JUDGMENT

1. This is the plaintiff's appeal from the decree of the District Judge of Unao, dated 18th July 1931, modifying the decree of an Assistant Collector of the first class of the same place dated 10th March 1931 in a suit for recovery of a share of profits under Clause (15), Section 108, Oudh Eent Act, 1886. The plaintiff, Shambhu Ratan owns a 4-annas share and Mt. Rup Kishori, defendant 2, also holds a like share in the four villages of Mirri Kalan, Bangaon, Saiedpur and Gulab Bari, situate in the pargana of Purwa, district Unao. The remaining 8-annas in those villages is owned by Badri Narain, defendant 1.

2. These villages originally belonged to one Mahadeo Prasad who died on 30th or 31st March 1926. He had made a will in respect of all his property, move-able and immovable, on 26th March 1926 in favour of the plaintiff, Shambhu Ratan, a minor son of his pre-deceased daughters, and in favour of defendant 2, Mt. Rup Kishore, a minor daughter. In the judgment under appeal the learned District Judge held that the plaintiff was not entitled to a share in the rents for the years 1331 to 1333 Fasli realized in 1334 Fasli. This finding is challenged in second appeal and this is the only point argued. The learned District Judge based his decision on three grounds: (1) that in the plaint of the suit rents for 1331 to 1333 Fasli realized in 1334 Fasli were not claimed; (2) that "the profit for any particular year is the income which has accrued (whether realized or not) in the course of that year," and (3) that the plaintiff being a legatee under the will of Mahadeo Prasad is not entitled to any profjt previous to the date on which the will came into effect, that is, the death of Mahadeo Prasad.

3. We are of opinion that none of these grounds is sound. It is true that in the plaint profits for which claim was Lald are mentioned with reference to the year 1334 Fasli only but the inquiry made by means of a commission disclosed at once that the amount of the profits for which claim was made in the plaint included profits for the preceding years also. All along the trial of the suit in the first Court it was clearly understood by both the parties that the plaintiff's claim related not only to the realizations of rents of the year 1334 Fasli but also of the preceding years 1331 to 1333 Pasli. The second ground used by the learned District Judge is wholly negatived by a decision of a Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Sheo Ghulam v. Salik Ram, AIR 1924 All 481. It was held in that case that profits" meant not only rent of the year to which the suit relates but also such arrears of rent as are actually realized during that year. If we may respectfully say so we entirely agree with this view.

4. The third ground attracts the interpretation of the will of Mahadeo Prasad. We have read that will and have come to the conclusion that it has the effect of bequeathing every right of the testator in the subject-matter of the bequest. This of course must include his right to the share of profits which had become due to him in his lifetime. One of the rules of construction of a will is that where property is bequeathed to any person he is entitled to the whole interest of the testator therein unless it appears from the will that only a restricted interest was intended for him. Section 95, Succession Act, 1925. It does not appear from the present will that only a restricted interest was intended to be conferred by Mahadeo Prasad upon the plaintiff, Shambhu Ratan. It was agreed that if the point taken in the appeal succeeds, the cross-objection filed by Badri Narain should also succeed. Accordingly we allow the appeal and also the cross-objection, modify the decree of the lower appellate Court and direct that a decree in terms of this judgment be prepared in favour of the plaintiff. The parties will pay and receive costs in all the Courts in proportion to failure and success.