Anantakrishna Ayyar, J.

1. One Devayya Gowda executed a will, Ex. 1, dated 3rd July 1907. He left behind him his widow (Madammal, plaintiff 1) and his daughter-in-law (named Bowrammal, plaintiff 2, in the suit). The plaintiffs suit was for a permanent injunction restraining the defendant from entering on the plaint properties and for other consequential reliefs. The defendant is the husband of Marammal, the daughter of the deceased son of Devayya Gowda and he claims right to possession, under Ex. 1. The question turns on the construction of Ex.

1. The first Court decided the suit in favour of the plaintiffs adopting substantially the construction put upon it by the plaintiffs. But the lower appellate Court dismissed the suit adopting substantially the construction contended for by the defendant. Hence this second appeal by the plaintiffs.

2. The document is not very happily worded, and I have to make the very best I can out of the same. But having) carefully considered the terms of the document, I have come to the conclusion that the testator gave the defendant a vested interest in the properties, but the right of possession has been postponed till after the death of the testa