1. These two appeals are presented by Akshoy Kumari Basu against two orders of the District Judge of Dacca. In Appeal No. 550, the appellant objects to the order of the District Judge who held that she bad no locus standi in certain Probate proceedings. In the other appeal, the appellant objects to the order of the District Judge in which he said that the first Probate to Harimoni still obtained, and that there was no necessity for Prosonno Kumari to take out Probate again.
2. If the appellant has no locus standi in these Probate proceedings, it is obvious that both the appeals must fail.
3. Krishna Kishoro Ghose died on 17th January 1892, leaving a Will dated 25th December 1887. By that Will, he left his property to his wife Harimoni for life and, after her death, to his daughter-in-law Prosanno Kumari for her life. After her death, he said, the male children that should be born to his son Ananda Kishore Dose should, on attaining majority, get the property in absolute right. No property so left by me', said the testator, will be liable for debt of my said son Ananda Kishore Ghose.' No executor was definitely appointed by the Will, but the testator gave equal power to his wife and to his daughter-in-law and directed that, in case of death of one of them, the survivor of the two should continue to be in enjoyment and possession in the manner stated above. Harimoni obtained Probate of the Will on 17th May 1894 and retained possession of the property during her life. She died on 11th June 1904. The present appellant's claim on Ananda Kishore originated with a mortgage dated 29th May 1904 and a bond dated 24th November 1905.
4. Prom these dates which are given to us by the learned Pleader for the appellant, it is clear that the appellant has no locus standi. The Probate was granted in 1894. The money was not advanced to Ananda till 10 or 11 years after that. It is obvious that there could be no question of fraud upon this creditor in 1894, when she was not a creditor at all and apparently had no prospect of being one. It would only be in the event of a Will being put. forward possibly to defraud creditors that a creditor would have locus standi to come in in Probate proceedings. This is in accordance with our decision in the case of Lakhi Narain Shaw v. Dhanada Kumar Ghose 15 Ind. Cas. 686 : 16 C.W.N. 1099 : 17 C.L.J. 230.
5. We may remark that the order against which Appeal No. 557 is directed appears to us to be incorrect. The Probate granted to Harimoni was revoked by her. death; and if, the estate was not fully administered and further administration was necessary, it would be open to come in and apply for Letters of Administration for that purpose.
6. The appeals, however, both fail, and must be dismissed with costs. We assess the hearing fee at one gold moliur in each appeal.