Kumaraswami Sastry, J.

1. The only question raised in these appeals is whether the respondent who is legatee under the Will of one O. Kandaswamy Mudaliar took the property bequeathed under the Will as a tenant-in-common with his father and brothers or as a joint tenant.

2. The Will which has been probated is filed as Ex. F The testator Kandaswamy Mudaliar died leaving a widow, three sons and two daughters. He also left two brothers one of whom was Kadirvelu Mudaliar (father of the respondent) who was appointed executor. There was another brother, Krishnaswamy Mudaliar, who had two sons. So far as the respondent is concerned, the terms of the Will concerning him are very short. Paragraph 4 of the Will says:

Items 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 under assets in paragraph 1, above, I bequeath and leave to my brother G. Kadirvelu Mudaliar and his sons.

3. Paragraph 5 goes on to state that in consideration of the help given by Kadirvelu Mudaliar as regards the business carried on by the testator, he bequeaths to Kadirvelu Mudaliar and his two sons a half-share in the stationery business carried on in the Minerva Press and Thompson and Company, that the stationery business should be conducted by Thompson and Co., that the profits arising from the same, as per accounts separately and correctly maintained, should be divided equally every year before the end of March between his sons, on the one part, and his brother and his sons on the other. In case his sons do not agree with his brother and his sons, the stationery and stock-in-trade were to be valued and the testators sons were to give Kadirvelu and his sons one-half of the estimated value.

4. It appears from the evidence, and it is not disputed before us, that the testator and his brothers were members of a divided family and that the brothers and their children were living together as members of an undivided family, though it is contended by the respondents vakil that there was no joint family property owned by Kadirvelu and his sons who were the legatees aforesaid. It is also clear from the evidence that Kadirvelu and his sons would not, in the ordinary course, succeed to the properties of the testator as the testator left a widow, sons and daughters and that Kadirvelu and his sons were, at best, only remote heirs.

5. So far as the terms of the Will go, there is very little to indicate that Kadirvelu and his sons were to take the property as members of a joint family with rights of survivorship. It is argued by the vakil for the appellants, that the fact that the testator gives the property to Kadirvelu and his sons without naming his sons and the fact that in paragraph 10 of the Will the gift to the daughters provides for a sale of the house and the division of the sale proceeds equally among the daughters, if necessary, indicate that the gift to Kadirvelu and his sons was a gift to them as members of a joint family. It is argued by the respondents vakil that the fact that paragraph 3 of the Will, which gives certain items to the sons of the testator, expressly states that the property shall be the common property of his sons, whereas the next paragraph, which contains a gift to Kadirvelu and his sons does not make any such statement as to the property being common property shows that the testators intention was the other way. It is also stated that the clause as regards the daughters in paragraph 10 of the Will was so worded, because one of the daughters was omitted, and so it was necessary to mention the names, and that as the property was a house which could not be divided equally, provision had to be made for the distribution of the sale proceeds. If we had to depend solely on the Will and look to its terms for a construction of the estate which Kadirvelu and his sons took, 1 do not think it can be said that there was an intention displayed by the testator in express language to indicate that Kadirvelu and his sons took the property as members of a joint family with all the rights an