V. G. SABHAHIT, J. ( 1 ) THIS appeal by the plaintiff in O. S. No. 8052/1980 is directed against the judgment and decree passed by the XIX Addl. City Civil Judge, Bangalore city, dated 29-2-1992 in so far as it pertains to dismissal of the suit of the plaintiff in part. ( 2 ) THE essential facts of the case leading up to this appeal with reference to the rank of the parties before the trial Court are as follows: the plaintiff filed the suit, O. S. No. 863/ 80, later numbered as O. S. No. 8052/1980 seeking for the following reliefs :" (A) to pass a decree against the defendants directing them to execute in favour of and deliver to the plaintiff a deed of Transfer of Trust in respect of the bequeathed property, namely No. 40, East End Road, bangalore. (b) to pass a decree directing the defendants to deliver and place the plaintiff in possession of the bequeathed property, namely no. 40, East End Road, Bangalore, by obtaining due attornment of all the tenants thereof to her: (c) to pass a decree directing the defendants to effectively transfer and deliver to the plaintiff the 1,500 equity shares in the Food specialities Ltd. , with accrued dividends upto date: (d) to pass a decree directing the defendants to render accounts with immediate payment, in respect of all the rents, profits and other accruals from the 4th July, 1972 upto date in respect of the bequeathed property, namely No. 40, East End Road, bangalore, and the 1500 equity shares in the Food Specialities Ltd. (e) to pass a decree directing the defendants to pay interest at 6% per annum on all amounts accruing to the plaintiff as and from the 4th July, 1972. (f) to pass a decree directing that the estate of late D. S. Suraiya be administered by Court. (g) to pass a decree directing the defendants to pay the plaintiff the costs of this suit, and (h) to pass such other decrees and grant such other reliefs as may be deemed just, fit, proper, necessary and expedient on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. "it is averred in the plaint that the plaintiff is an Assistant employed by the India Tourist development Corporation at Bangalore and she is residing with her mother. "it is averred in the plaint that the plaintiff is an Assistant employed by the India Tourist development Corporation at Bangalore and she is residing with her mother. Defendants 1 to 3 are the executors of the Will and the trustees of the Estate of late D. S. Suraiya, who was a Hindu and who died at Bangalore on 4th July, 1972, leaving a Will dated 13th september, 1971, which was executed at bangalore. D. S. Suraiya was ordinarily residing at Bangalore, wherein he owned three immovable properties and bulk of his other assets are also situate at Bangalore. The defendants took charge of the estate of the deceased immediately upon his death which included cash in his house. It is averred that the plaintiff is a specific legatee under the said Will of D. S. Suraiya having been bequeathed one of the three immovable properties of the deceased, namely, the house known as "rita BHAVAN" bearing No. 40, east End Road at Bangalore and the plaintiff had also been bequeathed 1500 equity shares of Food Specialities Ltd. , a Company incorporated in India. It is averred that the plaintiff, who was in close touch and working with the deceased D. S. Suraiya for several years before his death, was immediately thereafter excluded from all access to or information of the affairs of the deceased. As a result, the plaintiff, after waiting for more than a year, was compelled to cause the issue of a notice to the defendants requesting delivery of the specific legacies bequeathed to her. The bequeathed property consists of several tenaments which had been let out separately as far back as 1972 and were fetching a rent in excess of Rs. 1,000/- per month. The plaintiff through her counsel carried on prolonged correspondence with the defendants seeking to recover the legacies bequeathed to her but was consistently put off with pleas of unavoidable delay, lack of funds and complications which had little or no basis in fact. The defendants also pleaded the necessity for obtaining probate, which apparently was not obtained until about late in 1976 or early 1977. The defendants also pleaded the necessity for obtaining probate, which apparently was not obtained until about late in 1976 or early 1977. It is further averred that on persistent reminders followed by threats of legal action certain accounts, purporting to be reproduced from the books of the Estate were sent for the first time in October, 1976 showing considerable amounts at credit of the plaintiff, but with no payment made to her. It is averred that the deceased had expressly provided that the specific legacies were to be duly made and after all the costs, fees, dues, charges and other expenses of the estate were made from out of the other assets of the deceased, the residue was to be given to the residuary legatee. The defendants are therefore, guilty of gross dereliction of duty, failure in the capacity of Executors and Trustees and also of having committed breach of trust in the management and administration of the Estate of late d. S. Suraiya. It is averred that no probate was necessary as the deceased was a Hindu and the defendants almost took five years to apply for and obtain a grant of probate and the legacies of the plaintiff have not been effectively transferred to her