SAROJINI DAS Vs. HARIDAS GHOSH-DEFENDANT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The subject matter of the litigation which has resulted in this appeal is the estate left by one Rajanimani alias Rajanibala Dasi, a Hindu lady, who died on the 21 March 1917. She left a son Nitai, a grandson Anil, by a predeceased son, and three married daughters. The relationship of the several members of the family is indicated on the following genealogical table:

(2.) The case for the appellant is that, three days before her death, Rajanimani made a testamentary disposition of her properties. On the 20 August 1917 an application for Probate was lodged in the Court of the District Delegate by the present appellant, Sarojini, the widowed daughter in law of the deceased, but it was returned as objection was filed. An application for Letters of Administration with a copy of the Will annexed was consequently presented to the District Judge on the la October, 1917, Objection was thereupon lodged on the 22ud January 1918 by the respondent, Haridas Ghose, on the allegation that he had, on the 28 May 1917, acquired title to the estate left by Rajanimani, by purchase from her son, Nitai Chandra Ghose, who had seceded thereto as the heir-at-law. Thus emerged the question in controversy between the parties, namely, whether the Will alleged to have been executed by Rajanimani on the 18 March 1917 is or is not genuine. The District Judge has come to the conclusion that the Will propounded was not duly executed, On the present appeal the correctness of this view has been impeached on behalf of the profounder.

(3.) The preamble to the Will recites that the testatrix had been in failing health for some time and had come to the residence of his second son-in law, Krishna Chandra Ghose, at Baranagore, in the northern suburbs of Calcutta. The first clause enumerates the relations of the testatrix as set out in the genealogical table. The second clause states that her surviving son, Nitai Chandra Ghose, had taken to evil ways and that she had consequently decided not to leave him any portion of her estate; but that if he left any son or sons of good character, the said grandson or grandsons would, after attainment of majority, be competent to possess and enjoy the property according to the terms of the Will. The third clause gives a description of her properties, namely, two houses in Calcutta, one purchased with her own money, the other obtained by virtue of a deed of gift from her mother-in-law. The fourth clause provides for maintenance allowance to an aunt-in law dependent upon her. The fifth Clause gives a monthly allowance to her son Nitai, her grandson Anil and to her three married daughters. The sixth Clause provides for the performance of her Sradh from the sale proceeds of her ornaments, the surplus to be taken by her son Nitai. The seventh Clause gives one-half of her property to her grandson Anil and the other half to the son or sons that might be born of the loins of her son Nitai. The eighth paragraph makes the various sums payable as maintenance a charge on the estate. The ninth Clause contains miscellaneous directions. There can be little doubt that the primary object of the testatrix was to keep her property out of the hands of her son who had taken to drink and women at an early age, and had in 1912 become involved in a shooting ease.