This second appeal is directed against the Judgment and Decree dated 09.10.2001 passed in A.S.No.40 of 2000 on the file of the Subordinate Court, Bhavani, confirming the Judgment and Decree dated 12.04.2000 passed in O.S.No.475 of 1996 on the file of the Additional District Munsif Court, Bhavani.

2. The second appeal has been admitted and the following substantial questions of law were formulated for consideration:

“(i) Whether the Courts below are justified in holding that vested interest of the suit properties devolved on Nagasubramanian on the death of the testator overlooking the intention of the person creating the bequest as gathered from the words used in the Will Ex.A1?

(ii) Whether the Courts below have interpreted the recitals in the Will Ex.A1 in a proper perspective before arriving a finding regarding the time of vesting with the legatees?”

3. Considering the nature of the issue involved in the matter lying in a narrow compass, it is unnecessary to deal with the facts of the case in detail.

4. Suffice to state that the suit has been laid by the respondents 1 and 2 for partition and permanent injunction.

5. It is not in dispute that the suit property originally belonged to Sengoda Gounder and that, he had bequeathed the suit property by way of a Will dated 30.11.1964 marked as Ex.A1. On a perusal of Ex.A1, it is found that by way of the same, the suit property has come to be bequeathed to Nagasubramaniam and the first defendant and further, it is also found that by way of the said Will, life enjoyment has been given to Nallammal to enjoy the property bequeathed till her life time and thereafter, the recitals of the Will postulate that the property bequeathed should be equally taken by Nagasubramaniam and the first defendant absolutely. It is found that the testator Sengoda Gounder had died in 1974 and it is further seen that Nagasubramaniam, one of the legatees had died on 05.04.1986 and it is also seen that Muthusamy Gounder, father of Nagasubramaniam died on 31.08.1995 and also it is found that the life estate holder Nallammal had died on 01.08.1995 and it is found that the legal heir of Nagasubramaniam, on his death, being his father Muthusamy Gounder, who also having died on 31.08.1995, it is seen that the respondents 1 & 2(plaintiffs) as well as the respondents 3 & 4, who are the daughters of Muthusamy Gounder, accordingly, basing on the terms of the Will, the respondents 1 & 2 laid a claim of share in the suit property that they are entitled to obtain their respective shares in the suit property by way of the same and prayed for allotting the shares, to which, they are entitled to and levied the suit for appropriate reliefs.

6. The appellant did not contest the abovesaid main facts and all that, he would raise by way of the defence is that as per the terms of the Will, as the intention of Sengoda Gounder was to bequeath the suit property absolutely only in favour of his male grandchildren and accordingly, bequeathed the same in favour of Nagasubramaniam and the first defendant, thus, according to the appellant, inasmuch as Nagasubramaniam had died on 05.04.1986 prior to the death of the life estate holder i.e. Nallammal, accordingly, it is his contention that he being the only male survivor as such entitled to take the suit property absolutely on the death of the life estate holder and therefore, he has raised the defence that the plaintiffs are not entitled to lay any claim of share in the suit property on the footing that they are the legal heirs of the deceased Nagasubramaniam.

7. It is thus found that the only issue involved in this matter is the interpretation of the Will Ex.A1, as to how the property bequeathed thereunder would devolve. On a perusal of the terms of Ex.A1 Will, it is found that the testator had bequeathed the suit property absolutely in favour of his male grandchildren i.e Nagasubramaniam and the first defendant and accordingly, he has recited that the suit property should be taken by t