as yet and wherefore, the suit for the above said reliefs. ( 3 ) THE suit was resisted by the defendants. The 1st defendant filed the written statement, which was adopted by 2nd and 3rd defendants by filing a memo. It is averred in the written statement filed by the 1st defendant that he is one of the executors of the last Will dated 13th September, 1971 executed by Dharam Singh Suraiya, who died in Bangalore on 4th July, 1972. It is denied that any cash or jewellery were found in the house of the deceased upon his death and were taken by the executors. The executors were not aware prior to the death of D. S. Suraiya that they had been appointed as executors. They arrived at bangalore subsequent to the death of D. S. Suraiya i. e. , after a couple of days. Until that time, it was the plaintiff who was present in the deceased's house. The family members of the deceased as well as his executors found no cash other than a paltry amount which was found in the deceased's wallet. They arrived at bangalore subsequent to the death of D. S. Suraiya i. e. , after a couple of days. Until that time, it was the plaintiff who was present in the deceased's house. The family members of the deceased as well as his executors found no cash other than a paltry amount which was found in the deceased's wallet. The averments made in para 4 of the plaint were admitted. As regards the allegations in para 5 of the plaint, it was averred that the plaintiff was friendly with the deceased in a personal capacity only. The plaintiff and the deceased were not connected in any business with each other. The averments made regarding the dereliction of duty, misconduct and breach of trust on the part of the executors are denied as false. It is further averred that grant of probate was considerably delayed for want of a provisional estate Duty Clearance Certificate without which the Court would not grant the probate and the said Certificate was not issued by the Estate Duty Authorities as the Executors could not pay earlier the provisional estate Duty demanded by the Estate Duty officer. It is a further averred' that the immovable property bequeathed to the plaintiff was transferred to her as far back as 25- 8-1978 by transferring the khatha of the property from the name of the deceased to the name of the plaintiff and the title deeds relating to the said immovable property were handed over to the plaintiff. The fact that both the legacies bequeathed to the plaintiff are still in the hands of the defendants, is not correct. It is averred that as regards 1500 shares of Food Specialities Limited bequeathed to the plaintiff, that as per the last will of the deceased, 12,175 shares of the said Company were bequeathed to various beneficiaries including 1500 shares to the plaintiff. However, the executors realized that the deceased at the time of his death held only 12000 shares. Out of the said 12000 shares, 3000 shares had been pledged with Syndicate Bank, Cantonment branch, Bangalore, as security for the overdraft facility in the current account extended by the said Bank to the deceased. However, the executors realized that the deceased at the time of his death held only 12000 shares. Out of the said 12000 shares, 3000 shares had been pledged with Syndicate Bank, Cantonment branch, Bangalore, as security for the overdraft facility in the current account extended by the said Bank to the deceased. Another 3000 shares of the said Company had been pledged with United Commercial Bank, mahatma Gandhi Road, Bangalore, also as security for the overdraft facility in the current account extended to the deceased by the said Bank. The debit balance in the current account with Syndicate Bank as at the deceased's death was Rs. 20,671. 79 and the debit balance in the current account with the United Commercial Bank was rs. 237. 71. After the death of the deceased, syndicate Bank, under the terms of the pledge sold 3000 shares and after adjustment of the amount due to the Bank, paid the balance to the Estate Duty Authorities towards the arrears of Estate Duty (provisional ). The executors efforts to prevent the sale of these shares by the said Bank did not bear fruit. The shares pledged with the united Commercial Bank were released after clearing the debt balance by the executors. The share certificates for 6000 shares which were in the custody of the deceased at the time of his death and which the Executors took possession had to be handed over to the Estate Duty Authorities as security for payment of provisional estate duty in order to obtain provisional estate duty clearance for the purpose of obtaining the probate. The shares bequeathed to the plainiff after due abetment thereof would be delivered to her on the completion of the final estate duty assessment and payment of additional estate duty, if any and the share certificates are released by the estate duty officer. It is averred that the suit is not properly valued for the purpose of payment of court fee and the suit is not maintainable in view of the pendency of the case before the High Court of Calcutta. Subsequently, the written statement was got amended by the defendants by including averments to the effect that the bequest made in favour of the plaintiff was not a specific legacy and it was a demonstrative legacy, to which the plaintiff filed a rejoinder denying the averments made in the written statement as amended. Subsequently, the written statement was got amended by the defendants by including averments to the effect that the bequest made in favour of the plaintiff was not a specific legacy and it was a demonstrative legacy, to which the plaintiff filed a rejoinder denying the averments made in the written statement as amended. ( 4 ) HAVING regard to the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court : 1. Whether this Court has no jurisdiction to grant the reliefs prayed for by the plaintiff? 