Judgement Appeal (No. 67 of 1944) from a judgment and decree of the High Court (March 11, 1942) which reversed in part a judgment and decree of the Subordinate Judge of Trichinopoly (March 31, 1939). The following facts are taken from the judgment of the Judicial Committee. This appeal raised a question of some difficulty arising under the will of Subbaraya Pillai, who died on September 28, 1916, and will be hereafter called the testator. He was the adopted son of Sabhapathi Pillai of Achalpuram, in the Tanjore district, and Swarnathammal, his wife, who had no other children. Swarnathammal was the daughter of Kandaswami Pillai, who was the son of Thiruvarasu Pillai. The latter was the owner of an estate known as the Kudapalli Estate in the Trichinopoly district. Kandaswami predeceasing his father, on the death of the latter that estate descended to Swarnathammal, who managed it until her death in 1904 or 1905. She was succeeded in the estate by the testator, who managed it until his death in 1916. Sabhapathi had in the meantime died, having in the year 1884 executed a will which he described as an arrangement of his family affairs. In it he recited that all the acquisitions made by him were made with the moneys belonging to his wife Swarnathammal and gave her a life estate therein. On September 23, 1916, five days before his death, the testator made his will. He had at that time four children, namely, two sons, Nataraja aged 16, and Sabhapathi aged 9, and two unmarried daughters, Thillai aged 13, and Swarnathammal aged 7. By his will the testator appointed his two elder brothers, Kuppuswami Pillai and Muthu Pillai, as guardians of his family properties and charity properties and the minor children, with directions to keep accounts of the receipts and disbursements. By his will the testator appointed his two elder brothers, Kuppuswami Pillai and Muthu Pillai, as guardians of his family properties and charity properties and the minor children, with directions to keep accounts of the receipts and disbursements. In order to keep a check on the said guardians he appointed as mel vicharanaikars (supervisors) M. Sundaram Pillai Avargal and V. A. Arunachalam Chettiar Avargal, and after a direction to pay his debts, and to keep proper accounts, proceeded as follows — " The said guardians shall, with the permission of the mel vicharanaikars (supervisors) not only perform the marriages " of the minor girls, defraying expenses to the extent of " rupees two thousand for each girl but shall also give to M each girl lands worth rupees live thousand or (rupees " five thousand) in cash, and after the family debts are " discharged, shall also give to the minor girls with the " consent of the mel vicharanaikars, rupees three thousand " worth of jewels out of the family funds apart from the " jewels which I have made and given to them. Until " minor Nataraja Pillai completes his twenty-first year, " the guardians and the mel vicharanaikars shall act in the " aforesaid manner and deliver the properties to the said " Nataraja Pillai along with accounts up to September 30, " 1921. If, at the time when the said Nataraja Pillai takes " charge of the properties, the amounts mentioned in this M will or any portion thereof remain unpaid to the said girls, " he shall pay to each of them the amount due to her. If he " fails so to give, each of them shall recover the amount on " the liability of the A schedule properties." The daughter Thillai was married to Ammal on June 1, 1919. The expenses of the marriage were met by Nataraja Pillai, who had also given her some jewels. She was a respondent to this appeal. Nataraja Pillai died on June 24, 1919, and was survived by his minor brother, Sabhapathi Pillai. On December 18, 1919, the Court of Wards was appointed to take up the management of the Kudapalli Estate. Sabhapathi Pillai attained the age of eighteen years in 1923, and attained the age of twenty-one years in 1926. He died in June, 1929, leaving the appellant as his widow him surviving. On December 18, 1919, the Court of Wards was appointed to take up the management of the Kudapalli Estate. Sabhapathi Pillai attained the age of eighteen years in 1923, and attained the age of twenty-one years in 1926. He died in June, 1929, leaving the appellant as his widow him surviving. Neither land of the value of Rs.5,000 nor cash of that amount having been paid to Thillai, on December i, 1933, she commenced a suit against the appellant and the Manager, Court of Wards, Kandapalli Estate, Trichinopoly, and Swarnathammal claiming a right to the legacy of Rs,5,ooo and payment of it with interest. At about the same time her sister Swarnathammal, who was the second respondent to this appeal, commenced a suit against the same first two defendants and Thillai as third defendant claiming the same relief. In those suits two substantial questions arose for decision which were intended to be covered by the issues framed in them, namely— 1. 1. Whether the testator had so blended his own estate with his ancestral estate that it was not in his power to give legacies of Rs.5,000 to his daughters. 2. 