JUDGMENT Devinder Gupta, J.— This is defendants appeal against the judgment and decree passed on May 3, 1984, by District Judge, Mandi Kullu, Lahaul and Spiti Districts allowing the plaintiffs appeal and granting him a decree as prayed in the suit and thereby reversing the judgment and decree passed on May 25, 1982 by Senior Sub-Judge, Kullu, dismissing the plaintiffs suit. 2. At the very outset, it may be stated that the suit, out of which the present appeal has arisen, was instituted on June 3, 1978, after coming into force of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1976 but no substantial question of law was formulated. Toe learned Counsel for the appellants, however, at the time of hearing of appeal urged that the substantial question of law arising for determination is as to whether the attending circumstances, including the incorrect description of the plaintiff-respondent in the Will Ex. PW 3/A are sufficient to conclude that execution thereof is shrouded with suspicious circumstances. 3. In order to appreciate the arguments of the learned Counsel for the parties addressed on the question as formulated above, it will be profitable to make reference to the pleadings and evidence on record. Plaintiff by filing suit claimed a decree for possession of 2 bighas 4 biswas of land alleging that the same was owned and possessed by one Smt. Kishni widow of Lallu to which she had acquired title through her father Shukru. He bad been looking after and maintaining Kishni his grand-mother in distant relationship after the death of her husband, to whom also he had been looking after and maintaining He alone had performed their last rites and borne the entire expenses of the same Keeping in view the fact that he had looked after and maintained her and also helped her in agricultural pursuits, she {Smt Kishni) on December 11, 1970 had gifted away some of her property in his favour by means of a registered deed of gift and for the remaining property, on the same day a Will was executed by her bequeathing the same in his favour which Will was also got registered by her. One Abli, raised a dispute as regards the property gifted in his favour and ultimately the matter was earned to a civil court by filing civil suit No 58 of 1973 and then a compromise was duly arrived at between him and Abli After the death of Kishni, mutation of inheritence to her estate, on the basis of registered Will, was got entered in the revenue records but the revenue officer on highly flimsy ground-that he was not correctly described in the Will, instead of attesting mutation on the basis of Will bad attested the same in favour of the defendants. It was contended by him that due to some inadvertent mistake he was not correctly described in the Will but infact it was he alone in whose favour the property had been bequeathed by the deceased on the basis of the Will. Besides challenging the mutation, he claimed decree for possession thereof. The suit was contested by the defendants on merits as well as on other legal grounds. 4. The contention of the defendants was that they being the sons of the sister of the deceased had rightly inherited her property since no valid Will was executed by the deceased during her life time. The trial Court held that the Will Ex. PW 3/A cannot be said to have been validly executed by Kishni. While returning this finding, the trial Court also found that had Kishni been in sound and disposing state of mind, she would have noticed the mistake in the parentage and address of the legatee in the Will and the only inference which could be drawn in the facts and circumstances of the case was that the same was not read over and explained to her. The matter was carried in appeal by the plaintiff The lower appellate Court upheld the validity of the Will. The plaintiff was held to have removed all the suspicious circumstances attending the due execution of Will and was also held to have proved its due execution. The lower appellate Court also noticed the fact that Kishni. in fact, wanted to bequeath the entire property in favour of plaintiff alone who though not correctly described but the circumstances on record were sufficient to hold that it pertained to him alone. 5. The lower appellate Court also noticed the fact that Kishni. in fact, wanted to bequeath the entire property in favour of plaintiff alone who though not correctly described but the circumstances on record were sufficient to hold that it pertained to him alone. 5. Defendants have challenged this judgment and decree in this appeal in which the aforementioned question of law has been urged before me. I have heard the arguments of the learned Counsel for the parties and also gone through the record. 6. Plaintiff Jogi is son of Moti and grandson of Sobhu described as resident of village Dashal in Kothi Manali, Tehsil and District Kullu. Will, Ex. PW 3/A, on its perusal would show that Kishni widow of Lallu of Goshal in Kothi Manali, Tehsil and District Kullu, purported to have bequeathed her property situate in Phati Barua in Kothi Manali, as well as in Kothi Barshai, Tehsil Kullu, in favour of one Jogi son of Sobhu Rajput of Dashal of Kothi Manali. The Will recites that Jogi had been looking after and maintaining her and keeping her company in her house. He had, after the death of her husband, performed his list rites. She being satisfied with the services rendered by Jogi, had already by executing a gift deed on December 11. 