2. Whether Court fee paid is sufficient? 3. Whether defendants are liable to execute in favour of plaintiff a deed of transfer of trust in respect of No. 40, East End Road, bangalore? 4. Whether the shares bequeathed in favour of plaintiff have given as security to estate Duty authorities and whether therefore, plaintiff is entitled to delivery of the shares bequeathed only after release by Estate Duty Authorities? 5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree for accounts? 6. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to interest claimed? 7. To what reliefs are parties entitled?" on behalf of the plaintiff, no oral or documentary evidence was adduced. On behalf of the defendants, defendant No. 1 was examined as DW1 and during his evidence, the plaintiff got marked documents, Exs. P1 to P8 and Exs. Dl to D41 were got marked on behalf of the defendants. The trial Court after considering the submission of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and after considering the oral and documentary evidence on record, by its judgment dated 29-2-1992, answered the issues as follows : issue No. 1 Has jurisdiction vide order dt. 14-7-1987. Issue No. 2 In the affirmative. Issue No. 3 Does not arise. Issue No. 4 Partly in the affirmative. Issue No. 5 Partly in the affirmative. Issue No. 6 Partly in the affirmative. Issue No. 7 As per the final orders. " and accordingly, decreed the suit of the plaintiff in part and passed the following order:" (1) As regards relief fal : (The relief sought for by the plaintiff for the execution of a document of transfer of trust in respect of property No. 40, East End Road, bangalore, is granted and can do so if the plaintiff so chooses. " and accordingly, decreed the suit of the plaintiff in part and passed the following order:" (1) As regards relief fal : (The relief sought for by the plaintiff for the execution of a document of transfer of trust in respect of property No. 40, East End Road, bangalore, is granted and can do so if the plaintiff so chooses. (2) As regards relief (b): since, the property has already been delivered to the possession of the plaintiff, this relief does not arise. (3) As regards relief fc) : to direct the defendants to effectively transfer 1500 shares with accrued dividend up to date does not arise in the case except declaring plaintiff is entitled for 1500 shares of FSL with the observations made above which has to be worked out subject to the decision of the hon'ble High Court of Calcutta. (4) As regards relief (d) : To render accounts with immediate payment in respect of the rents and profit collected from 4-7-1972 up to date in respect of house No. 40, is granted and the executors are answerable and accordingly, I direct the defendants to render accounts in respect of the immovable property. (5) As regards relief fe) : In respect of 1500 shares except declaring that the plaintiff is entitled for 1500 equity shares of FSL as a demonstrative legacy, plaintiff is not entitled for any relief of delivery of shares in this proceedings. The plaintiff is entitled for 6% p. a. interest only in respect of the amounts due of the immovable property and so far as 1500 shares are concerned, that has to be worked out by a separate final decree proceedings subject to 'the decision of the Hon'ble High court of Calcutta. (6) As regards relief (f) : To direct the estate of D. S. Suraiya to be administered by the Court stands dismissed. (7) As regards relief fgl :- Costs shall be borne by both the parties and the plaintiff is not entitled for the costs of the suit on the reason that costs of the proceedings will be burden on the estate of the testator. (8) As regards relief (h) : The relief sought for in this relief is held in the negative and I direct to draw a preliminary decree accordingly. ". (8) As regards relief (h) : The relief sought for in this relief is held in the negative and I direct to draw a preliminary decree accordingly. ". ( 5 ) THAT being aggrieved by the finding of the trial Court in so far as it relates to reliefs at (c) and (e) holding that the legacy of 1500 shares of Food Specialities Limited was a demonstrative legacy and the order passed thereon, the plaintiff has preferred this appeal. Defendants have not preferred any cross objections or appeal being aggrieved by the decree passed in favour of the plaintiff under the impugned judgment and decree. This appeal was disposed of by this court on 3-12-1999 and being aggrieved by the said judgment and decree, the plaintiff had preferred Civil Appeal No. 5732/2001 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the hon'ble Supreme Court by its order dated 18-11-2003, set aside the order passed by this Court on 3-12-1999 and directed this court to decide the appeal on merits sidering the contentions of the respective parties. Accordingly, the appeal is posted for hearing. ( 6 ) I have heard the learned counsel ap- pearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for Respondents 1 and 3. Respondent No. 2 though served with no- tice, has not chosen to appear before this court. Having regard to the contentions, urged, the points that would arise for de- termination in this appeal are : 1. Whether the trial Court was Justified in holding that the legacy of 1500 shares in food Specialities Ltd. , made In favour of the plaintiff under the Will of D. S. Suraiya dated 13-9-1971 is a demonstrative legacy and not a specific legacy as contended by the plain- tiff? 2. Whether the trial Court was justified in holding that the plaintiff is not entitled to the relief sought for in the suit pertaining to 1500 shares in Food Specialities Limited and in dismissing the suit in that behalf? 