JUDGMENT Fletcher, J. - The only question to be determined in this suit is as to the construction of the Will of one Rajendra Dutt who died on the 23rd December 1903. The Will of the said Rajendra Dutt which is dated the 22nd August 1892 after appointing the Defendants Atul Krishna Chose, Monmotha Nath Sing and Nuffer Chunder Biswas to be Executors and Trustees of his Will and after making certain specific and pecuniary bequests proceeded in manner following, viz.:--"I declare that my trustees shall have authority to let the tenanted houses, godowns and other lands fully mentioned and described in the schedule annexed for any term and at such rent and subject to such covenants as they shall think fit and shall perform the poojahs and festivals, hereinafter more particularly mentioned, out of the rents and profits of the said houses and tenanted lands hereinbefore mentioned after paying the necessary expenses for the repairs of the said houses.... and I hereby direct my Trustees to provide for and defray out of the said rents and profits the performance of the following services, poojahs, festivals and other religious ceremonies, that is to say..." [The testator then specified the various religious ceremonies, and the amount to be spent for the performance thereof]. "And I hereby also direct my trustees to set apart the surplus (if any) of the rents and profits of the aforesaid houses godowns and lands as a reserve fund to provide against any deficiency in the said rents and profits for the purposes aforesaid owing to any of the houses and premises remaining unlet or unproductive for any time and to apply the said reserve fund, or so much thereof as may be required, for any of the purposes aforesaid, provided always that when from time to time the said reserve fund shall be, in the opinion of the trustees, in excess of the amount required as such reserve fund, the trustees shall spend the excess surplus of the said fund for the performance of the worship of the Siva on the night called Sivaratri and feed the Brahmins on the next day following and pay them in cash as much as the surplus will suffice to pay." 2. Now, it has been argued that the direction to feed and pay the Brahmins is not charitable and, therefore, not a valid bequest. Now, it has been argued that the direction to feed and pay the Brahmins is not charitable and, therefore, not a valid bequest. In my opinion, the direction in the Will to feed and pay the Brahmins constitutes a valid bequest. The testator was a Hindu and his Will must be construed with reference to Hindu Law. 3. There can be no doubt but that the feeding and paying of the Brahmins would, in accordance with Hindu ideas, be a meritorious act. 4. Moreover, it has been held in this Court, in the case of Dwarkanath Bysack v. Burroda Pershad Bysack ILR 4 Cal. 443 (1878) that a gift for feeding Brahmins is good. This case was followed by the Bombay High Court, in the case of Lukshmisankar v. Vaijnath ILR 6 Bom. 24 (1881). It has also been held in the Bombay High Court in the case of Morarji Cullianji v. Neubai ILR 17 Bom. 351 (1892) that a gift for "Sadavarat" described as including sums distributed to Brahmins is valid. In these circumstances, I hold that the direction in the Will for feeding and paying the Brahmins is valid. 5. It has not been argued, nor could it be, that the direction in the Will to pay for the worship of Siva on the night called Sivaratri is not valid. 6. The only other question arising on the construction of the Will is as to whether or not the ultimate surplus of the residue is disposed of by the Will. 7. The testator gave she residue of his estate to his trustees upon trust for sale and conversion and directed them to make certain specific payments out of such residue. The testator has not, however, disposed of the ultimate surplus of the residue. Such ultimate surplus of the residue passes as on an intestacy and there must be a declaration to that effect. The costs of all parties to this suit must be paid out of the estate of the testator, as between attorney and client.