DEBENDRANATH SIRCAR Vs. RAIKISHORI DASI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondents in this appeal were the plaintiffs in the action. They were four of the sons of Bishwanath Sircar. The first defendant, Raikishori Dasi, was the widow of the late Go-bindnath Sircar, who was an adopted son of Bishwanath. The plaintiffs claimed to be entitled under the will of their father to succeed, upon the death of Gobindnath without male issue, to the share of the father's property, to which he had succeeded on his father's death. The widow contended that the will of the father was illegal and void, and, consequently that, upon the death of her husband, Gobindnath, she as his widow succeeded to his share of the property, and acting upon that view she, by dead, dated the 9th of Falgoon 1285, transferred a portion of the property to the defendant No.

(2.) (Syed Abdul Sobhan Chowdhry). The plaintiffs by their plaint prayed that after putting a true construction on the will of the late Bishwanath Sircar, the Court would be pleased to pass a decree declaring that defendant No. 1, that is to say, the widow of Gobindnath, had no right to the property stated in the schedule marked (ka), and to declare the plaintiffs' right to the said property in accordanc with the said will. They also prayed that after declaration of the plaintiffs' right, the Court would be pleased to pass a decree declaring that defendant No. 1 had no right to take possession of, or to transfer, any property stated in the said will, and that the registered kobala executed by defendant No. 1, dated 9th Falgoon 1285, was void.

(3.) AT the close of the arguments their Lordships reserved judgment in order that they might carefully consider all the provisions of the three documents read together. They have now done so, and although they cannot, after full consideration say that the case is free from doubt, they are not prepared to hold that the High Court came to an erroneous conclusion, or to advise Her Majesty to reverse the judgment.