3. Whether the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in so far as it is challenged in this appeal, calls for interfer- ence in this appeal? 3. Whether the judgment and decree passed by the trial Court in so far as it is challenged in this appeal, calls for interfer- ence in this appeal? i answer the above points for determina- tion as follows : point No. 1 : in the affirmative point No. 2 : in the affirmative point No. 3 : in the negative for the fol- lowing : reasons ( 7 ) POINTS 1 to 3 : These points are con- sidered together as they are interconnected and to avoid repetition. ( 8 ) THIS appeal by the plaintiff is filed against the finding of the trial Court in so far as it relates to legacy of 1500 equity shares of Food Specialities Limited under the Will of D, S. Suraiya dated 13-9-1971 and rejection of the prayer of the plaintiff in that behalf. It is the contention of the plain- tiff that the said legacy of 1500 shares in food Specialities Limited is also a specific legacy and on the contrary, the contention of the defendants is that it is a demonstra- tive legacy and not a specific legacy as con- tended by the plaintiff. ( 9 ) THE contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant is that having regard to the averments made in the plaint con and the contents of the Will of D. S. Suraiya, which Is not In dispute, the legacy of 1500 shares in Food Specialities Limited is a specific legacy. He further submitted that mere non-examination of the plaintiff would not disentitle the plaintiff to the relief as the question as to whether the legacy is specific or demonstrative has to be decided on the basis of the material on record and nonexamination of the plaintiff would not in any way affect the said decision, which is a pure question of law to be arrived having regard to the intention of the deceased and the contents of the Will. ( 10 ) ON the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 3 submitted that even according to the averments made in the plaint, legacy of 1500 equity shares in Food Specialities Limited is not a specific legacy, but, it is a demonstrative legacy. ( 10 ) ON the other hand, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents 1 and 3 submitted that even according to the averments made in the plaint, legacy of 1500 equity shares in Food Specialities Limited is not a specific legacy, but, it is a demonstrative legacy. He has relied upon the provisions of Sections 142 and 150 of the Indian Succession Act, which deals with specific and demonstrative legacy and has also relied upon the decision of the High Court of Calcutta in AIR 1978 Calcutta 147 (Smt. Pravabati Roy v. Saileshanth Roy) and the decision reported in 1948 (2) All England law Reports 270 (Re O' Connor's Will Trusts, westminster Bank Ltd. , v. O' Connor ). ( 11 ) IN reply, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that non-examination of the plaintiff is not vital in the present case to consider the question as to whether legacy is specific or demonstrative in view of the decision in AIR 1999 SC 1441 (Vidhyadhar v. Mankikrao) as no adverse inference can be drawn for non-examination of the plaintiff having regard to the facts of the present case. He further submitted that the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the Respondents 1 and 3 are not helpful to him in the present case having regard to the facts of the case. ( 12 ) I have given anxious consideration to the contentions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the pleadings of the parties and the evidence of dw1 as also the contents of Exs. P1 to P8 and Exs. Dl to D41 and perused the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the parties. ( 13 ) THE answer to the points that arise for determination in this appeal would depend upon the finding as to whether legacy of 1500 shares in Food Specialities Ltd. , in favour of the plaintiff is a specific legacy as contended by the plaintiff or a demonstrative legacy as contended by the defendants. Legacy is not defined under the Indian Succession Act (hereinafter called 'the Act") and it is judicially defined as gift of movable or immovable property by Will or other testamentary instrument. Chapter XIV of the Act deals with specific legacies and Chapter XV of the Act deals with demonstrative legacies. Legacy is not defined under the Indian Succession Act (hereinafter called 'the Act") and it is judicially defined as gift of movable or immovable property by Will or other testamentary instrument. Chapter XIV of the Act deals with specific legacies and Chapter XV of the Act deals with demonstrative legacies. Specific Legacy has been defined