JUDGMENT : Stanley, J.:— The questions involved in this appeal arise upon the true construction of the will of the late Diwan Thakur Das. Diwan Thakur Das died possessed of a considerable amount of property in the Punjab and also in Benares. He died on the 24th of June, 1889, leaving a son, Pindi Das, and two grandsons, namely, Atma Ram and Duni Chand. Atam Ram died without issue on the 20th of September, 1900, leaving the plaintiff his widow, Durga Devi, him surviving. Durga Devi instituted a suit for the purpose of obtaining a declaration that she was entitled to a share of the property situate in Benares, which was disposed of by the will of Thakur Das in favour of her husband. She also asked to be put in proprietary possession of the property, and she claimed mesne profit's and other relief. 2. The learned Subordinate Judge dismissed the plaintiff's suit on the ground that it was misconceived, and that the proper course for the plaintiff to have fallowed was to sue the defendant for a rendition of accounts of the property instead of claiming to be entitled to half of it; in fact he held that the suit as laid was not maintainable. Accordingly he dismissed the plaintiffs claim. From that decree the present appeal has been preferred. By his will, which is dated the 17th September, 1882, Diwan Thakur Das made a provision for the payment out of the income of certain villages, in Benares, of Rs. 700 a year, and out of the rent of houses also in Benares, Rs. 260 a year, that is, in all Rs. 900 a year, for the expenses of chhetra-bhandara (i.e., the feeding of 15 Sadhus) which he had established and desired to be maintained. He also provided that the chhetra should, after his death be managed by his grandson, Diwan Duni Chand, and directed, that the said Diwan Duni Chand should defray the expenses of repairing and keeping in good condition certain buildings, a garden and a baoli as well as the chhetra from the income set apart for those expenses, and that none of his heirs should have power to transfer and enjoy, inter alia the elaka and the houses, in Benares to the extent of the net income, namely, Rs. 900, which he had set apart for chhetra-bhandara. 900, which he had set apart for chhetra-bhandara. The testator then disposed of all his property between his two grandsons, Diwan-Duni Chand and Diwan Atma Ram, directing that they should be absolute owners and proprietors of it in equal shares. This is the material portion of the will so far as the question raised before us is concerned. By a codicil, dated the 16th of January,. 1885, Diwan Thakur Das revoked the gift contained in his will in favour of his two grandsons and also a gift made by him to them of his moveable property, and as regards the “immoveable property, divided it between his two grandsons in the manner specified in the schedule to the codicil. To each of the grandsons were allotted separate properties, and as regards the villages in Benares which were charged with the payment of Rs. 700 for the expenses of the chhetra-bhandara, they were disposed of as follows:— To Diwan Duni Chand a half share was given in the following terms: “Half share in the income from the villages at Kashi after deducting the chhetra expenses.” In the same words the other half share in these villages was disposed of in favour of Atma Ram. Now it is a well established rule of construction that a gift of the rents and profits of property is equivalent to a gift of the property itself, and it has also been decided that a gift of the income of property will also carry the legal and beneficial interest in the property itself. In fact, rents and profits mean the income of property, and the income of property means rent and profits. The terms are convertible. We may refer as authority for this to the case of Shookmoy Chandra Das v. Manoharri Dassi : [1885] I.L.R., 11 Cal, 692, and to the case of Mannox v. Greener : [1872] I.L.R., 14 Equity, 456. In every case in construing a will, it is the duty of the Court to ascertain what the intention of the testator was and to give effect to that intention. Mr. In every case in construing a will, it is the duty of the Court to ascertain what the intention of the testator was and to give effect to that intention. Mr. Chaudri on behalf of the respondents contends before us that from the language of the will and codicil a manifest intention is shown to keep the Benares property in the hands of the respondent Duni Chand, so that he may manage and provide the funds necessary for the maintenance of the chhetra-bhandara, and that by the codicil the testator by making a gift merely of the income showed an intention not to pass to the devisee the right to actual possession of his share, but merely a right to a share of the profits. We are unable to accept this view; It is true that the respondent Duni Chand was empowered by the will to supervise and manage the chhetra-bhandara, but further than managing this, that is, disposing of the Rs. 900 set apart for it in the manner directed by the will, no other right whatever was vested in him. 3. The property from which the Rs. 900 were to come, was not transferred to or vested in him. In the will the testator directs that his heirs shall have no power to transfer the elaka and the houses in Benares to the extent of the net income which he had set apart for the bhandara. From the words “to the extent of the net income, & c,” we gather that the intention was to place no restriction on the power to transfer, provided that the bhandara expenses were secured. In the codicil it is to be noted’ that the gift of share of the villages at Benares in favour of Duni Chand is precisely in the same terms as the gift in favour of Atma Ram. If the testator had intended that Duni Chand should have the possession and control of the entire villages and be liable only to account to his brother for his share, of the net profits after deducting the chhetra-bhandara expenses, the language of the codicil would, we think, have been different. For these reasons we think that a good gift was made by the codicil of one-half of the villages at Benares in favour of Atma Ram subject to payment of one-half of the sum provided for the chhetra expenses. 4. For these reasons we think that a good gift was made by the codicil of one-half of the villages at Benares in favour of Atma Ram subject to payment of one-half of the sum provided for the chhetra expenses. 4. We therefore allow the appeal, set aside the decree of the Court below, give a declaration that the plaintiff is entitled to the property in dispute and also to mesne profits, that is, to her share of the profits after deducting one-half of the sum of Rs. 900 set apart by the testator for the bhandara expenses, and inasmuch as the plaintiff's suit was dismissed on the ground that it was misconceived, we remand the suit under the provisions of section 562 of the Code of Civil Procedure with directions that it be replaced in the file of pending suits and be disposed of according to law, regard being had to the views which we have expressed as to the true meaning and construction of the will and codicil of the late Diwan Thakur Das. The appellant is entitled to his costs of this appeal including fees on the higher scale. The costs in the Court below will abide the event.