Judgement Appeal from a judgment of the High Court (August 19, 1907) reversing a judgment of the Subordinate Judge of Nadia (September 20, 1905). Shibchandra Pal, the testator in the case, by his will dated February 20, 1883, directed with regard to certain debottar estate which he had dedicated and certain religious ceremonies which he had established during his lifetime as follows " My present begotten son Mukunda Murari will be shebait for the performance of those ceremonies. If during the minority of the said Mukunda Murari Pal I die, then my second wife Srimati Brajamati Dasi, who gave birth to Mukunda Murari, will be shebait as his guardian, during the time of the said Mukunda Muraris minority, and Mukunda Murari, on attaining majority, will personally conduct the work of the sheba. God forbid, if during my life time or after my death, the said Mukunda Murari dies, then the said Brajamati Dasi will be shebait and, after her death, Srimati Nistarini Dasi and Srimati Jagat Tarini Dasi, daughters born of the said Brajamati Dasi and of my loins, will be shebait." The testator died in January, 1884, Mukunda Murari Pal being at that time little more than three years old. Brajamati, his mother, during his minority conducted the worship and acted as sebait. On his attaining majority he took possession and acted as sebait till his death in October, 1900, leaving the appellants his minor son and widow. Brajamati then resumed possession of the testators estate, including the debottar property, and acted as sebait, but the minor son through his mother sued Brajamati and the daughters of the testator for a declaration that he had the sole right thereto as the heir of his father in whom it had previously vested absolutely on his attaining majority. Shortly 59 Law Rep. 40 Ind. App. 37 ( 1912- 1913) Tripurari Pal V. Jagat Tarini Dasi 160 afterwards Brajamati died, but the daughters defended the suit as regards the debottar properties, claiming that under the will they were entitled thereto. The Subordinate Judge decreed in favour of the minor appellant, but the High Court held on the construction of the will that the sebaitship devolved upon the death of Mukunda Murari upon Brajamati Dasi, and upon her death it devolved on the respondents, and that the appellant had no right to the debottar properties. The Subordinate Judge decreed in favour of the minor appellant, but the High Court held on the construction of the will that the sebaitship devolved upon the death of Mukunda Murari upon Brajamati Dasi, and upon her death it devolved on the respondents, and that the appellant had no right to the debottar properties. It said " The testator, it seems to us, was anxious to provide, not for the descent of his property to his son and his sons heirs, but for the maintenance and worship of his family idol, with a view probably to his own spiritual benefit. If he had wished his property to descend to his son and his sons heirs, as the family is one governed by the Dayabhaga law, he had only to make no will at all. The fact of his making a will shewed that he had another object in view. Then, the will nowhere gives the son Mukunda Murari an absolute right to the sebaitship on attaining majority. We consider he had only under the will a right to the sebaitship for his life. Nor does the will provide that it is only if Mukunda Murari dies before attaining majority that the widow is to succeed as sebait. The testator says, God forbid, if during my lifetime or after my death, the said Mukunda Murari dies. This does not seem to us to mean if the said Mukunda Murari dies when a minor. " The testator had already provided for the case of his dying and Mukunda Murari being then a minor, and, in the words immediately preceding this extract, he had provided for the case of his dying leaving Mukunda a minor, and of Mukunda subsequently becoming a major, when he was at once to become sebait, apparently for his life. So that when the testator says God forbid &c., he must rather have had in his mind the contingency of Mukunda being a major, than of his being still a minor." A. M. Dunne, for the appellant, contended that this construction of the will was erroneous and that upon its true construction the title to the sebaitship and the debottar properties passed to the minor appellant on the death of his father. Murari Pal took an absolute estate therein and transmitted it to his son. Murari Pal took an absolute estate therein and transmitted it to his son. The intention of the will was to provide for Murari Pals death during minority, and in that case there was a gift over to the testators widow and daughters. But a gift over after an estate has once vested is contrary to law. Reference was made to s. Ill of the Indian Succession Act, which was extended to Hindu wills by Act XXI. of 1870, and to Norendra Nath Sircar v. Kamalbasini Dasi. (( 1896) L. R. 23 Ind. Ap.10.) The respondents did not appear. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by LORD MACNAGHTEN. Their Lordships are of opinion that in this case the decision of the High Court cannot be supported. There is, in their Lordships view, an absolute gift of the sebait-ship to the son Mukunda Murari on his attaining his majority, and it is not cut down, as far as they can see, by anything that follows. There are provisions in the case of his death as a minor, but no provision cutting down the absolute gift to him. The words are "My present begotten son Mukunda Murari will be shebait for the performance of those ceremonies." Their Lordships will therefore humbly advise His Majesty that the appeal ought to be allowed, and the judgment of the Subordinate Judge restored. There will be no order as to the costs incurred in the High Court, except that any costs paid under the order appealed from must be returned, and there will be no costs of this appeal.