JUDGMENT 1. The first contention raised in second appeal is that on the right construction of Exhibit B, the property out of which the trusts were to be performed was not absolutely dedicated to the trusts. The document gives the whole of the income of the property to the trusts and nothing is reserved for any other purpose. It must therefore be held to have been dedicated completely to the trusts. The next contention is that the provision in Exhibit B, that Mathura Ammal should conduct the charities "with absolute rights" gave her the power to appoint a successor by testament. We cannot accept this argument. The expression with absolute rights was intended only to provide that no one else should have any right of interference with Mathurammas management. According to the decided cases a trustee would be acting illegally in disposing of his office by will, because he has no right to affect the succession which must be governed by the usage of the trust or by the law of the land. The plaintiff therefore obtained no rights under Mathurammals will. We dismiss the appeal with costs.