Terrell JA:

The testator Sevatha Vappoo Maricar died on 31 December 1930, possessed of certain property in India and a two-fifth interest in certain houses in Victoria Street, Singapore, which were bequeathed to him by the will of Hamidunachial. The applicant is the administrator with will annexed of the Singapore estate. The will was executed in Karikal in French India and a translation into French was made by a notary in Karikal. This document was translated into English by the French Consulate in Singapore, and a copy of the translation into English forms part of the grant of Letters of Administration by this Court and is the only document which the Court can look at for the purpose of construing the will.

The material parts of the will are as follows:

I have no posterity; my executor, Goulamougaidinesaib, son of Vanasaibmaricar, Chulia by caste, landowner, fifty-four years old staying at Grand'Aldee, shall deduct from my inheritance a sum of five thousand rupees; with that sum of money he shall buy a house in Nagour and a piece of ground to the name and for the profit of Pattoummalle, daughter of Adamsaib, Chulia by caste, without profession, staying in Nagour and who takes care of me; the purchase to the name of Pattoummalle must be done in one year and she shall possess the estate and dispose of it in full ownership with faculty of giving and alienating;

I choose as my residuary legatees my nephews: (1) Checkabdoulcadmaricar (2) Mougamadalimaricar (3) Issoupasaibmaricar, three of them sons of my eldest brother, Mougamadoucossemaricar; consequently, my said legatees shall have

my part on shops No. 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, situated in Singapore, Victoria Street, and on the house situated in Karikal, ancient Tranquebar Street, No. 101; and they shall also have the land called "Goulousambinyammallemaney", as well as all my wealth, rights and species; the said Pattoumalle shall have the ownership of all furniture and utensils existing in my house, which the said Pattoumalle and myself occupy in Nagour; on the twenty-second of every lunar month Pattoumalle shall recite prayers in honour of Zabarsadikandavar;

The short point at issue is whether the gift of 5,000 rupees is charged on the whole estate or whether it is charged only on any property of the testator which may not have been specifically bequeathed or devised.

It is a golden rule that an instrument should be construed according to the natural meaning which the words bear in the instrument in which you find them (per Lord Davey in Higgins v. Dawson [1902] AC at p. 12). To my mind the words of the instrument are perfectly plain. The executor is directed to deduct from "my inheritance", (which I take to mean nothing more than the `property passing on my death'), a sum of 5,000 rupees. There follow directions as to the disposal of this sum. Then the testator says "I choose as my residuary legatees my nephews etc." A `residue' means that which is left after something has been taken away. The only thing which the testator has directed to be taken away is the 5,000 rupees. It follows that the residuary legatees get nothing until the 5,000 rupees have been deducted. As Jessel MR said in Gainsford v. Dunn LR 17 Eq at p. 408.

Those cases were cases of a gift of residue of real and personal estate, but the result of the cases is this: that where you find a legacy followed by a gift of the residue of real and personal estate, the word 'residue' is considered to mean that out of which something given before has been taken."

Mr Goho put forward an ingenious argument that the later reference to the houses in Victoria Street and to the house and land in Karikal, made these devises specific, and that accordingly the legacy was not charged upon them, but the mere fact that a testator enumerates some specific things in a gift of residue does not make the gift of those things specific (See Jarman 8th Edn. p. 1003 and the cases there referred to), and Mr. Goho admitted tha