and that it should. be in cttltiuation of the assignee and his familg members, he.ue to be read" together and in this context, thet definition of the uord. 'transfer' und.er section 2(6) of the Ac;r has to be tested. incruding the excrusion of testamelntary disposition from the said utord 'transfer'. This exclusion of testamentarg disposition from the tuord" ,transfer' under sec. 2(6) of the Act is not in genera sense and the testamentary dis,cosition is not used" or understood as in common parrance. It should be read d"own and und.erstood" in the coniext of firc objects and intend.ment of the Act, which totailg prohibits the indtrction of strangers to the familg of assignee either during his lifetime or thereafi.er. As sucrq the utords ,testamentary dispr6sl1lon' emploged" under section 2(6) of the Act haue to be undzrstood that the assignee can execate a wiil choosing som? of his familg members to succeed to the assigned rands exchtding one or some among his familg members. As such, the utill euen if it is a testamentary disposition can onrg be among the familg members of the said" assignee but not to a strartger- This is the proper construction to be giuen to bene-fi.cial legisration of this nature, as otherutise, it is capable of being abused and. misused. If bequeathing of the asiigned. lo-nd to a stranger to a family is auouted, then und.er the jri"" of a will, the rand.s which are otherwise precruded."from alienotion or transfer can easilg be transferred rabering it as a will a.nd then the uery purpose of the Act wiil be frustrated. while interpreting the benefi.ciar statutes, one which furthers the object of Act shourd. be ad.opted euen ay passing the comm)n and generar notions. As such, that the wiil, euen thougi1 a testamentary disposition, is not permrssibre in the case ctf assigned rand couered" by A.p. Act No. 9 of 1977 in fauourof strangers to the familg. A witt can be execul"d. by the assignee under A.p- act No. 9 of 1977 onrg in fauour Jr ni" familgmember/ s and not to strangers.,