under Section 142 of the Act as follows. "specific Legacy defined where a testator bequeaths to any person a specified part of his property, which is distinguishable from all other parts of his property, legacy is said to be specific. " ( 14 ) SECTION 144 of the the Act dealing with bequest of stock where testator had, at the date of Will equal or greater amount of stock of same kind reads as follows :"where a bequest is made in general terms of a certain amount of any kind of stock, the legacy is not specific merely because the testator was, at the date of his will, possessed of stock of the specified kind, to an equal or greater amount than the amount bequeathed. " ( 15 ) DEMOSTRATIVE Legacy is defined in section 150 of the Act as follows :"where a testator bequeaths certain sum of money, or certain quantity of any other commodity, and refers to a particular fund or stock so as to constitute the same the primary fund or stock out of which payment is to be made,, the legacy is said to be demonstrative. "the explanation to Section 150 states that distinction between a specific Legacy and a demonstrative Legacy as follows :"where specified property is given to the legatee, the legacy is specific. Where the legacy is directed to be paid out of specified property, it is demonstrative. " ( 16 ) THE distinction between specific and demonstrative legacy assumes importance in view of advantages and disadvantages attaching to each of them. Where legacy is specific and the assets are sufficient for the payment of debts and necessary expenses, the thing specified must be delivered to the legatee without any abatement. Specific legacy does not abate with general legacies (section 328 of the Act ). However, in view of section 152 of the Act, specific legacy is subject to adoption and demonstrative legacy is not deemed (section 153 of the Act ). Specific legacy does not abate with general legacies (section 328 of the Act ). However, in view of section 152 of the Act, specific legacy is subject to adoption and demonstrative legacy is not deemed (section 153 of the Act ). ( 17 ) IN the instant case, the question as to whether legacy of 1500 shares of Food specialities Limited in favour of the plaintiff bequeathed under the Will of D. S. Suraiya dated 13-9-1971 is specific or demonstrative has to be considered in the light of the above said provisions of law and the principles laid down in the decisions relied upon by the learned counsel appearing for the parties. The plaintiff contends that the legacy is specific. However, plaintiff has not been examined nor any oral evidence adduced before the trial Court. However, Exs. P1 to P8 have been got marked in the evidence of the first defendant, who is examined as DW1 and on behalf of defendants, exs. D1 to D41 have been got marked. It is averred in the plaint in para 4 of the plaint:"4. The plaintiff is a specific legatee under the aforementioned Will, having been bequeathed one of the three immovable properties of the deceased, namely the house known as "rita Bhavan" bearing No. 40, East end Road, in the City of Bangalore, hereinafter referred to as the bequeathed property. The plaintiff had also been bequeathed 1500 equity shares of the Food Specialities Limited, a Company incorporated in India. " ( 18 ) THE first defendant who has filed written statement and which is adopted by defendants 2 and 3 has admitted the above said averment made in para 4 of the plaint. However, the written statement was subsequently amended to include averments to the effect that the said legacy of shares is demonstrative and not specific and plaintiff has denied the same by filing the rejoinder. ( 19 ) THE plaintiff has also culled out the following recitals in the Will in para 8 of the plaint:"after payment of the aforesaid specific legacies, testamentary dues and debts, whatsoever I GIVE AND BEQUEATH the rest and residue of my estate wheresoever situate into Miss Anita Suraiya (minor) for her sole use and benefit. ( 19 ) THE plaintiff has also culled out the following recitals in the Will in para 8 of the plaint:"after payment of the aforesaid specific legacies, testamentary dues and debts, whatsoever I GIVE AND BEQUEATH the rest and residue of my estate wheresoever situate into Miss Anita Suraiya (minor) for her sole use and benefit. " ( 20 ) IT is well settled the mere averment made in the pleading dehors the contents of the Will would not by itself prove the nature of the legacy as to whether it is specific or demonstrative. Nature of the legacy has to be ascertained with reference to contents of the Will and the intention of the testator in making the legacy in the light of definition of specific and demonstrative legacy under the Act. ( 21 ) THE wordings of the Will, Ex. D32 pertaining to bequeathing of the shares of suraiya Bros. (P) Ltd. , and Food Specialities Ltd.) are as follows :"i give and bequeath the following specific legacies to the undermentioned for their sole use and benefit. " ( 22 ) THE testator has bequeathed 1925 shares of Suraiya Bros, to 23 persons including plaintiff, who has been shown as si. No. 18, wherein 100 shares are bequeathed to her and 12325 shares of Food specialities Limited, have been bequeathed to 15 persons including plaintiff, who has been bequeathed 1500 shares as at S1. No. 33. The plaintiff has not made any claim regarding legacy of 100 shares of Suraiya bros, and claim in the suit