9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the alleged will of Mandakini Debi. 2. Credibility of the witnesses and evidence presented by the proponent. 3. Procedural correctness in handling the witness testimony. 4. Burden of proof in proving the will. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Validity of the Alleged Will of Mandakini Debi: The case revolves around the validity of a paper writing dated the 14th September 1918, propounded as the last will of Mandakini Debi by her sister Prasannamoyi Debya. The District Judge initially pronounced against the will, granting letters of administration to Baikuntha Nath. However, the High Court reversed this decision, ordering probate of the will to Prasannamoyi and dismissing Baikuntha Nath's application for letters of administration. 2. Credibility of the Witnesses and Evidence Presented by the Proponent: The proponent's version of events was supported by Natabar Mukerji and four of the seven attesting witnesses. However, the District Judge found significant issues with this testimony. Natabar, though crucial, was not believed by the District Judge, who was influenced by a letter and post-card suggesting Natabar was not present at the time of the alleged will's execution. The High Court criticized this view, but the Privy Council found no sufficient reason to disturb the trial Judge's appreciation of the credibility of the witnesses. Additionally, Bhut Nath Mandal and Trailokhya Karak, other key witnesses, were not found credible by the District Judge. The absence of other attesting witnesses like Raj Narayan Biswas and Kandarpa Behari Ghose further weakened the proponent's case. 3. Procedural Correctness in Handling the Witness Testimony: The High Court criticized the District Judge for improperly disallowing the cross-examination of Nagendra Nath Ghose. However, the Privy Council noted that the District Judge had permitted a form of cross-examination, even if he did not formally declare the witness hostile. The Privy Council found that the High Court's criticism was not supported by the record, which showed that the witness was virtually cross-examined. 4. Burden of Proof in Proving the Will: The Privy Council emphasized that the burden of proving a will lies on the person who sets it up. In this case, the proponent failed to meet this burden. The District Judge's conclusion that the will was not genuine, and possibly a forgery, was deemed sufficient to reject the will, even though the law only required a finding that the will was not proved. Conclusion: The Privy Council allowed the appeals, setting aside the High Court's decrees and restoring those of the District Judge. It was held that the alleged will was not proved, and the respondent Prasannamoyi was ordered to pay the appellant's costs.
|
