Judgement Appeal from a decree of the High Court (March 25, 1901), setting aside a decree of the Subordinate Judge of Rajshahye (April 7, 1898) and dismissing the appellants suit. The suit was brought by the appellant as widow and heiress of Brojo Nath Chowdhry, who died on the 11th Bysack, 1274 B.S. (April 23, 1867), entitled to a one-third share of the properties scheduled to the plaint. At the time of his death the remaining two-thirds of the scheduled properties, vested, as to one of them, in his younger brother Mathura Nath Chowdhry, father of the respondents, and as to the other of them, in his mother, Raj Lakhi Debi, as heiress to his predeceased brother, Jadab Chunder Chowdhry. Mathura Naths third share on his death, and subsequently Raj Lakhi Debis share on her death, vested in the respondents. The prayer of the plaint was to recover the said third share with mesne profits Law. Rep. 33 Ind. App. 60 ( 1905- 1906) Gangamoyi Debi V. Troiluckhya Nath Chowdhry 5 from Magh, 1303 B.S., the date of the dispossession of her share. Down to that date the appellant alleged there had been joint possession and enjoyment thereof, the appellant being entitled to a one-third and the respondents to a two-thirds share, the parties being governed by the Hindu Law of the Bengal School. The respondents denied the widows possession after her husbands death and pleaded limitation, which was overruled by a concurrent finding of fact as to the appellants possession within the statutable period. They also set up the will in suit. The Subordinate Judge held that the suit was not barred by limitation; and that it was not satisfactorily proved that the will was genuine. With regard to its registration the Subordinate Judge commented upon its purporting to have been effected at the office "and not by a commission issued, although the testator was so weak that he did not survive even twenty-four hours "; also upon " the general reputation of character which the two identifiers in the registration office enjoyed." No circumstances, he remarked, were deposed to which rendered it probable that Brojo Nath was capable of going to the registration office and of personally admitting his execution of a will. The High Court also held that the suit was not barred, giving the appellant the benefit of the doubt as to her continued joint possession. The High Court also held that the suit was not barred, giving the appellant the benefit of the doubt as to her continued joint possession. They pointed out that as the Hindu Wills Act, 1870, had not been enacted at the time of the death of Brojo Nath Chowdhry no probate could be obtained of the will, that it had been acted upon in the matter of granting a putni, that the conduct of the parties had been throughout consistent with its provisions, and that it was well proved, particularly as it had been registered by the Collector at the instance of Brojo Nath Chowdhry himself. Cowell, for the appellant, contended that the First Court was right in finding on the evidence that the will was not proved to have been duly executed, and that it was incredible that Brojo Nath had attended at the registration office in less than twenty-four hours before his death from fever and phthisis. There were concurrent findings that the will had not been acted upon, except that it was recited on one occasion in a conveyance, and that joint possession had been continued for thirty years regardless of its provisions. The onus probandi was on the respondents to give some credible and probable account of the circumstances surrounding the execution and registration of the will, and as far as possible of the execution itself. Reference was made to s. 28 of Act XV. of 1877 and arts. 142 and 144, Vasudeva Padhi Khadanga Garu v. Maguni Devan Bakshi Mahapatrulu Garu (( 1901) L. R. 28 Ind. Ap. 81.) and Gossain Dass Chunder v. Issur Chunder nath (( 1877) Ind. L. R. 3 Calc. 224.), on s. 29 of Act IX. of 1871. Bonnerjee, for the respondents, contended that the will was shewn to have been acted upon in the matter of the appellants annuity. The appellant as a widow was not entitled to separate maintenance so long as she remained in joint possession. No probate could be obtained of the will before the Hindu Wills Act of 1870, and probate was not compellable under the Probate and Administration Act, 1881. The appellant was not in receipt of her third of the joint income, but only of the allowance under the will augmented by consent. There was no evidence of personation before the Registrar, and no motive shewn for a gross fraud. Cornell replied. The appellant was not in receipt of her third of the joint income, but only of the allowance under the will augmented by consent. There was no evidence of personation before the Registrar, and no motive shewn for a gross fraud. Cornell replied. The judgment of their Lordships was delivered by SIR FORD NORTH. The only question to be decided on this appeal is, whether the appellants husband, Brojo Nath Chowdhry, who died on April 23, 1867, died intestate, as the appellant alleges, or Law. Rep. 33 Ind. App. 60 ( 1905- 1906) Gangamoyi Debi V. Troiluckhya Nath Chowdhry 6 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 appellants favour, holding that the will was a forgery; but the High Court of Judicature at Port William reversed that decision, and dismissed the appellants suit, with costs. Hari Nath Chowdhry, who married Raj Lakhi Debi, and died many years before 1867, left three sons, who succeeded to their fathers property, viz., Brojo Nath Chowdhry, the appellants 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 fathers estate. 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 ten or twelve days respectively. 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 ten or twelve 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 April 22, 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 wTill, 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 thirty-one years before; and the High Court thought, and their Lordships think, that the reasons for not giving weight to the evidence of this witness are quite insufficient. They see no reason to doubt his veracity. But this is not wonderful, as the event had happened thirty-one years before; and the High Court thought, and their Lordships think, that the reasons for not giving weight to the evidence of this witness are quite insufficient. They see no reason to doubt his veracity. Another reason why the Subordinate Judge doubted the validity of the will was on the ground of the absence of any other respectable witnesses to it besides the doctor, and the probability that other persons were present who would have been more likely to be asked to attest it than the persons whose signatures were affixed to it. But there is not one word in the evidence affecting the respectability and competency of the four attesting witnesses, all of whom were dead before the trial. Then the judge also stated that "the general reputation of character