1970, gifted some property in his favour and expressed her desire that after her death Jogi, who was her grandson alone would inherit her immovable and movable property and he alone would perform her last rites. The Will is purported to have been executed on the same date, namely, December 11, 1970 and is attested by two marginal witnesses, namely, Lachhi Ram Lambardar and Khem Raj PW 2. The same was scribed by petition-writer Sita Ram PW-3. The Will was presented for registration by Kishni Lachhi Ram identified her before Sub-Registrar. Endorsement on the Will states that it was read over and explained to her by Sub-Registrar in the presence of Lachhi Ram and Khem Raj. 7. Admittedly, the description of the legatee in the Will is not correct. It is the plaintiffs case that his fathers name is Moti and not Sobhu, whereas, in the Will, legatee Jogi has been shown as son of Sobhu. There is no mistake as far as the village is concerned. 7. Admittedly, the description of the legatee in the Will is not correct. It is the plaintiffs case that his fathers name is Moti and not Sobhu, whereas, in the Will, legatee Jogi has been shown as son of Sobhu. There is no mistake as far as the village is concerned. The legatee has been shown to be the resident of Dashal of which village the plaintiff is also the resident. According to the plaintiff and the evidence produced by him on record, there is no other person by the name of Jogi son of Sobhu in village Dashal, Kothi Manali. According to him, due to some mistake, clerical or otherwise, instead of describing him as son of Moti and grandson of Sobhu he has been described as son of Sobhu, who was his grandfather, 8. Learned Counsel for the appellants contended that no amount of evidence adduced by plaintiff could be looked into that the Will, in fact, pertained to him and not to one Jogi son of Sobhu. This argument has been made merely to be rejected in view of clear provision contained in section 76 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (Act No. XXXIX of 1925), which reads as under :— "76. Misnomer or misdescription of object.—(I) Where the words used in a Will to designate or describe a legatee or a class of legatees sufficiently show what is meant, an error in the name or description shall not prevent the legacy from taking effect. (2) A mistake in the name of a legatee may be corrected by a description of him, and a mistake in the description of a legatee may be corrected by the name." 9. The two illustrations appearing below the aforesaid section may also be profitably quoted as under : (i) A bequeaths a legacy 4to Thomas, the second son of my brother John. The testator has an only brother named John, who has no son named Thomas, but has a second son whose name is William. William will have the legacy. The two illustrations appearing below the aforesaid section may also be profitably quoted as under : (i) A bequeaths a legacy 4to Thomas, the second son of my brother John. The testator has an only brother named John, who has no son named Thomas, but has a second son whose name is William. William will have the legacy. (ii) A bequeaths a legacy to Thomas, the second son of my brother John, The testator has an only brother, named John, whose first son is named Thomas, and whose second son is named William Thomas will have the legacy." 10 A bare reading of section 76 quoted above would show that it deals with the misnomer or misdescription of the object of bequest, namely, misnomer or misdescription of the legatee. Since while interpreting a Will Courts are bound to get at the intention of the testator and intestacy is always to be avoided, the law enjoines upon it to take into consideration evidence about the correct description of legatee A false description does not affect the Will. If the legatee therein is described by name and description and if there is a person who has the correct name but description therein is incorrect, the description will have to be neglected for which a reference can be made to the second illustration quoted above. Similarly, where a description is correct and name is incorrect, the incorrect name will have to be neglected for which reference is to be made to the first illustration aforementioned. It is only when the Court is satisfied that the object is safety identified without additional inaccurate words or that the inaccurate words contain a subordinate description, only those words may be rejected orignored. Reference may be made to well-known maxim "false demonstrotio non-nocet, cum de corpore constar", which means that, if, on consideration of the relevant parts of the will, one comes to the conclusion that the testator intended to pass something and can determine what that something is, then the fact that he has given it a wrong description will not prevent his will from taking effect in regard to that which is wrongly described. 