Court seeks further extrinsic evidence of deceased’s intention when drafting his will

Deceased 77 year old bachelor - construction suit in respect of last will and testament - likely prepared with assistance of solicitor - plaintiff is a nephew and beneficiary under the will - plaintiff seeks various reliefs against first defendant who is executrix - remaining defendants are residuary legatees - deceased owner of four different parcels of land on four different plans - dispute over interpretation of the 2nd clause - clause relates to dwelling house, farm buildings and related farm machinery and livestock - plaintiff argues it devises him entirely of deceased's lands compromised in folio - defendants argue it is limited to just one of lands and the remaining lands fall in their residue - plaintiff relies upon extrinsic evidence - section 90 of the Succession Act 1965 - deals with admission of extrinsic evidence - evidence which shows the intention of the testator - and to assist in construction of - or to explain any contradiction in will - plaintiff pleads that instructions to solicitor were to effect all lands to him - plaintiff wants to adduce evidence of an earlier will - plaintiff in alternative makes proprietary estoppel claim - defendants plead that the deceased only intended to devise one set of lands to the plaintiff - that clause 2 is void for uncertainty and falls to be included in residue - defendants argue in relation to estoppel claim that plaintiff lives 30 miles away and only occasionally assisted on farm - that plaintiff evidence clear intention not to pursue a farming life - decided had altered the earlier will which had only bequeathed all the lands in anticipation that plaintiff would show commitment to farm - Lowry principles - construction of wills - armchair principle - extrinsic evidence de bene esse - application of Lowry principles - court finds clause 2 does not unambiguously support the plaintiff's interpretation - neither does it unambiguously support the defendants interpretation - court concludes however that clause 2 is more consistent with intention to split the lands - than to treat them as unitary whole - accordingly court will receive extrinsic evidence of deceased's intention - court to hear further argument from parties in admissibility of various pieces of evidence.