A document can be partly a gift and partly a will, and the court will construe the document as a whole to ascertain the intentions of the testator.

Raj Kishore Prasad, J.

1. This appeal by the appellant-plaintiff, arising out of a contentious Letters of Administration proceeding, is from the judgment of Mr. R. B. Aikat, Additional District Judge, Dar-bhanga, who has rejected his application for grant of Letters of Administration to the estate of the deceased Bhaglu Singh on the basis of his alleged will -- Exhibit X -- on the ground that the document, Exhibit X, was a gift, and not a will, and, therefore the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain such a petition.

2. There was one Bhaglu, whose distant nephew is Ramautar, the appellant, Bhaglu had two daughters, Rarnsundari, Respondent 1 and, Lal Pan, Respondent 2. Lal Paris husband is Gita Thakur, and, Rameshfar, Respondent 3, is the son of Lal Pari and Gita Thakur.

3. On the 1st May, 1950, Bhaglu executed the disputed document, Exhibit X, which purports to be a deed of gift, in respect of the properties specified therein, which are not the subject-matter of the present application for Letters of Administration, in favour of the appellant. This document was registered on the 12th May, 1950. On the 21st August, 1950, Bhaglu died. After his death, the appellant, on the 14th November, 1950, made an application for Letters of Administration, on the basis of the document, Exhibit X, in respect of the properties of Bhaglu, which were not covered by the document, which he alleged was the last will and testament of the deceased testator Bhaglu. On the 12th May, 1951, the two daughters of Bhaglu, namely, respondents 1 and 2, entered caveat and filed their objections on various grounds, alleging, inter alia, that the alleged will was a forged document. On the 27th March, 1952, there was a compromise between the two daughters and the r.ephew (the plaintiff-appellant) of Bhaglu. On the 17th December, 1954, the learned trial Judge, however, refused to record the compromise on the ground that the genuineness of the will, set up by the plaintiffs, will have to be determined by the Court on merits, and, the proceeding in respect thereof cannot be legally disposed of by a compromise.

4. Thereafter, Kameshwar Thakur, Respondent No. 3, son of Lal Pari, also entered caveat, and, filed an objection on the 14th February, 1955. The appellant then on the 19th February, 1955, filed a rejoinder to the above objection of Kameshwar. to the effect that he had no locus standi to contest the proceeding.

5. Several issues were then framed by the trial Judge on the pleadings of the parties. But subsequently at the request of the parties he decided the preliminary issues Nos. 1 and 2, relating to the jurisdiction of the Court to grant Letters of Administration, and, the locus standi of the caveator, Respondent 3, and, left the main issue, Issue No. 3, regarding the due execution and genuineness of the will, to be determined later.

6. The learned Judge of the Court below held that the caveator, Kameshwar, had locus standi, and, that the document in question was not a will, but a gift, and, therefore, the Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the application for grant of Letters of Administration on the basis of the same. He also consequently decided the last issue No. 4, regarding the relief to which the plaintiff was entitled, and, held that the plaintiff was not entitled to any relief, and accordingly, he rejected his application for Letters of Administration.

7. On appeal by the plaintiff to this Court, the sole question for determination is, whether the document. Exhibit X, is a gift, or, partly a gift and partly a will?

8. After some argument it was conceded by Mr. Prem Lall, who appeared for the appellant, that the question of locus standi of the caveator had been correctly decided by the trial Judge, and, therefore, he would not challenge his finding on that question.

9. It was also conceded by Mr. K. K. Sinha. who appeared for the respondent 3, that there could be a composite document being partly a gift and partly a will.

10. The crucial,