Skip to content


Kashi Nath Chatterjee Vs. Amarendra Nath Chatterjee and anr. Minors by their Mother and Guardian Dakshabala Debi - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectFamily
CourtKolkata
Decided On
Judge
Reported in(1900)27TTJ(Cal)169
AppellantKashi Nath Chatterjee
RespondentAmarendra Nath Chatterjee and anr. Minors by their Mother and Guardian Dakshabala Debi
Cases Referred and Nitye Gopal Sircar v. Nagendra Nath Mitter Mozumdar
Excerpt:
will - acknowledgment of signature by testator--attestation--witness--indian succession act (x of 1865), section 50. - .....v. hormasji bomanji (1877) i.l.r., 1 bom., 547, that this is a sufficient acknowledgment of the testator's signature, and that, therefore, the will is duly signed. we also think that the registration of the will before the registrar is a sufficient acknowledgment of the testator's signature. it will be seen that on the back of the will there is the signature of the testator to the certificate of admission of execution, and this is attested by the signatures of the sub-registrar and of nilmadhub mukerjee. no doubt nilmadhub says that he did not see jadab sign the will; but we think that there can be no doubt that the testator must have admitted execution of the will before the sub-registrar, and that nilmadhub signed when he did as admitting that the testator had admitted the execution.....
Judgment:

Rampini and Pratt, JJ.

1. This is an appeal against the decree of the District Judge of Burdwan, dated the 6th of May 1898, granting letters of administration, with a copy of the will annexed, to the petitioner.

2. The case relates to the will of one Jadab Chandra Chatterjee who died in April 1894, and he is said to have executed the will on the 22nd of November 1883. The will, now in dispute, is therefore about fifteen years old. It is admitted that the will was written by Jadab Chandra Chatterjee; but, for the defendants, it is urged that it is not a valid will under Section 50 of the Indian Succession Act.

3. The District Judge has found that the will was duly executed by the testator. He finds further that the signature on the right hand corner of the will was not there when the witness signed; but that it was duly executed for two reasons,--first, that the will was written by the testator himself; that the signature at the beginning of the will is in the testator's handwriting, and it is in evidence that Jadab told the witnesses that this was his will; and, second, that the testator registered the will and signed his name on the back before the Sub-Registrar and in the presence of another witness.

4. Now, the learned pleader for the appellants, who are the minor grandsons of the testator, contends that neither of these signatures is sufficient to comply with the provisions of Section 50 of the Indian Succession Act.

5. We think, however, that there has been a sufficient compliance with the provisions of the Act, and that we should confirm the finding of the lower Court. It is perfectly clear that the testator wrote this will, and that his signature was at the commencement when the witnesses signed, and he admitted to several of the witnesses that this was his lass will and testament. And we hold on the authority of the case of Manickbai v. Hormasji Bomanji (1877) I.L.R., 1 Bom., 547, that this is a sufficient acknowledgment of the testator's signature, and that, therefore, the will is duly signed. We also think that the registration of the will before the Registrar is a sufficient acknowledgment of the testator's signature. It will be seen that on the back of the will there is the signature of the testator to the certificate of admission of execution, and this is attested by the signatures of the Sub-Registrar and of Nilmadhub Mukerjee. No doubt Nilmadhub says that he did not see Jadab sign the will; but we think that there can be no doubt that the testator must have admitted execution of the will before the Sub-Registrar, and that Nilmadhub signed when he did as admitting that the testator had admitted the execution of the will before him.

6. We think then that there has been a sufficient acknowledgment of the will. In this view we are supported by the decisions in Hurro Sundari Dabia v. Chunder Kant Bhuttacharjee (1880) I.L.R., 6 Cal., 17, and Nitye Gopal Sircar v. Nagendra Nath Mitter Mozumdar (1885) I.L.R., 11 Cal., 429, and an unreported case, Appeal from Original Decree, No. 230 of 1892, decided on the 17th May 1892, by Ghose and Gordon, JJ.

7. For all these reasons we think that the will in this case has been sufficiently proved, and we dismiss the appeal with costs.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //