Judgement Consolidated Appeals from two decrees of the Court of the Judicial Commissioner (August 7, 1907) reversing two decrees of the Subordinate Judge of Tahsil Biswan (February 12, 1907). The appellants as holders of money decrees against the respondent representative of Rani Brij Nath Kuar, deceased, widow of Raghuraj Singh, applied for execution thereof by attachment and sale of the property in suit, a village named Intgaon. The respondent objected that Brij Nath had only a life interest, while the appellants insisted that she had acquired an absolute estate therein under the will dated July 11, 1903, of Narpat Singh, her husbands uncle. The testator directed that after the death of his widow and sons widow, Brij Nath Kuar, widow of Raghuraj Singh, deceased, " will remain in possession and occupation of the entire property mentioned above," and then expressed that he executed his will in favour of Brij Nath Kuar " so that on my demise and the death of my wife the estate and name of my ancestors may continue to exist as they have been in past and in present, that she in place of Raghuraj Singh shall perform my funeral ceremonies and those of my wife .... and then she shall have the power to nominate any one whom she thinks fit as heir so that the good name of the family and its reputation may continue to exist as it has been in past and in present." The Subordinate Judge held that Brij Nath Kuar took an absolute estate under Law. Rep. 39 Ind. App. 150 ( 1911- 1912) Brij Lal V. Suraj Bikram Singh 66 the will, since there were no words therein which limited the gift to her life only, and referred to Mahomed Shumsool v. Shewukram. (1) The Judicial Commissioner held that if the testator intended to give Brij Nath Kuar an absolute estate he would have used express words indicating that intention ; and that if such were his intention the grant of a power to nominate an heir was superfluous. Kenworthy Brown, for the appellants, contended that on the true construction of the will Brij Nath Kuar took an absolute estate. In the events which happened she was the only legatee under the will and there was no intention to except any part of his estate from its operation. Kenworthy Brown, for the appellants, contended that on the true construction of the will Brij Nath Kuar took an absolute estate. In the events which happened she was the only legatee under the will and there was no intention to except any part of his estate from its operation. Reference was made to Mahomed Shumsool v. Shewukram (( 1874) L. R. 2 Ind. Ap. 7.) and Hoy v. Master. ((1834) 6 Sim. 568.) De Gruyther, K.C., and Ross, for the respondent, were not heard. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by LORD MACNAGHTEN. This is a very simple case. The only question is whether the daughter took an absolute estate or an estate for life. In the first place, there is no estate at all given to the lady, in terms. The only direction is that she is to remain in possession and occupation of the property, and then she is invested with the power of appointing an heir either in her lifetime or by will. It seems to their Lordships that the word " heir " in that clause means heir to the testator and that the judgment of the Judicial Commissioner is perfectly right. Their Lordships will therefore humbly advise His Majesty that the appeal ought to be dismissed, and with costs.