Fletcher, J.:— This is an appeal against the judgment of the learned District Judge of Burdwan, dated 19th September 1916, and it is preferred against an order declining to direct that Letters of Administration granted in respect of the will of one Parmanund Goswami should be called in and that the administrator should prove the will in solemn form. What happened is this: The deceased Permanund Goswami was the maternal grandfather of the present applicants. He died on 28th Sraben 1283. The will is dated two days before and it seams to have been handed over to the Sub-Registrar shortly after his death. The deceased left him surviving his widow Srimati Basan Coomari as his heiress according to the Hindu law and an only daughter Rajani Coomari who was the immediate reversioner. Rajani Coomari had two sons, Profulla and Atulanund, then born and there was another son born to her subsequently. These three sons of Rajani Coomari are the three petitioners in this case. In 1885, an application for Letters of administration to the will of the deceased Permanund Goswami was made and that application was granted. The first point that has been raised in this appeal is that proper parties were not cited. It is said that the widow Basan Coomari who was the immediate heiress of the deceased Permanund, and the daughter Rajani Coomari, who was the immediate reversioner, were not the only parties necessary to be cited because they were women and taking a woman's interest and that it was essential to go on citing people until a male was cited. No such rule has been established by any text-book that we have seen. The case that has been made really rests on this, that these appellants had an absolute right to be cited and ought to have received special citation to be before the Court. Doubtless they are persons entitled to intervene. This case turns on this. The petitioners are no doubt entitled to make an application like this. But the Court is not bound to grant it without cause shown. I am of opinion that no cause has been shown in this case. These three petitioners, the eldest one being about 43 or 44 years of age and the youngest being of about the age of 31, applied to have their grandfather's will, made 41 years ago, proved in solemn form. The finding of the learned Judge, which in accord with the probabilities of the case, is that they must have known about this will of their grandfather many years ago. It is also established that their mother predeceased their grandmother and that their grandmother died two years before they dreamt of coming to Court.
2. The reason why they came to Court is not far to seek according to the learned Judge. They were originally people of some little property and recognized (with their father who was a Brahmin of a particular sect whose name I do not remember but the learned Judge mentions it in his judgment) for the worship of the family idol and until the appellants got into difficulties, they never thought of questioning the disposition that had been made by their grandfather.
3. Now 40 years after their grandfather has been dead they come forward and say that they want to have the will proved per testes. It is quite obvious that there are no testes now to prove the will and the case has been brought for the purpose of preventing the terms of the will, which has been allowed to stand for so many years, from being carried into effect as in the case of intestacy. I think in this case the present applicants have shown no cause why the Court should grant their prayer. It is not a matter of absolute right. That has been held in many cases. The applicants have got to establish cause why the letters should be called in and the will proved in solemn form having allowed this length of time to elapse. I think no cause has been shown why we should interfere with the judgment of the learned District Judge. In the result, the appeal fails and must be dismissed with costs.
Beachcroft, J.:— I agree.
V.B/R.K
4. Appeal dismissed.