Lord Goddard.-

The proceedings out of which this consolidated appeal arises concern the testamentary dispositions of Mrs. Manmohini Mitter, a widow formerly living at Lucknow. She died on 7th April 1934, leaving three daughters her surviving, the appellant who was the youngest, respondent 1 who was the second daughter and respondent 2 the eldest. When their mother died each daughter produced a will which she claimed was the last true will of the deceased. Each daughter petitioned the Court of the Civil Judge at Luoknow for letters of administration with the respective wills produced by them annexed, and the three petitions were consolidated and tried as one suit. The will propounded by the appellant is dated 12th April 1930; that propounded by respondent 1 is dated 8th September 1930 and the third will is dated 4th November 1933. During the hearing of the case the two respondents came to terms; they each admitted the validity of the will propounded by the other. They agreed that letters of administration should be granted to respondent 2 with the will propounded by her annexed, but that if the Court refused to admit that will then the will propounded by respondent 1 was to be admitted and in either event they were to share the estate in the proportion of one-third to respondent 1 and two-thirds to respondent 2. But that did not dispose of the will propounded by the appellant, as to which both respondents denied its due execution. In addition respondent 1 alleged that at the date of execution the testatrix was not of sound disposing mind, though respondent 2 did not challenge her capacity.

In support of her case the appellant called the three attesting witnesses on the will of 12th April 1930. She herself did not give evidence, and this was made the subject of comment by the Chief Court. It is not clear to their Lordships what relevant evidence she could have given, either as to the execution of the will or as to her mother's state of health on the material day, as there was no suggestion that she was at the house or even in Lucknow about the time, either before or after, that the will was executed. Of the three witnesses to the will one was a professor at the Lucknow Christian College, another a medical man who had been some 20 years in practise and was on the staff of a Medical College at Lucknow and the third a clerk in the employment of a business house. The will was actually written out for the deceased by the professor who subscribed as the first witness. It is to be observed that all three witnesses had been sent for by the deceased herself and were entirely disinterested. The witness were all in agreement as to the due execution of the will and that the testatrix was clear in her mind and knew what she was doing. She herself dictated the will to the Revd. Mr. Sicar. That she was unwell at the time is admitted. She told the doctor that she had had a vomiting fit that day, and also that in the previous year she had an attack of paralysis and the vomiting caused her to fear another attack, which would be a very good reason for her wanting to make a will. The doctor however was quite satisfied that she was fully conscious and aware of what she was doing. These witnesses were really not challenged in cross-examination, nor was any evidence called to contradict them, except that at a late stage respondent 2 was allowed to give evidence in rebuttal. She was called apparently because she holds some sort of medical degree to testify to the effect of an attack of apoplexy on the mental condition of the person attacked. Her evidence was entirely worthless and indeed inadmissible. It was based entirely on hearsay; she had not seen her mother at or about the material time nor was there any evidence that the deceased ever had an apoplectic seizure, nor can their Lordships think of any more unsatisfactory evidence than that of an interested party called as an expert. In a careful and full judgment the Judge of the civil Court accepted t