1. Following Parami v. Mahadei I.L.R. (1910) B. 278 we hold that unless there is an ambiguity in the terms of the will of a Hindu testator, the rule that the will of a Hindu must be construed with due regard to Hindu habits and notions has no application. That rule can be properly applied only for the purpose of construing the terms of the will and not for the purpose of controlling or adding to its provisions. Even if that rule is applied, it was held in that case that there is no certain and necessary implication that a Hindu who, by will provides for the maintenance of his wife after his death, intended to deprive her of the maintenance if she becomes unchaste. Their Lordships of the Privy Council say in Rajah Venkata Narasimha Appa Row v. Rajah Parthasarathi Appa Row (1914) 28 M.L.J. 411 'The Court is, in no case, justified in adding to the testamentary dispositions. The Court never adds to a will anything which needs to be done by testamentary disposition. In all cases it must loyally carry out the will as properly construed and this duty is universal and is true alike of wills of every nationality and every religion or rank of life.
2. The will in this case gives the testator's widow a clear right to receive till her death a certain quantity of rice yearly for her maintenance and she could not be deprived of such right by adding to the will certain words and terms which the testator might be presumed to have intended to add if certain future contingencies had been in his mind when he made the will.
3. Discharging therefore the decrees of the Lower Courts the plaintiff will be given a decree for recovery of the value of the maintenance due for all the four years mentioned in the plaint at the rates decreed by the Munsif and with interest as mentioned therein with costs in all Courts.
4. A similar decree will be given in the connected second appeal.