Veeraswami, C.J.- Differing from the concurrent findings of the first two Courts, Raghavan,J., on a construction of the last Will and Testament of one Rukmani Ammal, dated 9th December, 1934 held that the interest which Sundaram Ammal was given thereunder, was out a life interest, the remainder in B and E schedule properties being vested, in the testatrix’s great grandchildren by Sundaram Ammal. The testatrix died in 1935. She had two daughters, Muthumeenakshi Ammal,who died in 1961, and Sithalakshmi Ammal. who died in 1963. The first had two daughters, Sundaram Ammal, who died on 2nd June, 1965 and Subbu narasammal. Sithalakshmi Ammal had no issues. By the will, the testatrix gave the A schedule property to the eldest daughter Muthumeenakshi Ammal and her second daughter Subbu narasammal each for life without powers of alienation. After their lifetime the direction in the will was that Subbu-narasammal’s heirs should get the ‘A’ schedule property absolutely. B and E schedule properties were then next disposed of by the testatrix. She said that these properties might devolve on Sithalakshmi Ammal, her second daughter, and she should enjoy the property without any powers of alienation. After her lifetime, Muthumeenakshi Ammal’s eldest daughter Sundaram Ammal should get the properties. As to this disposition the language employed by the testatrix is The will proceeded to say that after the lifetime of Sundaram Ammal, her heirs should get the properties in the two schedules absolutely with powers of alienation. 2. The first two Courts construed the disposition of the B and E schedule properties in favour of Sundaram Ammal as absolute so that they considered that the subsequent disposition in favour of her children being in conflict with the earlier disposition, the latter should give way to the former. In other words, the disposition in favour of the heirs of Sundaram Ammal was considered by the first two Courts as being repugnant to the earlier disposition. Raghavan, J., in Second Appeal, on a reading of the entirety of the will and the pattern of the testatrix’s intention as appearing in paragraphs 5 and 6 as well as 8 of the will, considered that the words occurring in the disposition in favour of Sundaram Ammal did not really express what it meant. We are inclined to accept this construction of the will. 3. We are inclined to accept this construction of the will. 3. The pattern of the testatrix’s intention appears to be to benefit eventually the great-grandchildren either through Sundaram Ammal or her sister Subbu-narasammal. In the case of Subbu-narasammal the testatrix has used clear language that she should get only a life interest and after her life, the remainder should vest absolutely in her heirs. When it comes to the great-grandchildren by Sundaram Ammal, we do not see why a different construction should be placed, her intention being plain, as we said, to benefit ultimately her great grandchildren. A great deal of stress has beeen laid on the expression while the testatrix gave an interest in the B and E schedule properties to Sundaram Ammal and it is contended that this meant that absolute interest in these schedule properties was given to her and that the subsequent disposition should be held be invalid, it being in conflict with the earlier one. But this contention does not satisfy the rule that in determining the intention of the testatrix, we have to look into the entire will and all the clauses in the will will have to be read together. It is only by that means the intention of the testatrix can be gathered satisfactorily. Apart from the pattern of the testatrix’s intention we have one other fact that she has directed not merely the life estate holders but also the ultimate beneficiaries, namely, the great-grandchildren, to clear her debts, if any, remaining undischarged. This can only show the intention of the testatrix that she meant the great-grandchildren as the ultimate destination of her properties. On that view, we concur with Raghavan, J., that the expression occurring in the disposition in favour of Sundaram Ammal would not by itself be determinative of the quantum of the estate granted by the testatrix to her. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. No costs.