JUDGMENT 1. The question raised in this appeal is one of construction of the provisions of the Will left by one Rup Chand. The Will bears date the year 1305 corresponding to 1898. In the first paragraph of the Will, the testator said as follows :-- On my death, my daughter Surjamoni who has got sons and who is a resident of Mouzah Duttagram Pergana Alinagore shall possess as owner and possessor of all the rights of gift, sale, etc., in respect of all my property moveable and immoveable and on the death of my aforesaid daughter, the sons born of her womb will equally own all my property. It is this paragraph upon the construction of which the case really turns. There are however, other paragraphs in the same Will which bear more or less upon the matter of construction for instance, where the testator provided for the maintenance of another daughter of his, It being directed that Surjamoni, the daughter referred to in the first paragraph, should maintain her and that on her (Surjamoni's) death, her sons would similarly maintain her, and also where provision was made for the sradh of the testator. Surjamoni obtained possession of the estate left by Rup Chand and contracted debt for the purpose of his sradh; and for this debt, the creditor brought a suit and obtained a decree after her (Surjamoni's) death, against the Defendants, her sons, as legal representatives of the deceased, the direction in the decree being that the decretal amount should be realized from the assets of the deceased. Subsequently when in execution of this decree, the decree-holder Bought to sell a portion of the property left by Rup Chand, the sons of Surjamoni objected upon the ground that their mother bad only a life-interest in the property, and that the absolute estate was in them and that, therefore, it could not be said. There upon, the question arose between the parties under sec. 244, C. P. C., as to whether the property attached by the decree-holder could be sold in execution of the decree in question, having regard to the provisions of the Will to which reference has already been made. There upon, the question arose between the parties under sec. 244, C. P. C., as to whether the property attached by the decree-holder could be sold in execution of the decree in question, having regard to the provisions of the Will to which reference has already been made. The Will, we may here mention, was executed after the Hindu Wills Act was passed, and one of the questions that have been discussed before us is whether we should not give effect to the provisions of sec. 111 of the Indian Succession Act which is made applicable to Hindus by the Hindu Wills Act in the matter of the question of title that has been raised between the parties. The true question, however, that arises for our consideration is what may have been the true intention of the testator in making this Will; whether it was his intention to give to his daughter Surjamoni an absolute estate; for, if such was his intention, there can be no doubt that in execution of the decree obtained by the decree-holder he is entitled to sell the property which has been attached for the satisfaction of his claim. It will be observed that the concluding words of the first paragraph to which reference has already been made are to the effect that, upon the death of the said daughter, the vernacular used being (***) persons would be the owners of his estate in equal shares. A question has been raised whether this uncertain event had reference to any time, during the life of the testator or to any time after his death. The Will seems not to have been drawn up by any trained lawyer, and it is rather difficult to gather what may be the exact time that the testator bad In contemplation when writing the words to which we have just-referred. If there is any ambiguity as to this matter, see. 111 of the Indian Succession Act would settle the question. If there is any ambiguity as to this matter, see. 111 of the Indian Succession Act would settle the question. That section runs as follows :-- When a legacy is given if a specified uncertain event shall happen and no time is mentioned in the Will for the occurrence of that event, the legacy cannot take effect unless such event happens before the period when the fund bequeathed is payable or distributable; and one of the illustrations given to that section is-"A legacy is bequeathed to A and in case of his death, to B. If A survives the testator, the legacy to B does not take effect." Now inthe present case if Surjamoni had died during the lifetime of Rup Chand, the legacy to his daughter's sons would certainly take effect; but it would not take effect if she died (as it be happened) after the death of Rup Chand. But as already stated, the true question we have to determine is not, whether the sons of Surjamoni took the legacy under the Will, but whether it was the intention of the testator to give to Surjamoni an absolute estate. We are of opinion upon consideration of the several paragraphs of the Will in question that it was his intention to give such an estate. And though there is a reference to the interest which Surjamoni's sons would obtain upon her death, yet we are of opinion that this was not intended to contract as it were, the character of the estate which in the first portion of the document is unquestionably given to her. In this view of the matter, we are of opinion that the decree-holder who is the Appellant before us is entitled to seize and sell the property which was sought to be sold in satisfaction of his decree against the legal representatives of Surjamoni. The result is that this appeal is allowed. Each party will bear his own costs in this Court, but the. Respondent will pay to the Appellant his costs in the lower Courts. ------Footnote------- (***) This judgments has been sourced from the court website. The tables in the judgment may not be aligned.