Alfred Henry Lionel Leach, C.J.

1. The Court is here concerned with the interpretation of the will of one Kanakasabapathi Pillai who died on the 13th August, 1940. The testator had married twice, but no children were born to him and both his wives predeceased him. He appointed as his executors the plaintiff and the defendant. The plaintiff is a brother of the testators second wife. The defendant is a son of the testators brother and is the heir at law.

2. In 1934 the testator contemplated retiring from the world and of becoming, to use the expression found in his will, a Tathra Sanyasi. It is apparent from the will that despite his religious inclinations he was a man of considerable vanity and he was anxious to erect a monument to himself, which would " serve to place him before the eyes of the public even more prominently than any dharmam performed when he was alive." We are here quoting from the judgment under appeal. The main question involved in it is whether the will, which was executed on the 29th April, 1934, constitutes a dedication of the residue of the estate for public charitable purposes.

3. On the death of the testator his nephew, the defendant, took possession o