The Lord Chancellor. - This appeal raises a question as to the construction of the Will of Babulal Agarwalla, who died in the year 1873. The Will is in the English language and states (among other things) the testator's intention to erect a mundir and suitable buildings for the residence of members of his family and for the reception of poor and homeless persons at Sri Brindaban. Then by a clause, which has been referred to as C1. 17, he directs that out of the in come of his estate a sum of Rs. 650 (subject to the increase here inafter mentioned) be remitted monthly and every month by my executors or trustees to the managers for the time being of the mundir of Brin daban to be erected as aforesaid out of which sum Rs. 100 shall be paid to certain persons in succession ; and then the clause continues : and the residue of surplus shall be appropriated towards the expenses of performing pujas at or otherwise maintaining the said mundir and of the daily feeding of the poor there : The beneficiaries of the monthly sum of Rs. 100 named in this clause are all dead, and it is common ground that the trusts declared of that monthly sum for the benefit of other persons not there named is inoperative, those persons not having been born in the testator's life time. Then by C1. 23 of the Will, the testator says this : I further direct that after paying the monthly sums and the monthly expenses hereinbefore directed to be paid or incurred and also after providing for the payment of taxes, Government revenue and assessments and repairs of my im movable property, the surplus of the rents, in come and profits of my property and estate shall be monthly and every mouth remitted to Brindaban and applied in manner respecting the said monthly sum of Rs. 650, or so much thereof as is not required for the support of my family there, towards the performance of pujas and other reli gious ceremonies, and for the daily feeding of the poor at my mundir there. Upon these clauses three points arise. The first question is whether the trusts of the sum of Rs. 100 per month having failed, that sum falls into the residue of the Rs. Upon these clauses three points arise. The first question is whether the trusts of the sum of Rs. 100 per month having failed, that sum falls into the residue of the Rs. 650 a month and is applicable according to the trusts of C1. 17. It is not necessary to decide that question, as it has been assumed throughout, and their Lordships will assume in favour of the appellant, that the Rs. 100 a month does not fall into that particular residue of which the trusts are declared by Cl. 17. The second question is whether, assum ing that to be so, the Rs. 100 a month falls into the general residue which is disposed of by C1. 23. In their Lord ships' opinion it does. C1. 23 is a general residuary clause, sweeping up all that is not disposed of by the previous clauses ; and, accordingly, by virtue of the ordi nary rule, the monthly sum of Rs. 100, assuming it not to be disposed of by C1. 17, falls into the residue of which trusts are declared by Cl. 23. Then a third question is raised : Cl. 23 directs the surplus to be : applied in manner respecting the said monthly sum of Rs. 650, or so much thereof as is not re quired for the support of my family there towards the performance of pujas and other religious cere monies, and for the daily feeding of the poor at my mundir there. It is suggested on behalf of the appel lant and, the learned Judge who first dealt with the matter was disposed to hold that the effect of that trust was that a proportion of the residue, bearing the same proportion to the whole as the Rs. 100 bore to the total sum of Rs. 650, became applicable for the support of the testator's family, described in Cl.17, and that particular trust having failed, is undisposed of and passes to the testator's heirs. In their Lordships' opinion that is not the true effect of the clause. The clause in substance directs that the resi due shall be applied for the religious and charitable purposes referred to in Cl. 17, being the purposes applicable under that clause applied to the residue of the! Rs. 650 per month after deducting the Rs. In their Lordships' opinion that is not the true effect of the clause. The clause in substance directs that the resi due shall be applied for the religious and charitable purposes referred to in Cl. 17, being the purposes applicable under that clause applied to the residue of the! Rs. 650 per month after deducting the Rs. 100 per month, and this view is supported by the words "subject to the increase hereinafter mentioned," con tained in C1. 17. The result is that, in their Lordships' opinion, there is no sum not disposed of by the Will, and, accordingly, that the judgment of the High Court at Calcutta is right and should be affirmed. Their Lordships will therefore humbly advise His Majesty that the appeal fails and should be dismissed with costs. Appeal dismissed.