JUDGMENT Sir John Stanley, Knight, C.J. and Banerji, J. - The sole question raised in this appeal depends upon the true construction of the will of one Sewa Ram. Sewa Ram being the owner of certain property, executed his will on the 4th of April, 1881, and thereby gave all his property, after the death of himself and his wife Musammat Mendu, to his daughter Bilaso and his nephew Duli Chand. Duli Chand survived the testator, but predeceased Musammat Mendu. The contention in the appeal is that Duli Chand did not take a vested interest in the property disposed of by the will, but merely a contingent interest, and that he having died before his aunt, his sons are not entitled to succeed to the property. We think that the courts below were right in holding that Duli Chand took a vested interest in the property which was transmissible to his heir. The point was the subject of decision by their Lordships of the Privy Council in the case of 15 CWN 393 (Privy Council) In that case a will provided that the testator's mother and his wife were to succeed to his property for life, and on their death the sons of his sisters G and A, "that is to say, their sons who are now in existence as also those who may be born hereafter, shall in equal shares hold the said properties in possession and enjoyment by right of inheritance." It was held that the nephews wore intended to take vested and transmissible interests on the death of the testator, though their possession and enjoyment was postponed. This decision appears to us to govern the present case. The appeal is therefore devoid of force. We dismiss it with costs.