2. Whether in any case the suits were barred by limitation, a question that only arose if the first question was answered in the negative. The learned Subordinate Judge answered the first question in the affirmative. He came to the conclusion that the whole of the properties in the possession of the testator at his death, that was, as well the Kudapalli estate belonging to his mother, to which he had succeeded on her death, as his ancestral Achalpuram estate, were joint family properties. If so, the legacies in question were not validly given. The learned judge appeared to have thought that the Kudapalli estate from the moment that the testator succeeded to it became part of the joint family property, but further held on that evidence that, even if that was not so, he had so blended the two estates that he had converted the Kudapalli estate into joint family property. On the second question the learned judge held that the suits were barred by limitation, twelve years having elapsed since September 30, 1921, the date on which Nataraja would have attained the age of 21. He accordingly dismissed the suits. From that decision the respondent Thillai Ammal appealed to the High Court of Judicature at Madras. On the second question the learned judge held that the suits were barred by limitation, twelve years having elapsed since September 30, 1921, the date on which Nataraja would have attained the age of 21. He accordingly dismissed the suits. From that decision the respondent Thillai Ammal appealed to the High Court of Judicature at Madras. During the pendency of the appeal the Court of Wards relinquished the estate. On March 11, 1942, the High Court (Abdur Rahman and Somayya JJ.) gave judgment allowing the appeal. They were of opinion that the properties in the possession of the testator so far as they came from his mother Swarnathammal were not ancestral or joint family properties and had not been so blended with his ancestral estate as to become the joint family properties of himself and his two sons. On the question of limitation also the learned judges of the High Court allowed the appeal, but they did so only because they did not accept as accurate the official translation of the testators will. They held that the official translation of the will was not quite correct, and that on a literal translation the true construction would show that the legacies were only payable after the debts due by the testator were discharged. As the debts had not been discharged their Lordships held that the action was premature, but that they would give the plaintiff the declara tion that the legacy of lands of Rs.5,000 or of their equivalent in cash was a valid one, but could only be given effect to after the debts due by the testator had been discharged. 1946. July 1. Robert Ritson and M. S. Venkatarama Iyer for the appellant. First, only the official translation can be looked at, and the judges of the High Court were wrong in basing their decision on their own translation. If there is any serious question whether the translation is correct, the proper course would be to send it back and have a correct translation proved by evidence Sasiman Chowdhurain v. Shib Narayan Chowdhry (( 1921) L. R. 49 I. A. 25.), Rajendra Prasad Bose v. Gopal Prasad Sen (( 1930) L. R. 57 I. A. 296.). Secondly, the legacies of Rs.5,000, even if valid as legacies, are barred by limitation under s. 123 of the Limitation Act (IX. of 1908). Secondly, the legacies of Rs.5,000, even if valid as legacies, are barred by limitation under s. 123 of the Limitation Act (IX. of 1908). They Were payable on marriage or, at latest, on September 30, 1921, and as this action was not started until December 1, 1933, more than twelve years have elapsed. The words "after the family debts are discharged” do not qualify the legacies, as these sums were intended to be marriage portions or- dowries payable at the time of the marriage. They may be said to ripen into a debt at the latest on September 30, 1921. In the plaint and in the memorandum of appeal the date was fixed by the respondents as September 30, 1921, and on the wording of the will (official translation) both courts agreed that this was the date, and that as a debt they would be barred. Thirdly, it is submitted that this document is not a will at all, and that the sums of Rs.5,000 are not legacies at all, or at any time enforceable at law. The document is a testamentary appointment of guardians of the family property and of the family, made by the only major member and manager of the joint Hindu family of Subbaraya and his two minor sons. Although Subbaraya may have originally acquired most of his estate as separate property, of which he could then dispose by will, it is clear, not only on the evidence but on the document itself, that he had at some time previously thrown his property into the common stock of the joint family consisting of himself and his two sons, and that, being on the point of death—he died five days later—he was anxious for the material welfare of his children, and recognized his duties as a parent and as head of a joint family of which the other members were only children. It is the sacred duty of a Hindu father to marry his daughters in. a suitable way, expending proper moneys and providing a dowry suitable to the position of the family, and in this case Subbaraya Pillai was indicating to the guardians what expenditure and dowry he considered suitable, but even then it was only with the permission of the supervisors. a suitable way, expending proper moneys and providing a dowry suitable to the position of the family, and in this case Subbaraya Pillai was indicating to the guardians what expenditure and dowry he considered suitable, but even then it was only with the permission of the supervisors. In this document he sets out (a.) his family, (b) his assets and liabilities, (c) recitals of his present condition, and reasons for the document, (d) the appointment of guardians and supervisors, (e) how they are to pay the debts,.