JUDGMENT Ameer Ali, J. - As might be expected from Counsel who appear on this matter, Dr. Gupta and Mr. Chaudhuri, I have had every assistance in construing the portion of the Will which has given rise to a question, namely, whether the legacies, generally speaking, given "free of all duties" are to be paid free of income tax. The principal clause concerned is Cl. 10, but this has to be referred to and compared with cl. 13 and the earlier clauses, cls. 3 and 8, the first providing for the remuneration of the trustees. 2. Dr. Gupta has contended that the expression " free of all duties" is general, that there is nothing to cut it down, that according to the rules of construction common both to India and to England, but here codified in sees. 85 and 86 of the Succession Act, the construction should be in favour of the legatee. He has pointed out also that the only duty or imposition which must have been contemplated by the testator was income tax, because in point of fact there are and were at the time of the Will no other duties In India. He has also informed the Court (and this may give rise to some hard ship if my decision is against him) that in point of fact a fund was set aside large enough or intended to be large enough to provide for the payment of this legacy free of income tax. All these matters are of weight, and he has also been good enough to put before me the cases, which generally speaking do not facilitate his argument, in particular the case in In re: Saillard [1917] 12 Ch. 401. 3. To dispose of one point relied upon Dr. Gupta, cl. 3, this would undoubtedly has been in favour of his construction, had it not been in fact a lump sum remuneration. 4. The principle of the authorities has been explained to me by Mr. Chaudhuri, and it seems to be as follows: At one time it was considered legally impossible for a person to receive a legacy free of income tax. The strictness of that doctrine was then modified to allow it but only in cases where income tax is specifically and categorically mentioned. Chaudhuri, and it seems to be as follows: At one time it was considered legally impossible for a person to receive a legacy free of income tax. The strictness of that doctrine was then modified to allow it but only in cases where income tax is specifically and categorically mentioned. A further extension or modification of the strict doctrine was made by which now the legacy may be received free of income tax where "duties" only are mentioned, provided that such construction can clearly be ascertained from the rest of the Will. 5. This being the position in law, the burden is on Dr. Gupta to extract such an intention from the context, and in my opinion, the context is of little assistance to Dr. Gupta. 6. It would be sufficient for me to say that there is no sufficient evidence of intention. 7. In my opinion, however, the indications are definitely at least negative. 8. It must be remembered,-and this is the basis of the decided decisions,-that income tax is a liability of the recipient of the income, a revenue liability falling upon the person living upon the income. Duties primarily are levies upon the quota of a person's estate before they reach the individual. 9. Therefore, in order to establish a contrary intention it must be possible for the Court to read into the Will something almost, if not quite, amounting to an agency or trust to pay on behalf of the legatee the income as it accrues year by year. That is not a slight matter and in my opinion at least in this Will there is not enough to support it. 10. This being the case, although as I say there may be some hardship on the recipients, any excess that has been paid in the previous years must be adjusted. The adjustment may be made in such manner as may be agreed upon between the trustees and the recipients. Liberty to apply. The costs of both parties will be taken out of the general estate by the trustees as between attorney and client. Costs allowed as in a defended suit. Let the bills be certified by two attorneys.