11. According to plaintiff, the only superfluous word is the name of his grandfather. If the same is ignored, there is no manner of doubt that the Will points out him alone as legatee. 11. According to plaintiff, the only superfluous word is the name of his grandfather. If the same is ignored, there is no manner of doubt that the Will points out him alone as legatee. In support of this plea, plaintiff placed reliance upon various circumstances. Ex. PC is pedigree table and the same is not disputed by the defendants-appellants that the plaintiff in distant relation related to deceased as her grand son. Ex. PW 5/A is the copy of the plaint in civil suit No, 25 of 1972, instituted on January 29, 1972 and decided on June 25, 1973, titled as Jogi Ram v- Abli Plaintiff in the said suit had based his claim on the deed of gift dated December 11, 1970, which is referred to in Will Ex. PW 3/A and had also made therein a reference of Will in question. In the said civil suit also, plaintiff had pointed out that in the deed of gift also he has been wrongly described and the only mistake being the name of his father instead of being shown as Moti it has been shown as Sobhu, who was his grand-father. The suit was decided on the basis of compromise. Ex. PD is the copy of judgment and Ex. PE is the copy of decee-sheet, 12. Reference may also be made to the other evidence on record with regard to the due execution of Will. Plaintiff appeared as P W 2 and stated that he was present at the time of scribing the Will by Sita Ram at the instance of and on the instructions received from Kishni. The Will was read over and explained to her and after admitting the contents she had put her thumb impression thereupon in the presence of the marginal witnesses, one of whom, namely, Lachhi Ram had since died but his statement was recorded in a suit filed by him against Abli, wherein reference was made to the Will. Statement of Lachhi Ram has been proved on record as PW 5/B. During his examination- in-chief he stated that the contents of the Will were read over in a cursory manner but while in cross-examination he clearly pointed out that the Will was read over and explained as a whole as it had been written and she admitted the contents thereof Kishni was only conversant with her local dialect and not with Hindi or Urdu. PW 3 Sita Ram, petition-writer testified that at the Instructions of Kishni, who, though not known to him personally but identified by Lachhi Ram Lambardar, he scribed the Will and thereafter read over and explained the same to her and after admitting the contents thereof, she put her thumb impression in his presence and in the presence of marginal witnesses who also signed in her presence and in the presence of each other. He admitted the suggestion that when the Will was read over and explained Kishni admitted the contents thereof to be correct and did not object to the wrong description of plaintiff. PW 4 Khem Raj also supported the version of PW 3 Sita Ram. 13. The manner in which the above stated witnesses were cross-examined would show that defendants did not question the fact that the Will was actually read over and explained to Kishni, who admitted the contents to be true. While cross-examining the witnesses, the defendants were trying to extract a point that Kishni, in fact, did not object to Jogi being described as son of Sobhu The evidence, as diseussed by the lower appellate Court and as pointed out during the course of hearing of the appeal, would show that plaintiff being the propounder of the Will has successfully shown that Kishni had duly put her thumb impression upon the Will Ex. PW 3/A who at the relevant time was in a sound and disposing state of mind and was in a position to understand the nature and effect of disposition She put her thumb impression on the document of her own free Will. The onus which lay upon the plaintiff to prove the due execution was fully discharged. The only circumstance brought out was the wrong description. As observed above, the wrong description will not make the Will invalid. Evidence on record will have to be looked into and as observed above, there is no material on record to show that the Will pertained to some other person other than the plaintiff. Keeping in view these facts and circumstances, the lower appellate Court was right in observing that plaintiff alone is the legatee referred to in the Will Ex. PW 3/A and there was no suspicious circumstance attending to due execution of the same. 14. In view of the above, question of law is answered in the negative. Keeping in view these facts and circumstances, the lower appellate Court was right in observing that plaintiff alone is the legatee referred to in the Will Ex. PW 3/A and there was no suspicious circumstance attending to due execution of the same. 14. In view of the above, question of law is answered in the negative. The appeal, as such, is dismissed with no order as to costs. Appeal dismissed.