BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal is at the instance of an application for letters of Administration and is directed against the order dated October 3, 1994 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 1st Court, hooghly in Letters of Administration Suit No. 5 of 1976 thereby dismissing the prayer of the appellant only on the ground of locus standi. ( 2 ) THE appellant filed the aforesaid suit for Letters of Administration with a copy of the last will and testament of Smt. Satadal basini Debi, since deceased, annexed on the allegation that said Satadal Basini Debi executed the said will on August 2, 1933 and by the said will, 'ka' scheduled property was given to Smt. 'shanti Sudha Debi, the mother of the appellant absolutely. ( 3 ) THE aforesaid suit was contested by the respondents viz. , the heirs of Satadal Basini debi on the ground that Shanti Sudha, the mother of the appellant, having died during the lifetime of Satada! Basini, the legacy in favour of Shanti sudha lapsed and as such appellant was not entitled to get any share in the property. The execution and attestation of the will was also disputed. ( 4 ) BY the judgement impugned in this appeal, the learned trial Judge although on consideration of evidence on record came to the conclusion that the will annexed to the application for grant of Letters of Administration was genuine, that the same was executed by Shanti Sudha and that the same was the last will and testament and it was also duly attested, rejected the application on the ground that Shanti Sudha having pre-deceased the testatrix, the appellant was not entitled to maintain the application as on the death of shanti Sudha legacy in favour of the appellant lapsed by relying upon section 105 (1) of the indian SUCCESSION ACT, 1925. Being dissatisfied, the plaintiff has preferred the instant first appeal. ( 5 ) THEREFORE, the only question that arises for determination in this appeal is whether on the death of Shanti Sudha, the legacy in favour of the appellant lapsed. To appreciate the aforesaid question, the following facts are relevant:-the will was executed on August 2,1933 and was registered on August 7, 1933. The testatrix was a childless widow and she brought up Shanti Sudha as her daughter although she was not adopted in accordance with law. To appreciate the aforesaid question, the following facts are relevant:-the will was executed on August 2,1933 and was registered on August 7, 1933. The testatrix was a childless widow and she brought up Shanti Sudha as her daughter although she was not adopted in accordance with law. The husband of the testatrix died on June 17,1956 and Shanti Sudha died on October 2, 1970 whereas the testatrix died on March 24,1971. In the will, the testatrix stated that she brought up Shanti Sudha like her daughter and accordingly intended to given 'ka' schedule property in her favour and she would be entitled to use the property with all power of transfer etc. and after her death her heirs would use the said property as full owners. In the said will there was a further clause that in the event Shanti sudha dies childless during the lifetime of testatrix, the husband of the testatrix would get the property absolutely if he be alive at the time of death of testatrix. There was further clause in the will that if the husband of the testatrix pre-deceases the testatrix without having any child, in that event 8 anna share of 'ka' schedule property would devolve upon three brothers of the husband of the testatrix and the remaining 8 anna share would devolve upon the youngest brother of the testatrix absolutely. ( 6 ) MR. Roychowdhury, the learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant has contended that the learned trial Judge erred in law in holding that in view of section 105 (1) of the Indian SUCCESSION ACT, 1925, the legacy in favour of Shanti Sudha and her heirs lapsed. Mr. Roychowdhury contends that in the will there is a specific clause mentioning that in the event Shanti Sudha died childless during lifetime of testatrix, the husband of the testatrix and in the absence of husband at the time of death of testatrix, the other groups of heirs specified in the will would get the property. Thus, Mr. Roychowdhury contends that the intention of the testatrix was to give the property to the children of Shanti Sudha if she died earlier leaving children and in that case the other clause would not come into play. Thus, Mr. Roychowdhury contends that the intention of the testatrix was to give the property to the children of Shanti Sudha if she died earlier leaving children and in that case the other clause would not come into play. Mr, roychowdhury in this connection refers to the illustration (ii) given to section 124 of the indian SUCCESSION ACT, 1925 and contends that undisputedly Shanti Sudha not having died childless, the legacy in favour of the husband of the testatrix and other persons mentioned in the will could not be operative. ( 7 ) MR. Roy, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents has disputed the aforesaid contention of Mr. Roychowdhury and has contended that in view of the illustration (ii) given to section 124 of the Indian SUCCESSION ACT, 1925, legacy in favour of husband of the testatrix and other persons mentioned in the will, no doubt, lapsed but that does not mean that legacy would be in favour of the appellant. According to Mr. Roy there must be express statement in the will creating legacy in favour of the children of Shanti Sudha. otherwise legacy cannot be inferred. Mr. Roy asserts that in this situation it must be presumed that on the death of testatrix the property has devolved upon all legal heirs and representatives of the testatrix according to Hindu SUCCESSION ACT, 1925, 1956 and the appellant being not an heir according to the said Act is not entitled to maintain the application. ( 8 ) AFTER hearing the learned advocates for the parties and after reading the will as a whole we are unable to accept the contention of Mr. Roy. Section 105 of the Indian SUCCESSION ACT, 1925 enacts that a legacy shall-lapse and form part of the residue of the testator's property if the legatee does not survive the testator except where it appears from the will that the testator intended that the legacy shall on the legatee not surviving her go to some other person. We are unable to agree that the intention o. f the testator that a legacy shall not lapse may be given effect to only if the testator expressly directs that if the legatee dies during his lifetime the legacy shall go to some other person and that intention to exclude lapse cannot be inferred. We are unable to agree that the intention o. f the testator that a legacy shall not lapse may be given effect to only if the testator expressly directs that if the legatee dies during his lifetime the legacy shall go to some other person and that intention to exclude lapse cannot be inferred. Section 105 (1) does not say nor does it imply that the testator must have expressly mentioned the possibility of lapse in consequence of the legatee dying during his lifetime and must have made a provision for that contingency. (See S. Jhansi Lakshmi Bai and ors. v. Pothana Appa Rao and Ors. ). ( 9 ) THE law is now settled as pointed out by the Apex Court in the case of Smt. Pramod kumari Bhatia v. Om Prakash Bhatia and ors. , that where it is clear on the face of a will that the testator has not accurately and completely expressed his intention by the words he has used and it is also clear what are the words which he had omitted, those words may be supplied in order to effecturate the intention as collected from the context. In the instant case, the testatrix has firstly stated that she intended to give 'ka' schedule property to shanti Sudha absolutely so that she and after her death her heirs can enjoy the property. Subsequently she has mentioned that if Shanti sudha dies childless during her lifetime in that case the testatrix's husband and in the absence of testatrix's husband the other person mentioned therein will get the property. The very use of the phrase "if Shanti Sudha dies childless" shows the intention of the testatrix that if she pre-deceases with any child, in that event, the husband of the testatrix and other person will not get any right in the property. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid two decisions of the Apex Court we are unable to accept the contention of Mr. Roy that unless the testatrix specifically stated that the child of Shanti Sudha would get the property on the death of Shanti sudha during her lifetime no legacy in favour of Shanti Sudha's child can be inferred. Therefore, we are of the clear view that the testatrix never intended that in case Shanti Sudha predeceased her, her child will not get the legacy. Therefore, we are of the clear view that the testatrix never intended that in case Shanti Sudha predeceased her, her child will not get the legacy. Therefore, the learned trial Judge erred in holding that the appellant, the son of Shanti sudha, was not entitled to maintain the application for Letters of Administration. ( 10 ) REGARDING the genuineness of the will, due execution, attestation and/or mental capacity of the testatrix at the time of execution of the will, the learned trial Judge on consideration of the materials on record found those points in favour of the appellant and Mr. Roy appearing on behalf of the respondent also did not seriously dispute those findings. We find that those findings do not suffer from any illegality and as such we affirm those findings. ( 11 ) THEREFORE, the appellant is entitled to maintain the application as legacy in favour of the children of Shanti Sudha was created by the aforesaid will. We, therefore, set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned trial Judge and direct the said court to grant letters of Administration in favour of the appellant. In the facts and circumstances there will be however no order as to costs. Appeal allowed.