Howes A-G CJ:

This summons was, by order of de Buriatte J adjourned into Court for the determination of the issue raised in prayer one, viz:

(1) Whether upon the true construction of the Will of Tan Yean Neo, deceased, dated 31 March 1927 the testatrix mentioned in the Statement of Claim herein, the above named third, fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh plaintiffs or any of them are beneficiaries under the said Will.

In the course of the hearing of this summons, Dr. Withers Payne (for the second and third defendants) asked the Court to delete the words "fourth" and "sixth" from the prayer, as he now admits that these two infant plaintiffs are beneficiaries under the will. This was accordingly done, but without prejudice to any question of costs, arising from the inclusion of these two plaintiffs in the summons.

As another preliminary; the second plaintiff, who besides suing on his own behalf, also sued as next friend to the third (infant) plaintiff, having been adjudicated bankrupt on 17 March 1937, it was agreed by Mr. Morrison (for the plaintiffs) at the suggestion of Dr. Withers Payne, that the first plaintiff should represent the third plaintiff for the purposes of this summons; and it was ordered that a representative order to this effect should be embodied in the formal order to be made in this summons.

The question before the Court is, whether the words "and their families" in cl 7 of the Will, by which the house known as No. 23 Duxton Hill, Singapore, was devised to the trustees of the Will, "upon trust that my trustees shall permit the same to be used as a family house by the said Ng Chye Lian, Lim Choon

Eng, Cheok Chin Giap, Cheok Chin Seng, Cheok Chin Huat, Cheok Chin Ho and Cheok Chin Soon and their families for a period of twenty-one years from the date of my death.

The above-named seven beneficiaries are as follows:

(1) Ng Chye Lian and

(2) Lim Choon Eng are secondary wives of the Testatrix's husband.

(3) Cheok Chin Giap, a son of the Testatrix, has, I understand gone to China. He had no natural children but had two adopted sons. Neither he nor his adopted sons are parties to this suit; but it is stated in the affidavit of Cheok Chin Seng, the second plaintiff, sworn on 20 February 1937, that the Trustees in 1931, paid to Cheok Choon Teck, one of these adopted sons, the sum of $1,493.89 for his marriage expenses in China.

(4) Cheok Chin Seng and

(5) Cheok Chin Huat are the sons of the Testatrix (and are respectively the second and first plaintiffs.)

(6) Cheok Chin Ho (the second defendant herein) is a son of the Testatrix, and is now a trustee of the Will, having by a deed dated 7 February 1934 been substituted for Cheok Cheng Kee, the husband of the Testatrix (the third defendant herein).

(7) Cheok Chin Soon (the first defendant herein) is the adopted son of the Testatrix's husband, and is one of the trustees appointed under the Will.

The third plaintiff is an adopted infant son of Cheok Chin Seng (the second plaintiff). The fifth and seventh plaintiffs are the adopted infant sons of Cheok Chin Huat, the first plaintiff.

Both Cheok Chin Seng and Cheok Chin Huat are amongst the seven named beneficiaries under cl 7 of the Will, who, "and their families" are to be permitted to use the family house.

Does the expression "and their families" include their adopted children, so as to make the third, fifth and seventh plaintiffs beneficiaries under the Will?

The Will was drawn up in proper English form by a firm of Singapore solicitors, and must, accordingly, be construed according to English law.

As stated in Halsbury vol 28, para. 1226 "The first duty of a Court of construction is, therefore, to ascertain the language of the will, to read the words used and ascertain the intention of the testator from them; it is not merely to ascertain what the testator's actual mental intentions were. Where the will must be in writing, the only question is, what is the meaning of the words used in that writing