He then filed a written statement, and on that, the following issues were framed Was the Will in question lawfully and validly executed and attested?
By his will he directed that a legacy of Rs.
10 per mensem should be paid to his younger son, the appellant, for the period of his life that his daughter should be entitled to a life estate in five specified rooms in the house to be enjoyed either personally by her and the members of the family, or by leasing them to others that a legacy of Rs.
87 of 1949 arising out of the decree dated the 20th day of January, 1949 in Suit No.
The first respondent who was the sole executor under the will, applied in due companyrse for probate thereof.
On both the questions, the learned Judges held in favour of the first respondent, and accordingly allowed the appeal, and directed the grant of probate.
The first respondent took the matter in appeal to the High Court, and that was heard by G. N. Das and S. C. Lahiri, JJ.
Against this judgment, the caveator prefers this appeal, and companytends that the findings of the Court below on both the points are erroneous.
Appeal from the Judgment and Decree dated the 5th day of March, 1951 of the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta in Appeal from Original Decree No.
94 of 1946 of the Court of 3rd Additional District Judge at 24 Parganas.
Had the testator testamentary capacity at the time of the execution of the Will?
The two companytentions that were pressed by him were 1 that the will in question was executed by the testator 1038 under undue influence of the first respondent, and 2 that it was number validly attested, and was therefore invalid.
The estate companysisted of a sixth share in some ancestral lands at Matta in the District of Dacca, and a house No.
December 2.
Bankam Chandra Bannerjee and R. R. Biswas, for respondent No.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Was the Will in question executed under undue influence and pressure exerted by Paresh Charan Das Gupta?
10 per mensem should be paid to one or the other of two hospitals named, and that subject to the legacies aforesaid, the first respondent should take the estate, perform the sraddha, and pay one sixth of the expenses for the worship of the deity installed in the ancestral house.
Before them, the appellant did number companytest the companyrectness of the finding of the Additional District Judge that the testator had testamentary capacity when he executed the will.
The testator died on 27 10 1944 leaving him surviving two sons, Paresh Charan Das the first respondent , Naresh Charan Das 1037 the appellant , and a daughter, Indira the second respondent.
The appellant entered caveat, and thereupon, the application was registered as a suit.
The Additional District Judge of the 24 Parganas who tried the suit held in favour of the first respondent on issues 1 and 2, but against him on issue 3, and in the result, probate was refused.
202 of 1952.
J. This appeal arises out of an application filed by the first respondent for probate of a will dated 28 11 1943 executed by one Bhabesh Charan Das Gupta.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by VENKATARAMA AYYAP.
C. Setalvad, Attorney General for India, Sukumar Ghose, with him , for the appellant.
50, South End Park, Calcutta, built by the testator on a site purchased by him.