is relating to 1500 shares in Food Specialities Limited. ( 23 ) IT is clear from the pleading, evidence of DW1 and documentary evidence on record that though the testator Suraiya has bequeathed 12325 shares in Food Specialities ltd. , to 15 persons including 1500 shares to the plaintiff, he has not given particulars of Share numbers or any other description which would distinguish shares allotted to each of 15 legatees, distinguishable from shares allotted to other legatees. In the absence of description of particulars of shares allotted to each of the legatees, like share number, script number, which would enable identification of shares allotted to each of the legatees including the plaintiff, it is riot possible to identify 1500 shares allotted to the plaintiff from all other shares allotted to each of the legatees. In the absence of description of particulars of shares allotted to each of the legatees, like share number, script number, which would enable identification of shares allotted to each of the legatees including the plaintiff, it is riot possible to identify 1500 shares allotted to the plaintiff from all other shares allotted to each of the legatees. In the absence of details of shares allotted to each of the legatees with reference to share number, ledger or script number, it would only indicate the intention of the testator to give certain number of shares in Food Specialities Ltd. , and reference cannot be said to be to any specific or particular share. Hence, condition requisite that is specification of the property which is distinguishable from, other shares bequeathed to other legatee, as required under definition of specific legacy under Section 142 of the Act is not proved. It is also well settled that the word 'my' will indicate a specific part of the testator's property particularly in respect of stocks and shares as is clear from the illustrations to section 142 of the Act defining specific legacy. In the instant case, the legacy of shares though termed as specific is not prefixed with the expression 'my' which is also an important factor to hold that it is not specific legacy. Further the material on record would clearly show that indisputably, though testator has bequeathed 12315 shares of Food Specialities Ltd. , to 15 legatees including the plaintiff, as on the date of death of testator, D. S. Suraiya, only 6000 shares were available with him and he had pledged 3000 shares with Syndicate Bank cantonment Branch, Bangalore as security for availing overdraft facility and an amount of Rs. 20, 671=79 Ps. was due to be paid by testator and the said 3000 shares of Food specialities Ltd. , were sold by the said Bank and was not available to the executors under the Will. However, 3000 shares which had been pledged with United Commercial bank M. G. Road Branch, Bangalore, were recovered by paying outstanding amount of rs. 237. 71 Ps. by defendants as executors under the Will and 6000 shares had to be deposited with Estate Duty Officer towards provisional assessment of estate duty and the same could be returned only after final assessment of estate duty was over. 237. 71 Ps. by defendants as executors under the Will and 6000 shares had to be deposited with Estate Duty Officer towards provisional assessment of estate duty and the same could be returned only after final assessment of estate duty was over. Therefore, in the absence of proof of ingredients of specific legacy as defined under section 142 of the Act, mere mentioning of the word 'specific' in the Will or averments in the plaint would not make legacy specific, when the legacy having regard to the above facts is demonstrative in the present case. Similarly, certain facts elicited in the cross-examination of DW1 to the effect that they came to know that legacy was demonstrative only after consulting their Advocate and that in 1983 for the first time, would also be not helpful to the plaintiff to contend that legacy is specific. The documentary evidence got marked on behalf of the plaintiff as per exs. P1 to P8 is also not helpful to prove that legacy of shares in Food Specialities ltd. , is specific as the said documents are only notices, reply given by defendants in response to notice of the plaintiff through her Advocate and the same is not helpful in substantiating that legacy is specific as claimed by the plaintiff. The trial Court after elaborate discussion of the nature of legacies and the material on record, has rightly come to the conclusion that legacy of shares is not specific as claimed by the plaintiff and legacy is demonstrative having regard to the material on record. The finding of the trial Court does not suffer from any error or illegality as to call for interference in this appeal. In view of the finding that legacy is demonstrative, the learned trial Judge has rightly held that the plaintiff is entitled for delivery of 1500 shares bequeathed by the testator only after taking into account and in accordance with the Act as a demonstrative legacy. Accordingly, I answer the points for determination and hold that the impugned judgment and decree in so far as it is challenged in this Appeal does not call for interference and is entitled to be confirmed and pass the following Order : the Appeal is dismissed. However, having regard to the overall facts and circumstances of the case, parties to beer their own cost in this appeal. Appeal dismissed. --- *** --- .