which the two identifiers in the registration office enjoyed " tended to throw a cloud of doubt upon the bona fides of the transaction. Such evidence of the general reputation of the character of those persons (who are both dead) ought not to have been admitted at all. But it was admitted, and is insufficient to prove what it was said to prove. It would be waste of time to discuss it. But that the signatures of the identifiers were their true signatures was clearly proved. Law. Rep. 33 Ind. App. 60 ( 1905- 1906) Gangamoyi Debi V. Troiluckhya Nath Chowdhry 7 Then another circumstance relied upon by the learned judge was " the untimely hour of registration at the registration office . . . though the testator was so weak that he did not survive even twenty-four hours." The hour was 4 p.m., which prima facie is not unreasonable ; and if the evidence of the appellant is to be believed her husband had taken a much longer journey (from Nattore to Rampura) on the previous day without apparently being any worse from it. The appellant also says that on the day in question many gentlemen of the town came in and saw her husband. The appellant also says that on the day in question many gentlemen of the town came in and saw her husband. Then Lakhi Nath Mazumdar, who was at the registry, says that he saw Brojo Nath Chowdhry arrive there in a palanquin to get the will registered, and saw him sign and seal the registration, A little further on he says that at the request of Brojo Nath Chowdhry he came to see him at Rampura four or five days before his death; that sometimes he was helped to sit up, and sometimes used to get and sit up himself unaided; that on the morning of the next day he told him a will had been executed, and shewed him the will, but did not request him to be a witness; that for two or three days before his death he could at times get up and sit up unaided, but from one day before his death he lost the power of getting and sitting up unaided. He was taken in a palanquin. The mukhtar Baboos helped him to sit up, and he sat up and admitted the will. Then Iswar Chandra Ghose says that on the day just preceding his death he saw him going out of his lodgings in a palki, with a view to go to the Court. This evidence would be quite sufficient, in their Lordships opinion, to answer the observations of the Subordinate Judge. But they desire to put the case on a higher ground. The registration is a solemn act, to be performed in the presence of a competent official appointed to act as registrar, whose duty it is to attend the parties during the registration and see that the proper persons are present and are competent to act, and are identified to his satisfaction; and all things done before him in his official capacity and verified by his signature will be presumed to be done duly and in order. Of course it may be shewn that a deliberate fraud upon him has been successfully committed ; but this can only be by very much stronger evidence than is forthcoming here. And this must be specially borne in mind, that no witness has been found who will say that the signature of Brojo Nath Chowdhry in the will and in the registrars book is not in his handwriting. And this must be specially borne in mind, that no witness has been found who will say that the signature of Brojo Nath Chowdhry in the will and in the registrars book is not in his handwriting. The contrary is expressly stated by Lakhi Nath Mazumdar, who adds that his signatures when in good health were better than these. The learned judge did not believe this witness; nor that he was present at the time, upon the ground that if he had been he would probably have been invited to attest the will; but this difficulty does not weigh much with their Lordships. It is also suggested that Brojo Nath Chowdhry was presumably under the influence of his Brother Mathura Nath Chowdhry, and was very possibly induced by him to make the will. This assumes, of course, that it was executed by him. But this suggestion was not raised by the pleadings, and is entirely unsupported by any evidence, and need not be further considered. The will does not seem unreasonable for a gentleman in the position of Brojo Nath Chowdhry, and has a genuine look about it. The testator says that, considering the smallness of his property, he does not wish to adopt a son, and vests his property in his brother Mathura, that he may perform all ceremonies and maintain his wife during her life, and his four unmarried daughters, and also give those daughters in marriage, and, if there was any difficulty about living together, the appellant was to have from Mathura an allowance of Rs.120 a year at the rate of Iis.10 a month for her maintenance, which allowance Mathura should get after the wifes death. He then added that he had married his eldest daughter, and she was to have Rs.48 a year for her maintenance at the rate of Rs.4 a month, and he pro vided that if Mathura did not pay the allowances and daughters money then he charged them on his estate. Subject to the above the estate was to go to Mathura. But it is said that the will was suppressed and never acted on. This also is not in accordance with the evidence. It has been proved that the allowance to the eldest daughter has always been paid ; that the younger daughters have been provided for out of the estate on their marriages ; and that the appellant Law. But it is said that the will was suppressed and never acted on. This also is not in accordance with the evidence. It has been proved that the allowance to the eldest daughter has always been paid ; that the younger daughters have been provided for out of the estate on their marriages ; and that the appellant Law. Rep. 33 Ind. App. 60 ( 1905- 1906) Gangamoyi Debi V. Troiluckhya Nath Chowdhry 8 also has been paid first Rs.10, afterwards Rs.15, and after that Rs.20 per month, the reason for the increase being that she complained that her allowance was not sufficient, and some increase should be made. The Subordinate Judge said that the will was wisely and prudently kept dark, and that the fact that the appellant was paid twice as much as she was entitled to under the will shewed that there was something rotten in the core of the will, and therefore precaution was taken that the appellant should have no occasion to dispute it. Their Lordships deprecate this suggestion as not supported by any of the proofs in the case; and have no doubt that the increase of allowance was made by Mathura at the suggestion of Girish Chandra Lahiri Rai Bahadur, for the reason above mentioned. Excluding the evidence of the appellant, which the High Court declined to accept as reliable, there is no evidence that the appellant ever claimed any share in the income of the estate. Their Lordships are clearly of opinion that the decision of the High Court now appealed from was correct, and should be affirmed; and they will humbly advise His Majesty that this appeal should be dismissed. The appellant must pay the costs of the appeal.