SPROULE A.C.J. This and five other settlements of Syed Shaik Alkaff came before me for consideration and for directions on various points. By consent, I deal with this Originating Summons first, and the rest will follow my decision, mutatis mutandis.

Illuminating arguments from counsel have implified my task.

Five questions are propounded by the Originating Summons, of which the first is-

Whether upon the true construction of the settlement male issue of deceased daughters or the female issue of the Settlor and his brother Syed Abdullah bin Abdulrahman Alkaff are entitled to share in the income arising out of the settlement and if so in what shares?

Settlor conveyed a number of freehold and leasehold heriditaments in Singapore to trustees to hold upon trust for a period of seventeen named lives in being and twenty-one years longer or until all the sons of Settlor and of his two named brothers being dead, the youngest grandchild in the male line should attain the age of 21 years, whichever period should be shorter.

The settlement then provided for distribution of the corpus at the end of such period, and for distribution of nett income in the meantime.

Our question I relates only to the trusts for income, but in the course of the argument the gifts of corpus were relied upon by way of analogy.

The corpus, then, was given to male grandchildren of Settlor and his two brothers who survive the period as tenants in common in equal shares. But Settlor explains what he means by the words "male grandchildren" when he goes on to add:-

"...or in the event of a total failure of male issue ... then for such person or persons as would be then entitled thereto according to Mohammeddan law"

as upon intestacy of the survivor of Settlor and his two brothers and in shares according to the same law.

Clearly, then, the corpus is to go to male issue, that is (as we shall see later) to male descendants of males only; and in the event only of total failure of the male line, females would be let in as entitled under Mohammedan law.

The nett income during the period is to be paid to Settlor and his brothers and the survivor of them. The deed continues:-

"and from and after the death of such survivor Upon Trust to divide the same annually among such of the male children or remoter male issue of the settlor and...(of his two brothers)... as shall from time to time be living during their respective lives in equal proportions but so that the issue of a deceased child shall take among them the share only which their parent or parents would have taken if living."

There was little divergence in the end between counsel that the words "male children or remoter male issue" must be held to denote not one composite class of children and remoter issue, but two classes, intended to take in succession or substitution. Nor, in the face of such authorities, afterwards found by Mr. Mundell, as Bernal v. Bernal 3 M. and C. 559, Oddie v. Woodfard 29 Beav. 38, Lywood v. Kimber 3 M. and C. 584, and Lambert v. Peyton 7 H. L. 423, 11 Eng. Rep. 325, could it be any longer maintained that "remoter male issue" could include male descendants of daughters or any but male descendants in the male line.

The words following "but so that the issue of a deceased child..." thereupon became construable as a simple, if inartistic and perhaps unnecessary, direction that grandsons and remoter male issue are to take per stirpes and not per capita.

It is not necessary to examine further into any suggestion that the trusts of the settlement could be void for uncertainty. I therefore answer Question I in the negative.

Question II results from the trust "to divide the same annually", already quoted, and asks-

Whether, in the event of the death of any person entitled to share in the income of the trust property during the currency of a financial year, the share of such person should be apportioned up to the date of death?

I quote 13 Halsbury 28, section 31, on the law as