(f.) arrangements for the marriage of daughters, (g) delivery of property to. eldest son, and (h) exclusion of property already given to brothers. There is no dispositive clause in favour of the sons, however, and except that the document is referred to as a will, it has none of the attributes of a will. It is further to be emphasized that, on the basis that the property is separate and the document is a will, the younger son is altogether disinherited. It is unthinkable that a Hindu father would disinherit a son aged nine years. The document must be given a reasonable interpretation, which is that the estate belonged to the joint family of the father and his two sons. On that basis he had no power to dispose of it by will, and accordingly the sums of Rs.5,000 were not legacies, and the respondents never had any rights in regard to them enforceable at law. M. S. Venkatarama Iyer followed. The respondents did not appear. July 30. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by LORD SIMONDS, who stated the facts set out above and continued On the first question their Lordships are clearly of opinion that the decision of the High Court was right. They do not think it necessary to rehearse the principles of law applicable, which have been recently expounded by the Board (see e.g., Nutbehari Das v. Nanalil Das (( 1937) 11 Mad. L. J. 114.)), and it appears to them that the High Court has rightly applied these principles to the facts of the present case. Neither from his mode of dealing during his lifetime with the Kudapalli estate (which, in their Lordships opinion, was beyond question originally his separate estate) nor from his testamentary disposition can the inference be fairly drawn that the testator waived or surrendered his special right in it as separate property. Neither from his mode of dealing during his lifetime with the Kudapalli estate (which, in their Lordships opinion, was beyond question originally his separate estate) nor from his testamentary disposition can the inference be fairly drawn that the testator waived or surrendered his special right in it as separate property. Their Lordships find in the careful examination by the High Court of all the relevant facts and documents a conclusive refutation of the plea advanced by the present appellant and will not repeat it. On the second question the position is one of serious difficulty. The official translation of the will was accepted without question in the court of the Subordinate Judge, nor, so far as their Lordships are informed, was it challenged by either of the parties before the High Court. And as their Lordship9 understand the judgment of the High Court, the learned judges of that court would not, if the official translation was correct, have differed on the question of limitation from the Subordinate Judge. They would have held that, twelve years having elapsed after September 30, 1921, before the suits were instituted, the claims to legacies of Rs.5,000 were barred. Nor do their Lordships see any sufficient reason for differing from this conclusion. But the High Court have on this point taken a Course which cannot be supported. They have formed the opinion that in an important respect the official translation is incorrect, and have corrected it by making the words " after” the family debts are discharged” qualify the payment of the legacies of Rs.5,000. And, having made this correction, and having further found as a fact that the debts of the family have not yet been discharged, they have concluded that the legacies have not become payable and that the claims to recover them are not barred. Their Lordships would once more express the view (see Sasiman Chowdhurain v. Shib Narayan Chowdhury (L. R. 49 I. A. 25.) and Rajendra Prasad Bose v. Gopal Prasad Sen (L. R. 57 I. A. 296.) that it id Hot legitimate for the court to depart from the official translation except on expert evidence which the parties should have an opportunity of testing. They therefore cannot accept as valid the reason, and the only reason, given by the High Court for reversing the decision of the Subordinate Judge on this point. They therefore cannot accept as valid the reason, and the only reason, given by the High Court for reversing the decision of the Subordinate Judge on this point. At the same time, their Lordships cannot ignore the opinion expressed by the experienced judges of the High Court on such a matter they cannot treat as irrecoverable legacies which appear to be recoverable if the translation given by the High Court is correct. There appears, therefore, to be no other course open to them than to remit the matter to the High Court with directions to give the present appellant the opportunity of challenging by expert evidence the translation of the will which has been substituted for the official translation. If the substituted translation is then accepted, the appellant must fail. If, on the other hand, the official translation is upheld, there appears to be no doubt that the appellant is entitled to succeed on the question of limitation. In the special circumstances of this case their Lordships do not think that any costs should be awarded, and they will humbly advise His Majesty accordingly.