GANGAMOYI DEBI Vs. TROILUCKHYA NATH CHOWDHRY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The only question to be decided on this appeal is, whether the appellant's husband Brojo Nath Chowdhry, who died on the 23 of April 1867, died intestate, as the appellant alleges, or left a will, as the respondents contend. If he did make that will, the appellant is out of Court. The Subordinate Judge of Rajshahye decided in the appellant's favour, holding that the will was a forgery ; but the High Court of Judicature at Fort William reversed that decision, and dismissed the appellant's suit, with costs.

(2.) Hari Nath Chowdhry, who married Raj Lakhi Debi, and died many years before 1867, left three sons, who succeeded to their father's property, viz., Brojo Nath Chowdhry, the appellant's husband; Mathura Nath Chowdhry, who died about 1870, and whose sons are the respondents on this appeal; and Jadab Nath Chowdhry, who died before 1867, intestate and unmarried, whereupon his mother Raj Lakhi Debi succeeded to his share in the father's estate.

(3.) Brojo Nath Chowdhry resided at Sarippur or Kasimpur, in the district of Rajshahye; but some months before his death he removed to Nattore, on account of his health, and there he remained until he went to Rampura. There is no doubt that while at Nattore he was very ill, and ultimately his recovery was considered hopeless. While he was there a cousin and great friend of his named Girish Chunder Lahiri-who seems to have been in a superior station in life and had received the title of Rai Bahadur-came over to Nattore, and took Brojo Nath Chowdhry back with him to his own house at Rampura, where he stayed till he died. The appellant and one of her witnesses say the death was only two days after the removal; while two witnesses for the respondents put it at five or six days and 10 or 12 days respectively. The doctor also who was called in at Rampura says he attended him for five or six days, and he saw from the first that the case was hopeless. On the day before his death, according to the respondents evidence, he went to the Registry Office, and there at 4 p. m. presented for registration the will in dispute. It bore his signature and seal, and was attested by five witnesses. Four of those witnesses died before the trial; but the fifth, the doctor of Brojo Nath Chowdhry, was called as a witness. The execution of the will was admitted by Brojo Nath Chowdhry, who was identified, by two witnesses, and then the will was registered. Each of these four stages was verified by the signature of W. S. Wells, the Registrar. This was on the 22 April, 1867.The doctor says in his evidence that he signed this will in the presence of Brojo Nath Chowdhry, and at his request, after some discussion with him as to whether he should make a will or not. He thought he attended Brojo Nath Chowdhry for five or six days. He said that many other persons were present when he signed the will, but he did not know whether any other witness or the testator had signed when he did. He also said that many respectable people, came in to see the testator during the time of his attendance. The Subordinate Judge declined to believe this witness because there was some doubt as to an apparent alteration in the date of his attestation of the will, and the explanation he gave was not clear. But this is not wonderful, as the event had happened 31 years before; and the High Court thought, and their Lordships think, that the reasons for not giving weight to $he evidence of this witness are quite insufficient. They: see no reason to doubt his veracity.