Judgment :- 1. This suit has arisen out of a Will executed by one Jiddu Lakshmiah. Jiddu Lakshmiahs wife was one Jiddu Parvathamma. Jiddu Lakshmiahs sister was one Seshamma. Seshamma had three sons by name, T.S. Kothandaraman, “T.S. Kalyanaraman and, T.S. Jayaraman. Jiddu Lakshmiah executed a Will on 05.02.1971. He died on 16.10.1978. In the Will, Jiddu Lakshmiah had given life estate to his wife regarding one house property. The further devolution has been stated as under:— “After my wifes death the above said house shall be taken by my sister Seshammas three sons, T.S. Kothandaraman, T.S. Kalyanaraman and T.S. Jayaraman or such of them as are alive at that t ime and their children in equal shares to be possessed and enjoyed by them absolutely with all powers of alienation by way of sale, gift etc.” Jiddu Lakshmiah died on 16.10.1978. The life estate holder Jiddu Parvathamma died on 05.08.1986. Kothandaraman one of the sons of Seshamma predeceased Jiddu Parvathamma on 13.11.1981 leaving behind his wife Sunandana and two daughters and one son by name, Meenalochani, Jayashree and Karthick Seetharaman. Now, Seshammas other two sons, Kalyanaraman and Jayaraman have come forward with the instant suit for clarification of a doubt whether the children of Kothandaraman who predeceased the life estate holder get any interest in the property along with the plaintiff and if so, do they take per stirpes or per capita ? 2. In their written statement, the defendants have contended that the Will should be read as a whole and the reading of the whole Will would make it clear that the testator had intended to benefit all the three nephews and their children and that on the date of the death of the testator, his three nephews got the vested interest in the property, though the nephews rights to possession are postponed till the death of the life estate holder. They have further contended that the term “such of them as are alive at that time and their children in equal terms” would mean that the surviving nephews and the children of the predeceased nephew would take the property per capita and therefore each of the defendants is entitled to 1/6th share. 3. Heard both the sides. They have further contended that the term “such of them as are alive at that time and their children in equal terms” would mean that the surviving nephews and the children of the predeceased nephew would take the property per capita and therefore each of the defendants is entitled to 1/6th share. 3. Heard both the sides. A contingent interest as per provision of Section 21 of the Transfer of Property Act is an interest where, on a transfer of property, an interest therein is created in favour of a person to take effect only on the happening of a specified uncertain event, or if a specified uncertain event shall not happen, such person thereby acquires a contingent interest in the property. Such interest becomes a vested interest, in the former case, on the happenning of the event, in the latter, when the happening of the event becomes impossible. One of the features of a contingent interest is that if a person dies before the contingency disappears and before the vesting occurs, the heirs of such persons do not get the benefit of the gift. A vested interest is indefeasible interest which is free from all contingency as per the provisions of Section 19 of the Transfer of Property Act, where on a transfer of property, an interest therein is created in favour of a person without specifying the time when it is to take effect, or in terms specifying that it is to take effect forthwith, or on the happening of the event which must happen, such interest is vested, unless a contrary intention appears from the terms of the transfer. Section 119 of the Indian Succession Act refers to the date of vesting of legacy in the case of vested interest and Section 120 of the Indian Succession Act refers to the date of vesting when the legacy is contingent by the specified uncertain events. 4. So far as the nephews of late Jiddu Lakshmiah are concerned, they got the vested interest on his death, because the life estate given to his wife Jiddu Parvathamma would certainly come to an end at some future point of time. So far as the children of his nephews are concerned, as long as the nephews are alive, they would have a contingent interest and the estate would vest in them on the death of their respective father. So far as the children of his nephews are concerned, as long as the nephews are alive, they would have a contingent interest and the estate would vest in them on the death of their respective father. Jiddu Lakshmiah died on 16.10.1978 and therefore, Kothandaraman, Kalyanaraman and Jayaraman get vested interest on the date of the death of Jiddu Lakshmiah. Kothandaraman died on 13.11.1981 and his children get vested estate on 13.11.1981. Till then, they get a contingent estate. Illustration (iii) to Section 120 of the Indian Succession Act squarely applies to the instant case. Illustration (iii)(iv) to Section 120 reads as under:— “An estate is bequeathed to A for life, and after his death to B, if B shall then be living; but if B shall not then be living, to C. A, B and C survive the testator. B and C each take a contingent interest in the estate until the event which is to vest in one or in the other has happened.” Illustration (iv) to Section 120 reads as under:— “An estate is bequeathed as in the case last supposed. B dies in the life time of A and C. Upon the death of B, C acquires a vested right to obtain possession of the estate upon As death.” It would thus appear that the contingent interest of the defendants would become vested interest on 13.11.1981, but the estate of Jiddu Lakshmiah had vested in Kothandaraman on 16.10.1978 when Jiddu Lakshmiah died. Therefore, the defendants would take the estate per stirpes and not per capita. The recital in the Will “After my wifes death the above said house shall be taken by my sister Seshammas three sons, T.S. Kothandaraman, T.S. Kalyana-raman and T.S. Jayaraman or such of them as are ahve at the time and their children in equal shares to be possessed and enjoyed by them absolutely with all powers of alienation by way of sale gift etc., would only mean that at the time of Jiddu of Parvathammas death, the nephews and the children of the deceased nephew would succeed to the estate per stirpes indicating that all the three defendants put together would succeed to 1/3rd share in the estate. In other words, each of the defendants would get 1/9th share in the house bequeathed by late Jiddu Lakshmiah. The reference is answered accordingly.