothers and the third defendant being her sisters son-in-law. The plaintiff is an alienee of a fourth share of the said properties from the seventh defendant who claims to succeed thereto on the ground that after the death of Chinnammal he became entitled thereto. His case is that Chinnammal had only a life interest in the said properties and his wife Kuppammal had a vested remainder and that vested remainder on her death vested in her daughter Vijialakshmi and on the latters death vested in him as her father. The questions for decision in this case are, what is the nature and extent of interest taken by Chinnammal under the will and whether the deeds of settlement