The main legal point established in the judgment is that a direction to discharge debts before giving effect to a gift does not necessarily make the estate contingent, and the intention of the testator must be considered in determining whether an interest is vested or contingent.

Kumaraswami Sastri, J.

1. The only question argued in this appeal is whether the gift to the daughter of the testator of the house mentioned in the plaint conferred on her a vested interest in the property or merely a contingent interest. The testator had three daughters and two sons. Here we are concerned only with the gift to the eldest daughter Kuppammal. The Will of the testator was probated and marked as Ex. A. The testator appoints certain executors under the Will; he specifies the property which he has got and makes certain bequests to his daughters. Paragraph 17 of the Will is the paragraph relating to the house in question. In that he states as follows:

Of my three daughters, at the time of the marriage of my eldest daughter, Sowbagiavathi Kuppammal, jewels for about Rs. 2,000 should be given and Rs. 1,000 spent for marriage, and after the debt has been cleared, besides giving ar streedhanam, House No. 3, Arunachellam Pillas Lane, Periamet, mentioned in para. 1, womans cloths costing from Rs. 3-8-0 to Rs. 7 should be purchased and given to all our relatives, who are poor and who have come for the marriage.

2. At the date of the death of the testator there was a mortgage debt upon this house. Reference has been made by the learned trial. Judge to the bequest to the other two daughters and I shall refer to them at once. The bequest to the second daughter is contained in para. 18 and it is as follows:

At the time of the marriage of my second daughter, Radha Ammal, jewels for Rs. 2,000 should be given, a house worth Rs. 2,500 should be purchased and given as streedhanam and Rs. 1,000 spent for marriage and (she) should be given in marrige to my brother-in-law Jayavelu Mudaliar. The aforesaid house should only be purchased and given after my debt has been cleared.

3. Paragraph 19 refers to a gift in favour of the third daughter and it runs as follows:

To my third daughter Gajalakshmi Ammal also jewels (should be given) and marriage expenses (incurred) as mentioned above, and after the debt has been cleared a house also should be purchased and given as mentioned above.

4. Now it seems to me that in considering this Will para.17 is clear and we need not construe it with reference to any other paragraph of the Will. There was a debt upon the house and the testator says that the executors shall discharge the mortgage debt upon the house and give the house to his eldest daughter. If this clause stood alone, it seems to me that there will be little difficulty in construing the clause as a gift which would pass an absolute title to the daughter and which would vest the house immediately in her. The fact the testator wanted the executors to his-charge the encumbrance in the property would not by itself make it a contingent gift. I do not think in this case it is necessary that Clauses 18 and 19 should be called in question to construe Clause17 of the Will. Clauses 18 and 19 do not refer to any existing property which is bequeathed. In them a direction is given to the executors to purchase houses after the debts are discharged and then give one house to the second daughter and another to the third daughter. That purchase can only be made after the debts are discharged. Again in Clause17 the word is the debt which evidently refers to the mortgage debt while in Clauses 18 and 19 the testator refers to his general debts. It, therefore, seems to me that the circumstances as regards the bequest to the second and third daughters are different from the circumstances which existed with regard to the bequest to the first daughter. The house which was given to her specifically existed on the date of the testators death. He wants the executors to pay off the debt and give the property to her. The debt can only reasonably mean the debt which existed at the time of the gift upon the house; whereas in the other two eases the houses were to be purchased only after the discharge of the testators debts, because they could not purchase houses and g