SHYAM SUNDAR DEBANSHI Vs. SMKAMAL KUMARI DASSI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the judgment and decree of the District Judge of Birbhum, dated 30 November 1931, refusing probate of the will of one Ramaprasanna Debanshi, dated 15th January 1930. The testator about the time of the execution of the will was about 36 or 37 years of age and he died on 19 March 1930, after having, it is alleged, executed the said will. So far as the signatures on the will itself are concerned, it is not disputed that those signatures were those of the testator. But what is suggested on behalf of the objectors is that those signatures had been put by the testator sometime previously on blank pieces of paper and that such papers had been left by him with Shyam Sundar Debanshi and that the latter in conspiracy with a number of other persons had written out on these blank papers a will purporting to be a will of the testator. In other words, the contention is that the body of the will is a forgery and that there is internal evidence to show that the will itself had not been duly executed by the testator. It is further contended that if one examines the contents of the will, the irresistible conclusion is that the will is of such an extraordinary character that very grave suspicion must attach to the will and that in the circumstances, a Court of probate will not admit the said will to probate unless and until the propounder satisfied the conscience of the Court that the will is a genuine one and that it was duly executed by the testator and that the circumstances alleged on behalf of the objectors, properly scrutinised and analysed, do not throw any suspicion whatsoever upon the question of the execution of the will by the testator.

(2.) Now, the learned Judge has gone into the matter at very great length. He has in his judgment discussed almost every point that was raised on behalf of the objectors and he finally came to the conclusion that the will was of such an extraordinary character, having regard to the state of the family of the testator to the fact that the will was alleged to have been executed by a young man of 36 or 37 and to the character of the dispositions themselves, that taking all circumstances into consideration, it was impossible to hold that the will had been executed by the testator.

(3.) The learned Judge after setting out the facts relating to the testator's family and the circumstances under which the will came to be executed as alleged goes on to examine the reasons given by the propounder why the testator thought it right to make a will. Those reasons, according to the learned Judge were insufficient and the learned Judge found that the main reason alleged on behalf of the propounder, namely that the testator was on terms of enmity with his tenants, that the testator had instituted as many as 200 suits against his tenants in the Settlement Court and that he was in danger of his life, was not a ground either substantial in itself or a ground for which there was even material in fact. The learned Judge then goes on to the question about the preparation of a draft and although he finds that according to the propounder no less than two drafts had been prepared, such drafts had not been produced and that in itself was a circumstance which cast doubt on the question of the execution of the will by the testator. He then proceeds to examine the evidence of the execution, and attestation of the execution by the various witnesses who had been called before the learned Judge.