The central legal point established in the judgment is the need to interpret the testator's intention in the context of the mufussil, the prejudices, habits, and customs of Hindus, and the survivorship clause, without wholesale application of principles applicable to Wills executed in the Presidency Towns.

Deavdoss, J.

1. One Kuppi Chetti devised by his Will dated 15th May 1907, his moveable property and immovable properties to three persons subject to the life interest of his wife and his brothers widow. Subramaniam Chetti one of the legatees mortgaged his share of the property devised to him to the plaintiff under Ex. A on 22nd June 1908. The plaintiff has brought the suit on the mortgage and the contention of the defendant is, that inasmuch as Subramaniam Chetti died in the lifetime of Meenakshi Ammal, the widow of the testator, the legacy did not vest in him and the plaintiff could, therefore, have no remedy against the property. The District Munsif decreed the plaintiffs suit; but the Subordinate Judge of Cuddalore dismissed it. The plaintiff has preferred this second appeal.

2. The only question in this second appeal, is what did the testator mean by the following clause should any of the aforesaid persons, viz., Subramaniam Chettiar or minor Venkatesam mentioned above die, the survivor shall get the properties of the deceased and enjoy them with power to sell or gift them away.

3. The District Munsif relying upon Section 111 of the Indian Succession Act, held, that the clause related to the death of Subramaniam Chetti or of minor Venkatesam Chetti during the lifetime of the testator. The Subordinate Judge held that the period contemplated by the testator was the death of the life-tenants. The learned Advocate-General for the appellants contended that Section 111 is a rule of law which is applicable to all Wills and, therefore, the clause must be taken to refer to the death of Subramaniam Chetti or Venkatesam Chetti during the lifetime of the testator.

4. The Will is the Will of a Hindu living in the mufussil. Neither the Hindu Wills Act nor the Probate and Administration Act apply to this Will. If this will was one governed by the Indian Succcession Act, then Section 111 would be applicable. But in the case of a vernacular Will drawn up and executed in the mufussil, the Court should take care not to apply wholesale the principles of construction which are applicable to the Wills executed in the Presidency Towns and drawn up by Solicitors or Vakils. In construing a Will of this kind, the intention of the testator should be gathered from the tenor of the whole Will and artificial rules of construction should not be applied without due regard to the habits, prejudices, and customs of the people among whom the testator lived and the circumstances under which the Will came to be executed. In the earlier part of the Will the testator says out that he is 67 years of age, and in a bad state of health and feeble, and then he proceeds to bequeath his property to three persons, dividing the house into three portions. Then he makes a bequest of the whole of the income of his immovable property to his wife and the widow of his deceased brother. The clause relating to the life-interest is After my lifetime 1. Meenakshi Ammal, my wife and 2. Venkata Lakshmiammal, wife of Gurumurthi Chetti, my youngest brother, shall during their lives get only the incomes derived from the properties mentioned hereunder.

5. He then proceeds to dispose of the moveable properties in the following clause.

After my lifetime and the lifetime of Meenkshi Ammal, my wife, and Venkata lakshmiammal, wife of my younger brother these three persons, viz., Subramaniam Chetti minor Venkatesam, and Venkataraman Chett mentioned above, shall take the moveable pro perties, etc., that I possess divided in three shares.

6. Then follows the clause which is the subject of consideration in this second appeal

should any of the aforesaid persons, viz., Subramaniam Chetti or minor Venkatesam mentioned above die, the survivor shall get the properties of the deceased and enjoy them with power to sell or gift them away.

7. That Meenakshi Ammal and Venkata Lakshmiammal were given a life-interest in the properties cannot be seriously disputed. They were given the whole of the income of