JUDGMENT 1. The only question which arises in this appeal is whether the Appellant before us, who was the Petitioner in the Court below, is an executrix by implication, under the Will left by her husband, Ram-Lochan Sirkar. The testator bequeathed the bulk of his estate to Debsheba or rather, for the sheba of the thakur Sri Sri Luchmi Narayan and, in regard to the rest of the property, he made certain dispositions which are also set out in the Will. In an early part of the document, he appoints his wife Kripamoyee Dassi as shebait for the management of all the immoveable properties which are left by him, and dedicated to the idol Lukhmi Narayan, and says that, after his death, she, that is to say, Kripamoyee, shall be in possession of the debutler properties and shall have her name registered in the Collectorate as shebait of the thakur in his place. Then, in paragraph 6, he says as follows:-"In excess of the estate of the Bigrahadeba, money-lending business, cash money and my other business, and jote lands (whether in my name or in the name of others) in different places and all the Khamar lands appertaining to the estate of the idol that are there shall remain under the supervision of my said wife Kripamoyee Dassi; from the income of the same, she shall perform all my annual ceremonies, such as Dole, Durgotsab, Lukhi puja, Dolejatra and Dwipanwita and the feeding of mendicants which are being hitherto performed in my house. If, at any time, any one wishes to go on plgrimage, the reasonable expenses of the same shall be paid from this income." In the following paragraph 7, he says: " The expenses of rice-giving or Churakaran ceremony or of marriage, education or medical expenses of the sons of the adopted son shall also be paid, as far as reasonable, from the income mentioned in paragraph G." Then, in the 9th paragraph, he says : "Whoever happens to be the shebait of the estate of Lukhmi Narayan, he shall manage the same and make all collections and, after duly conducting the sheba of the idol, he shall be able to lend or advance money from the surplus funds by keeping Collectorate kharija properties or other immoveable properties in mortgage; and from the aforesaid funds, he shall also be able to buy zemindaries or other immoveable properties--all those properties also shall vest in the idol. The shebait shall stand as Plaintiff and file all suits for realization of the money-lending business or any other money due to and beneficial to the debutter estate;" and so on. These are the only provisions of the Will to which reference need be made. 2. The learned Judge of the Court below has directed that Letters of Administration be granted to the Petitioner with a copy of the Will annexed on her furnishing the usual securities; but it has been contended on her behalf that, if she be the executrix by implication under the Will in question, she would be entitled to probate, and not to Letters of Administration with a copy of the Will annexed. We think the contention of the Appellant is correct. The term "executor " is defined in sec. 3 of the Probate and Administration Act: It says, "executor' means a person to whom the execution of the last Will of a deceased person is, by testator's appointment, confided." The same section defines what an Administrator is. We think the contention of the Appellant is correct. The term "executor " is defined in sec. 3 of the Probate and Administration Act: It says, "executor' means a person to whom the execution of the last Will of a deceased person is, by testator's appointment, confided." The same section defines what an Administrator is. It says, " 'Administrator' means a person appointed by competent, authority to administer the estate of a deceased person when there is no executor." Sec. 6 says, " Probate can be granted only to an executor appointed by the Will." Sec. 7 declares that "the appointment may be express or by necessary implication." And the whole question that has been raised in this case is, as already indicated, whether the Petitioner before us is an executrix by implication. Looking at the various parts of the Will to which we have referred, we think that there can be very little doubt that the Petitioner is the person to whom the execution of the last Will of her deceased husband is confided; and we may observe that, if there be any doubt in respect of the portion of the estate which is assigned to Debsheba, there can be no doubt that as regards the other portion of the estate which is not assigned for such purposes, and to which the widow succeeds under the ordinary law of inheritance, she would be entitled to claim the position of an executrix, properly so-called. But in any view of the matter, we think that, though the property is bequeathed to the thakur, still, the execution of the Will in question is confided, in terms, to the Petitioner. Our attention has been called by the learned vakil for the Appellant to the case of Brojo Chunder Goswami v. Raj Kumar Roy 6 C.W.N. 310 (1901) where a similar question upon the construction of a somewhat similar Will arose; and it was held that, having regard to the provisions of sec. 7 of the Probate and Administration Act, the shebait of the thakur was appointed executor by necessary implication. We, therefore, direct that the order of the District Judge be set aside and, in lieu thereof, Probate of the Will of the deceased Ram Lochan Sirkar be granted to the Petitioner.