and the wording admits of this interpretation, with no other possible reading being more compelling. It must therefore unquestionably be understood in this way.

Furthermore, an endowment is intended to provide support, so the provision governing a deceased beneficiary must be made clear for every generation. Thus, his statement:

“Any of them who dies leaving neither a child, nor a grandchild, nor descendants, nor posterity”

is equivalent to saying: “Any of them who is dead and has no posterity.” For the extinction of his descendants after his death is equivalent to their not existing at the time of his death. There is therefore no difference between this statement and his saying, “Any of them who dies and has no child,” or, “Any of them who dies and did not have a child.”

Although this expression may sometimes be understood as referring only to the absence of descendants at the time of death, its wording also admits of their absence without such a restriction. Thus, if the speaker were to say, “This is what I intended,” his words would still bear that meaning intelligibly.

Since the wording admits of this meaning, and no other wording covers the case at issue, the case must be included under it. For when a choice must be made, ruling in a case according to what the founder’s wording, the circumstances, and customary usage support is unquestionably the course that must be followed.

Once this is established, the paternal uncle of Aynāshī’s grandfather is now deceased and has neither a child, nor a grandchild, nor descendants, nor posterity. His share therefore belongs to his three siblings, passing to their descendants and posterity. At the time when his line died out, these two women were the only descendants of his, so they must share equally in Aynāshī’s portion. The same applies to everyone whose line has died out: his share passes to the descendants of his siblings, unless