Viscount Haldane:- Raghunath Prasad, a Hindu mahajan and dealer in money in the City of Benares, died on the 11th February 1896, leaving property, partly ancestral but mainly acquired, of the value of over three lakhs of rupees. He was about 50 years of age at the date of his death. He had married three times, and his third wife and a daughter by her survived him. He had no son by any of the three wives. Until the end he appears to have been hopeful that a son might be born to him who would perform for him the posthumous ceremonies which the Hindu religion enjoins. Nearly seven years after his death, his widow by deed adopted to him a boy of about five years old. The only question left in this appeal is whether the dead man gave her authority to make the adoption. It is a question of fact, and the answer depends on what reliance ought to be placed on the testimony of certain witnesses. On the 25th November, 1895, Raghunath Prasad executed a will. Before referring to its terms, which are material in estimating the probabilities on the question of the authority to adopt, it is necessary to state what were the relations of the testator to other members of his family. He had three brothers, and from these he had separated, so that the family had for some time ceased to be joint. He had a nephew, Jadunath Prasad, the son of a younger brother, and several sisters, one of whom had a son, the respondent, Baldeo Das. The surviving one of the testator's wives, afterwards his widow, was named Musammat Saraswati Bibi. She is a respondent in this appeal. The nephew Jadunath, who lived in the house next door to the testator, was a young man of doubtful character, by his own testimony in the witness-box given up to dissipation. He had squandered his fortune, and the testator had no confidence in him. In the respondent, Baldeo Das, on the other hand, he obviously had confidence. Indeed, Baldeo and his family lived in the same house with him. Turning to the will, the testator begins with a narrative of his family history. He goes on to make very modest provision for his surviving daughter. In the respondent, Baldeo Das, on the other hand, he obviously had confidence. Indeed, Baldeo and his family lived in the same house with him. Turning to the will, the testator begins with a narrative of his family history. He goes on to make very modest provision for his surviving daughter. He then leaves the bulk of his property to his wife, but in a fashion which, as is subsequently made plain, gives her only a life interest. He puts her under restrictions which are designed to prevent her from visiting the members of her own family. As she is young, he appoints guardians to see that she regulates her conduct, and behaves as becomes a "pardanashin" lady. If she violates the injunctions of this will she is to forfeit all right to the enjoyment of the property, and is to be lodged in a suitable house and put on an allowance of 50 rupees a month. He then goes on to refer to his family deity, an idol named Sri Girrajji, the Thakur particularly worshipped by him. He dedicates to this idol the house in which it is located, and makes full provision for its maintenance and continued worship. He gives directions as to his funeral ceremonies, gaya and shradh, and says that these funeral ceremonies are to be performed by his nephew, Baldeo Das, or, if he cannot officiate, by Chhatarbhuj Das, another son of one of his sisters. His nephew, Jadunath, by reason of his profligacy and irreligion, is not to join in any of the ceremonies. He then directs the payment of various legacies and annuities. He goes on to provide that, if Jadunath, with whom he has severed all connections, falls, as he probably will, into want, he is to be supplied with food and clothing, but adds that he is excluded from all rights. The executors are not to allow him to visit their houses, and all connection with him is to be severed. It appears from the tenor of the will that the persons whom he appointed as guardians were intended to act as executors along with the widow, and they ultimately proved the will. It remains to refer to its concluding paragraph. The material part of this paragraph was in these terms :- "The will now made is only for my wife. It appears from the tenor of the will that the persons whom he appointed as guardians were intended to act as executors along with the widow, and they ultimately proved the will. It remains to refer to its concluding paragraph. The material part of this paragraph was in these terms :- "The will now made is only for my wife. If, by the grace of God, a son is born to her, he will be the sole executor, donee, and owner, and my wife aforesaid shall be his guardian in the same way as the other guardians whom I have appointed. If my wife die and the male issue also does not survive, all my estate.........will be owned by Sri Girrajji" (the Thakur). It will be observed that the will contains no power to adopt a son. It will also be observed that it was made more than two months before the testator's death. He had been suffering for some time from pthisis, a disease which appears to have become acute at the end, and to have caused his death, but it is not clear that he knew the nature of his disease, or realised the approach of danger at the time when he made his will. From the hope expressed that he might still have a son, and other expressions used by him in the document, it is doubtful whether he regarded himself us even near his end when he made the will. Up to just before the last his medical adviser was a native hakim and it is not clear that either the nature or gravity of the disease from which he suffered had been made plain to him. Later on, when he learned his real condition, he may well have altered his mind and desired to provide for an adoption. If he could bring himself to contemplate a son of Jadunath as a possible adoptive son, such a son of brother's son would be the person most suitable to fulfil the obligations which exist according to Hindu tradition. Jadunath cannot be regarded as a reliable witness, but when he says that Mr. If he could bring himself to contemplate a son of Jadunath as a possible adoptive son, such a son of brother's son would be the person most suitable to fulfil the obligations which exist according to Hindu tradition. Jadunath cannot be regarded as a reliable witness, but when he says that Mr. Straight, the Superintendent of Police, sent him to see his uncle in the interval between the will and the death of the latter, and that he began to be received by him after the interview, it is at least possible that the statement may not be without foundation, and