DIN TARINI DEBI Vs. KRISHNA GOPAL BAGCHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the order of the District Judge of Pabna, dated the 6 of September 1906, granting Letters of Administration with the will annexed to one Krishna Gopal Bagchi. The facts of the case are that one Ram Chandra Sarma Talapatra had four daughters and one son. The youngest daughter was named Srimati Trailokhatarini Devi. She was unmarried when a certain document, which is Exhibit I in this case, was executed by the deceased Ram Chandra Sarma Talapattra. His other three daughters had already been married at the time, and were living with their respective husbands. Ex. No. 1, which is propounded by the petitioner as the will of the deceased Ram Chandra, was executed in 1296 when the deceased was about 60 years of age. Exhibit I is styled in the document itself a sambandha- nirnaya patra and is in the form of a letter addressed to Ratanmoni Debi, an aunt of Krishna Gopal Deb Sarma Bagchi. The expression sambandha-nirnaya patra means a matrimonial arrangement deed. This letter informs the addressee that the writer has settled the marriage of his daughter with Krishna Gopal on condition that Krishna Gopal shall after the marriage live in the writer s, family dwelling house at Patul, and that on the demise of the writer and his legally married wife, Krishna Gopal shall be entitled to, and be in possession of, all the moveable and immoveable properties left by him.

(2.) The above document appears to have been attested by three witnesses, namely, Hurish Chundra Bhowmik, Panchanan Sarma Talapatra, and Lakshmi Kantha Sarma Talapatra. The first two are said to be dead and the last has been examined as a witness for the petitioner. The objectors to, the application are three, namely, Peary Mohan (son of the first daughter of Ram Chandra) Din Tarini Debi (his third daughter) and Debendra Narain Mozumdar (a son of the second daughter). It is admitted by the objectors that Ram Chandra executed a sambandha-nirnaya patra-a little before his youngest daughter's marriage; but it is said that the document propounded by the applicant is not the one that was so executed; and that even assuming the document to be genuine, it cannot operate as a will; It is only the objector No. 2, namely, Din Tarini Debi, who now appeals to this Court, and the grounds taken before us are identically the same as were taken in her petition of objection, dated 20 of April, 1906.

(3.) Before dealing with the proper interpretation of the deed in question, we will dispose of the appellant's allegation that the document, Ex. I, is not the one that was executed by Ram Chandra before his youngest daughter's marriage. It is urged. on behalf of the appellant that it is not customary for such a document to be attested by witnesses. This no doubt is true, but in this connection we must not, lose sight of the fact that the intending bridegroom was a young man in poor circumstances, who expected to improve his pecuniary circumstances by his marriage with the daughter of an old man, who was in possession of some properties. Witnesses say that it was Krishna Gopal himself who desired that the document should be attested by witnesses. We think that Krishna Gopal's anxiety to secure attestation of witnesses was nothing but natural. That he should want to make his position pecuniarily better by securing a deed, which could be used to his own benefit, is consistent with his poor and straitened, circumstances. He was in fact induced to marry Ram Chandra's youngest daughter by the hope of getting all the properties that Ram Chandra might leave after his death., It is urged on behalf of the appellant that no witness attested the document that was really executed by Ram Chandra, and that the document propounded is not the document that was executed, in other words it is alleged that this is a forged document and that. two. dead men's names have been forged as attesting witnesses. This document was executed in 1296, which corresponds to 1889 A.D. The application for Letters of Administration was made in 1906, that is to say, seventeen years after execution. Two of the witnesses are said to have died during this interval. It is evidently not at all improbable that two of them, should die during this period. If this were a forged document, as is alleged, it would have been the easiest thing; possible to secure its attestation by three living persons instead of forging the names of two many who are said to have died, thus weakening the case by having only witness to attest the document. A forger always takes good care to remove all suspicions; but here, if we accept the theory of forgery, we find the applicant relying on the slender testimony of one single witness. If we are to accept the evidence of Lolit Mohan Talapatra, witness No. 2 for the objector, we should have to find that the signature of Lakshmi Kantha Talapatra has also been forged. This witness on seeing the deed in question says.- "The signature in this deed is not that of Lakshmi Talapatra." But we find that Lakshmi Talapatra, witness No. 1 for the applicant, on seeing Exhibit No. I says "This bears my signature." If Lakshmi Kantha Talapatra is a creature of the applicant and has given false evidence in attesting as his own a signature which is not his, it is surprising that, if he was prepared to go so far, he should hesitate to put his signature on the deed and attest it as his own.