1. This is an appeal against a decision of the DistrictJudge of Patna, dated the 25th of August 1898.

2. The suit, out of which the appeal arises, relates toprobate of a will put forward as that of a deceased person named Bal Kishen.The will purports to have been executed on the 25th of July 1897. The testatoris said to have died on the 2nd of August 1897, and the application for probatewas made on the 17th idem. The grant of probate is opposed by the Patna LoanOffice, which claims to be a creditor of one of the natural heirs of thedeceased, namely, Gopi Chand, his brother; and the allegation of the LoanOffice is that the will in dispute is a forgery, which has been set up at theinstance of the brothers of the deceased, Gopi Chand and Puran Chand, so as toput the property of the deceased beyond its reach; for, if the property haddescended to the natural heirs of the deceased, as it would have done, if therehad been no will, then the property would have been liable to be attached inexecution of the Patna Loan Offices debt against Gopi Chand.

3 The District Judge has found that the will is a forgeryand has, therefore, refused probate.

4 The applicant for the grant of probate now appeals; and onhis behalf two grounds of appeal have been pressed before us, namely, first,that the Patna Loan Office has no locus standi in this case, and, secondly,that the decision of the District Judge refusing probate is against the weightof evidence.

5 We cannot admit the force of either of these contentions.

6 It appears to us that the Patna Loan Office is a personwho has a right to come in and oppose the grant of probate under Section 69 ofthe Probate and Administration Act, inasmuch as it is a corporate body havingan interest in the estate of the deceased. The learned pleader for theappellant maintains that the Patna Loan Office cannot be a person claiming tohave any interest in the estate of the deceased, because the Patna Loan Officeclaims to have an interest in the estate of Gopi Chand, the brother of thedeceased, and not in the estate of the deceased Balkishen. But we think thatthe pleader for the appellant puts too narrow a construction on the words inSection 69, "claiming to have any interest in the estate of thedeceased." In our opinion they mean "claiming to have an interest inthe property left by the deceased," because it is clear that, when aperson dies leaving any property, that property must descend to some one else,and, therefore, strictly speaking, there can be no person claiming to have anyinterest in the estate of the deceased person. Every person who comes in tooppose the grant of probate must be a person claiming to have an interest inthe estate left by the deceased. Now in this case the Patna Loan Office wouldseem to us to have a clear claim to an interest in the property left by thedeceased, because, if it were not for this will, it would have a right to seizethe property, or that share of the property, which should descend to GopiChand, in execution of the decree which it has obtained against him. The Judgein the Court below has relied on two rulings. The first of these is to be foundin the case of Umanath Moohhopadhya v. Nilmoni Singh I. L. R. (1880) Cal. 429,in which it is laid down that " the judgment-creditor, who has attached propertyof his debtor, which purports to have been inherited by such debtor from hisdeceased father, may, where the will of such deceased is set up and proved atvariance to his interests, apply for a revocation of the order granting probateof the will so set up." That would seem to support the view of the Judgethat the Patna Loan Office has a locus standi in this case. That case wasappealed to the Privy Council and the judgment of their Lordships of the PrivyCouncil, which is to be found in the case of Nilmoni Singh Deo v. UmanathMooherjee I. L. R. (1883) Cal. 19 affirms the decision of this Court on themerits, the will having been held by the Privy Council to be a genuine will. Intheir judgment it is said that, whether an attaching creditor can oppose thegrant of probate or apply to have it revoked is a matter of grave doubt, atleast in a case which is not founded on the ground that the probate has beenobtained in fraud of the creditors. Now, in the first place, we observe that inthis passage of the Judgment of the Privy Council their Lordships do notexpressly say that an attaching creditor cannot oppose the grant of probate orapply to have it revoked, and in the second place they seem to imply that, in acase which is founded on the ground that the grant of probate has been obtainedin fraud of the creditor, such attaching creditor would have a right to come inand oppose the grant of probate. That seems to us to be authority for holdingthat the Patna Loan Office has a right to come in and oppose the grant ofprobate, because in the present case it is expressly alleged by the Patna LoanOffice that the will has been set up by two brothers of the deceased Gopi Chandand Puran Chand, so as to defraud it and put the property of the deceasedbeyond its reach. We, therefore, must find that the Patna Loan Office has alocus standi in this case and is entitled to come in and oppose the grant ofprobate.

7 On the merits, too, we think that the judgment of thelower Court is perfectly right. The will is a very suspicious will. Thetestator Bal kishen died, leaving him surviving two brothers, of adult age,Gopi Chand and Puran Chand, and the will purports to bequeath the testatorsproperty to an infant of five or six years of age, who could not possibly manageit and to appoint the mother of the infant as his guardian. The mother wouldseem to us to be a very unsuitable person to manage the property, and therewould seem to us to be no reason for excluding Puran Chand or Gopi Chand fromthe management of the property, except that it was desired to avoidcomplications with the Patna Loan Office and the other creditors of these twopersons. Then, the draft of the will has not been produced and the will has notbeen registered. The evidence as to its execution seems to us veryunsatisfactory and not altogether consistent. One witness Jai Narain Misser,according to his endorsement upon the will, executed it on the admission of thetestator, whereas in his deposition he says that he actually saw the testatorsign it in his presence. We, therefore, consider that on the merits thedecision of the Judge is perfectly correct, and we dismiss this appeal withcosts.

.

Kishen Dai vs.Satyendra Nath Dutt and Ors. (31.05.1901- CALHC)