that the testator's feelings became in consequence of the interviews somewhat softened. The question whether, assuming authority to adopt to have been given to the widow, the adoption of Jadunath's son would make him a son of the testator capable of taking under the terms of the will, was raised before the Judge of first instance. He decided the point in favour of the adopted son, and it was not argued again in the Court of Appeal and cannot be raised now. As has already been said, the only question to be disposed of is whether the testator, just before his death, gave to his widow the alleged authority to adopt. It is not in dispute that a son was born to Jadunath in September 1898, some two and a half years after the testator's death, and that more than four years later, by deed, dated the 30th January, 1903, the widow formally adopted him as her own and her late husband's son. Her delay may be accounted for by hesitation to give up personal benefits to which she was entitled so long as there was no son. The story of the alleged authority to adopt is the subject of acute controversy. The Indian Judge who tried the case, the Subordinate Judge of Benares, decided for the version of the appellants. All the witnesses except one had been before him in the box, and he believed their evidence and rejected the very different story put forward by the respondent Baldeo Das and his witnesses. The High Court at Allahabad, on the other hand, consisting of Sir Henry Richards, C.J., and Tudball, J., disbelieved the appellants' version, and accepted that of Baldeo Das. The High Court at Allahabad, on the other hand, consisting of Sir Henry Richards, C.J., and Tudball, J., disbelieved the appellants' version, and accepted that of Baldeo Das. This conflict of opinion has imposed on their Lordships the necessity of giving close consideration to the details of the evidence. The acceptance or rejection of the testimony put forward on each side must depend on two considerations. The first question relates to the form of the evidence itself, and the character of the witnesses who gave it. The second is as to the antecedent probability of the evidence actually given. Their Lordships now proceed to the first of these questions. (Here evidence was discussed and judgment proceeded as follows.) On the evidence their Lordships are of opinion that the balance of testimony is distinctly in favour of the story told on behalf of the minor. It further seems to them that the probabilities are at least not adverse to it. The testator may well, as has already been said, have modified his original view, expressed in his will, before he had come to realise how short his life was likely to be. His dislike of Jadhunath, and his repugnance to making him his heir, seemed to have remained. But any son Jadhunath might have, it was far from being improbable that he should regard in a different light from Jadhunath himself. Such a son, if adopted, might turn out differently and could make offerings to him of a religious efficacy superior to any that could be made by a sister's son. Having regard to the character and standing of the five witnesses called for the minor, and to the way in which they gave their evidence, their Lordships think that their evidence ought to be preferred to what was alleged in the box by Baldeo. The discrepancies in the evidence of the five witnesses are comparatively slight, and may well be accounted for when it is remembered that the conversation which they described took place some thirteen years previously. The widow's vacillation in attitude may well have been due, partly to a desire not to be deprived by the provisions of the will which would take effect in case of an adoption, of her enjoyment and control of 'the property, and partly to the influence which Baldeo Das himself appears latterly to have had with her. The widow's vacillation in attitude may well have been due, partly to a desire not to be deprived by the provisions of the will which would take effect in case of an adoption, of her enjoyment and control of 'the property, and partly to the influence which Baldeo Das himself appears latterly to have had with her. Moreover, Baldeo had had differences with his co-executors, and was obviously filled with dislike for Jadhunath, a dislike which may have had excellent grounds, but which does not affect the merits of the controversy further than as supplying a motive which may explain Baldeo's bitterness. The Judge who tried the case and saw nearly all the witnesses takes this view, and on a question of evidence such as this, his view is obviously entitled to great weight. The learned Judges of the High Court have reversed the decision come to on these grounds. They dwell on the minor discrepancies in the evidence of the five witnesses to which reference has already been made, and on the circumstance that Jadhunath admitted in the box that he had been to see Dr. Ganga Singh about giving evidence. The circumstance that the latter speaks of the authority verbally given as one for the adoption of the nephew's son simply, while the others, though agreeing with him as to this, add that the testator said that, should Jadhunath have no son, the widow might adopt a boy in the family, is what the learned Judges call a "great discrepancy." Their Lordships do not take this view. The five witnesses were in agreement and were unshaken on the important point as to the adoption of Jadunath's son. The Judges of the High Court appear to have attached too little weight, in estimating probabilities, to the likelihood that the language of the will, made more than two months before the testator's last illness, might, under the new sense of approaching death, be departed from. They appear to have disregarded the not unnatural change in attitude which might result when the testator found that he had no longer any chance of having a natural son, and that death was staring him in the face. They appear to have disregarded the not unnatural change in attitude which might result when the testator found that he had no longer any chance of having a natural son, and that death was staring him in the face. So far from the Judge who tried the case having approached the case with bias, their Lordships think, after a close consideration of the judgments in both Courts below, that he has taken a fairer and less one-sided view than that which prevailed in the High Court. They will, therefore, humbly advise His Majesty that the appeal should be allowed and the decree of the Court of first instance restored. The respondent Baldeo Das must pay the costs of this appeal and of the appeal to the High Court. Appeal allowed.