JOHUE LALL DEY Vs. DHIRENDRA NATH DEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this case the question arises in connection with the Will of a man called Fakir Chand Dey. The appellant is the sister s daughter s husband, and the respondent is the son of the testator.

(2.) The Will was made on the 7th of April 1903 and under it the appellant took a substantial interest. The Will is alleged to have been revoked on the 29th of August 1913. The testator, apparently, was taken ill in August 1913; he went to a place called Karmatar and returned from there some time in August, and, according to the endorsement in the Will, he cancelled his Will on the 29th of August 1913.

(3.) The appellant puts his case in two ways. He says first of all that the whole of the cancellation was not genuine. He alleges that the handwriting on the Will which purports to be the cancellation is not in the handwriting of the testator, that the signature which purports to be the signature of the testator in respect of the cancellation is not the signature of the testator, and he goes on to say that the date was originally the 9th of August but was altered, at some time or other, to the 29th of August. He also says, though his learned Counsel did not seem to lay so much stress on this part of his case, that although the words of the cancellation may have been written upon the Will by the testator himself and although the signature may have been his, still there was no tearing at the time the word "cancelled" was written, and that the tearing was done by somebody after the testator s death.