JUDGMENT K.M. Dayal, J. - This First Appeal From Order has been filed under S. 299 of the Succession Act. One O. P. Boaz executed a registered will on 23rd Aug, 1947. Under that will he appointed his wife Mrs. M. B. Boaz as a sole executrix. There were three legatees under the will; two sons J. C. Boaz and P. S. Boaz and one daughter Mrs. Dorothy Ruth Masih Afzal. The other children were not given any share under the will. Sri J. C. Boaz was one of the attesting witnesses of the will. Sri P. S. Boaz died on 25-2-1948, during the lifetime of testator. 2. Sri O.P. Boaz died on 12-8-1953. Thereafter Smt. Dorothy Ruth moved an application under S. 276 of the Succession Act for grant of Letters of Administration with will annexed to it. Her contention was that she was entitled to the entire properties under the will. Sri J. C. Boaz who had attested the will could not claim under the will as the will in is favour became void under s. 67 of the Succession Act. 3. The second contention of Smt. Dorothy Ruth was that Sri. P. S. Boaz having died in the lifetime of the testator, the heirs of P. S. Boaz, the legatee were not entitled to any property under S. 105 of the Indian Succession Act and Smt. Dorothy Ruth became entitled to the entire property. The application was allowed. The case was contested by the heirs of Sri. P. S. Boaz who are the appellants in the present appeal. Three issues were framed by the District Judge, which are as under : - 1. Whether Sri. O. P. Boaz executed the will in question on 25-8-1947 in respect of his properties ? If so, its effect ? 2. Whether on account of the death of Sri P. S. Boaz on 25-2-1948 the objectors (one son and two daughters) lost rights in the properties? 3. To what relief, if any, is the applicant entitled? 4. Under issue No. 1 it was held that the will was proved by J. C. Boaz who was one of the attesting witness. Under issues nos. 2 and 3 it was held that Sri J. C. Boaz, who attested the will lost his rights as a legatee and the will in his favour became void under S. 67 of the Succession Act. 5. Under issues nos. 2 and 3 it was held that Sri J. C. Boaz, who attested the will lost his rights as a legatee and the will in his favour became void under S. 67 of the Succession Act. 5. The other contention of the applicant was also accepted and it was held that the heirs of Sri P. S Boaz who expired during the lifetime of the testator could not get any rights in the properties under the will and thir claim was barred by sub-sec. (1) of S. 105 of the Succession Act. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties the only question that arises in the present appeal is whether the will in favour of the heirs and lineal descendats of Sri P. S Boaz became void under S. 105 (1) of the Succession Act. The court below distinguished the cases which were cited before it, in our opinion on flimsy grounds. The first case is Jitulal Mehta v. Binda Bibi. (1889 ILR 16 Cal 549). In that case the will was made in favour of two sons of a daughter and one daughter. The daughter died in the lifetime of the testator leaving a son. After his death the properties in the will were claimed by the other legatees i. e. sons of the other daughter. The son of the predeceased daughter claimed the amount bequeathed in favour of his mother. It was held by the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court that the legacy could not lapse and the son of the pre-deceased daughter was entitled to the property bequeathed to his mother under S. 209 of the Succession Act. 6. The objection of the court below was that in the case of Jitulal Mehta the will was in favour of only one legatee i.e. the daughter and as S. 109 spoke of "any child or other lineal descendant of the testator", S. 109 applied. In the instant case as there were three legatees, S. 109 was not applicable. As pointed out above in the case of Jitulal Mehta; there were two sons of one daughter Poona Bibi and a daughter Jodha Bibi amongst the legatees. Thus there were three legatees under the will in question. In the instant case as there were three legatees, S. 109 was not applicable. As pointed out above in the case of Jitulal Mehta; there were two sons of one daughter Poona Bibi and a daughter Jodha Bibi amongst the legatees. Thus there were three legatees under the will in question. Jodha Bibi having expired in the lifetime of the testator, Binda, her son was held to be entitled to the property under S. 109 of the Succession Act. The distinction drawn by the learned Judge that the will was in favour of only one legatee was incorrect. 7. The other case distinguished by the court below is Brijraj Singh v. Shatranji Singh (AIR 1947 Oudh 45). In that case as well, S. 109 was held to apply to the legatee. It is true that there was only one legatee under the will but that was not the ground for the application of S. 109 of the Succession Act. S. 109 was held to be applicable because the legatee was the lineal descendant of the testator. 8. The learned eounsel for the appellant has placed reliance on the case reported in AIR 1936 Sindh 158, Miss Virginia Lydia Maud Smith v. Ivan Harold Donald Smith. That case was under S. 105 read with S. 107 of the Succession Act. The learned counsel for the respondent also relied on the said case. In that case it was held ; "When all persons who are to benefit under the will are mentioned by name, the bequest is not to them as a class but to each of them as an individual. As each of the four brothers and their sister in whose favour the gift was made in specific shares were named in the will, there is no scope for the argument that the bequest to them was a class bequest, or that it was not bequeathed to them as tenants-in-common. That being so, the bequest of l/5th share in Rs. 30,000 made in favour of the brother who pre-deceased the testator has lapsed." 9. The learned counsel for the respondent argued that in the instant case the bequest was in favour of three persons. Every one was given specific share under the will. That being so, the bequest of l/5th share in Rs. 30,000 made in favour of the brother who pre-deceased the testator has lapsed." 9. The learned counsel for the respondent argued that in the instant case the bequest was in favour of three persons. Every one was given specific share under the will. Under the circumstances S. 107 came into play and the will in favour of the deceased was to be included in the residue of the testator's property and should pass to the respondent Smt. Dorothy Ruth. The scheme of the Act comprised in Sections 105, 106, 107, 108 and 109 shows that S. 109 is intended to be an exception to the other sections. S. 106 provides that if a legacy was given to two persons jointly and one of them died before the testator the other legatee takes the whole. These sections deal with general classes of legatees. S. 108 (or 109) of the Act specifically deals with the children and the lineal descendants of the legatee. Thus where the will was in favour of children or lineal descendants of the testator, S. 109 came into play and the operation of S. 105 to 108 is excluded. The case of Miss Virginia Lydia Maud Smith (supra) is quite distinct, as will in that case was in favour of brothers and sisters and not the children or lineal descendants of the testator. Thus that case cannot apply to the present case. 10. In the result we are inclined to agree with the learned counsel for the appellant and hold that S. 109 applied to the present case and the heirs and lineal descendants of Sri P. S- Boaz, the predeceased son of the testator will get one-third share which was be quested in favour of Sri P. S. Boaz. 11. So far as the will in favour of Sri J. C. Boaz was concerned it was void under S. 67 of the Succession Act. The share given to him will go as undisposed of by the will and may devolve according to the law of inheritence applicable to the parties. 12. In the result, the present appeal is partly allowed. The heirs of Sri P. S. Boaz will be entitled to one-third, which would have gone to Sri P. S. Boaz under the will. The respondent No 1, Mrs. 12. In the result, the present appeal is partly allowed. The heirs of Sri P. S. Boaz will be entitled to one-third, which would have gone to Sri P. S. Boaz under the will. The respondent No 1, Mrs. Dorthy Ruth will be entitiled to one-third share which she was given under the disputed will. The District Judge is directed to get the letters of Administration modified accordingly. The parties are directed to bear their own costs.