1. The only question in this appeal is whether Suraj Prasad, the last owner of the property in suit, conferred upon his mother Jamna Kunwar by his will, dated the 9th of April, 1902, an absolute estate in one-half of the property left by him. The will provides that in the event of his marrying again and having issue, such issue shall be the owner (milik) of his property like himself. It then goes on to say If I happen to have no issue, the names of my wife and mother shall be entered in equal shares and they shall be owners and in possession (malik aur kabiz).” It is urged that the mother of the deceased, Musammat Jumna Kunwar, acquired a life-estate only and not an absolute estate under the terms of this will. The word malik has been interpreted in the recent ruling of the Privy Council in Surajmuni v. Rabi Nath Ojha 30 A. 84 (P.C.) : 5 A.L.J. 67 : 18 M.L.J. 7 : 12 C.W.N. 231 : 10 Bom. L.R. 59 : 7 C.L.J. 131 : 3 M.L.T. 144. In that case their Lordships observe that “in order to cut down the full proprietary rights that the word (malik) imports something must be found in the context qualifying it.” In the present case there is nothing in the context to qualify the word malik, and to indicate that the intention was that the word should not bear its proper technical meaning.” On the contrary while speaking of the rights of his issue, Suraj Prasad uses the word vialik, indicating clearly that the issue should be the absolute owners. The same word is used in respect of his wife and his mother. There is nothing to displace the presumption of absolute ownership implied in the word malik.” We are, therefore, of opinion that the view taken by the Court below is right and this appeal must fail. We accordingly dismiss it with costs including fees on the higher scale.