1. These appeals arise out of an application made byMadhusudan Das for Probate of a document said to be the Will of Raghunath DasBrajabasi. Radhamohan Das was the Mohunt of the Lohaganj Akkra. On the 6th June1903 in consideration of Rs. 12,000 he transferred the whole of the Asthalproperties (including the right of performing the debsheba) by way ofusufructuary mortgage to the Maharaja of Nattore for a period of 40 years, theMaharaja making an allowance to support the debsheba. There was also anekrarnama of even date, to which we need not more particularly refer. RaghunathDas, claiming to be the successor of Radhamohan, filed a suit in forma pauperis(No. 77 of 1905) against the Maharaja to set aside the mortgage, except as toany payments properly made on account of the Asthal. The plaintiff obtained adecree and the Maharaja appealed to this Court. That appeal (No. 371 of 1906)came on for hearing and on 2nd June 1910 this Court delivered judgment andordered a remand for the ascertainment of certain amounts. The findings of thelower Court have now been returned and the appeal is ready for final disposal.

2. On the 9th July 1911, however, Raghunath Das died. He isalleged to have executed a Will the day before his death, and that is thedocument now propounded by Madusudan Das, the executor therein named. Heapplied for Probate or in the alternative for Letters of Administration. TheDistrict Judge has refused his application on the ground that the document isnot a Will of which Probate can be granted. Madhusudan Das has appealed and hisappeal is No. 169. To that there are cross-objections by Naga Behari Das, whoclaims to have succeeded Raghunath Das as Mohunt, that the District Judge waswrong in not holding that he had a locus standi in the Probate proceeding andin not awarding him costs. The Maharaja, who was definitely found by theDistrict Judge to have no locus standi, has filed a cross-appeal, No. 195.

3. The real question between the parties is, who is entitledto be substituted in place of Raghunath Das as respondent in Appeal No. 371 of1906; but that cannot be determined in these appeals. The only question beforeus is whether the document propounded is a Will of which Probate can begranted. If it is, the case would have to be remanded to the District Judge forinquiry into the genuineness of the document, which is disputed. We are,however, of opinion that the decision of the District Judge is correct. Thelearned Pleader for the appellant Madhusudan Das relied on the case of BeharyLall Sandyal v. Juggo Mohun Gossain 4 C. 1 : 2 C.L.R. 422 : 1 Shome L.R. 185and a number of decisions following upon it, which establish the propositionthat on a bona fide application for Probate or Letters of Administration theCourt will not go into questions of title, with reference to the property ofwhich the deceased purported to dispose or in respect of which he diedintestate. That is a proposition which cannot be gainsaid, but that is not thequestion before us. What we have to determine is whether this document isreally a Will. A careful perusal will show that it is not. Raghunath Das bythis document purported to appoint the minor Madan Mohan Das as his successoron the gaddi, and to make over to him as Mohunt all the properties of theAsthal and the right of performing the debsheba. Raghunath Das did not by thatdocument purport to deal with any property of his own. It is clear from hispetition to sue in forma pauperis that he had none. The petition also forProbate or Letters of Administration makes mention only of the debuttarproperties. The case appears to be indistinguishable from Chaitunya Gobinda PujariAdhikari v. Dayal Gobinda Adhikari : 32 C. 1082 : 9 C.W.N.1021 and we are content to follow that ruling.

4. As for Letters of Administration there is distinctauthority that they cannot be granted in respect of properties held by a personin his capacity of Mohunt. See Mohunt Jib Lal Gir v. Mohunt Jaga Mohan Gir: 16 Ind. Cas. 453 [LQ/CalHC/1898/63] : 16 C.W.N. 798 in which the case ofRanjit Singh v. Jagannath Prasad Gupta 12 C. 375 was distinguished, andParsania v. Hari Charan Das 16 Ind. Cas. 588 : 17 C.L.J. 65. We agree withthose rulings, and the case distinguished is equally distinguishable from thepresent.

5. The Maharaja does not press his appeal, nor Naga BehariDas his cross-objections.

6. Both appeal and cross-objections are dismissed. We leavethe respective parties to bear their own costs.

.

Mohunt Madhusudan Dasvs. Jagadindra Nath Roy(02.09.1912 - CALHC)