The main legal point established in the judgment is that under Section 17 of the Probate and Administration Act, a renunciation of executorship precludes the person from ever thereafter applying for Probate of the Will appointing him executor.

JUDGMENT

1. This appeal is against the decision of the District Judge of Dacca rejecting an application for Probate, under somewhat novel circumstances. One Kumar Ronendra Narayan Roy died on the 14th September 1910 leaving him surviving a widow who is the respondent before us. He is alleged to have executed a Will in the year 1904. Two gentlemen Mr. Peary Lal Roy and the present appellant were appointed executors under the said Will. They made an application for Probate before the District Judge of Dacca on the 4th November 1910. The widow disputed the Will and she had applied on the Original Side of this Court for grant of Letters of Administration of her husband's estate apparently on the allegation that he had died intestate. This dispute between the parties went on for a considerable time: On the 20th September 1912 Mr. Peary Lal Roy and the appellant before us filed an application before the Judge signed by them dated the 10th September 1912. In that application it was recited that the petitioners in consultation with their legal advisers and having regard to the interests of all parties concerned in the estate and also to the wishes of the deceased, desired to place the management of the property under the Court of Wards for saving it from ruin. It was also recited that the lady respondent would withdraw her application for Letters of Administration in this Court and had agreed that she would never thereafter make any application for Letters of Administration in any Court. The petition concludes in these terms: "The petitioners hereby renounce the executorship of the said Will of the late Kumar Ronendra Narayan Roy Choudhry and they pray that this suit may be dismissed and their costs may be allowed from the estate of the deceased Ronendra Narayan Roy." On the same day another application was filed on behalf of Sarajubala Debi the respondent almost in the same terms as the petition of the two gentlemen, and it concluded in these words: "The defendant prays; that the said renouncement of executorship under the disputed Will be recorded by the Court and that this suit may be dismissed and that the cost of defendant may be allowed from the estate left by her husband." Another petition was filed by the appellant alone on that date in which it was stated: "That the appellant had agreed to renounce the executorship on two conditions. The first condition has been set out in the petition filed by your petitioner and the other applicant Mr. P.L. Roy, Bar-at law. The second condition that the Will of Kumar Ronendra Narayan Roy, the deposition of Mr. F.M. Leslie, Solicitor one of the two attesting witnesses of the said Will and the whole record of the above mentioned suit should be kept in safe custody in your Honour's Court, has been omitted in that petition through mistake." The prayer was that an order should be passed for the safe custody of the Will and the whole record of the above mentioned suit. On these petitions the learned Judge made the following order on the 20th September 1912: "This case is taken up to day at the request of both parties. Two petitions of compromise are filed. The petition for Probate is dismissed in terms of the compromise. The two petitions filed on either side will form part of the final order." It is unnecessary to set out the rest of the order. There was some dispute subsequently as regards the question of costs between the parties and the Court decided the matter on the 17th September 1915. Nothing further was done with regard to the case. Apparently after the dismissal of the application for Probate the property vested in the widow of the deceased, and the Court of Wards took over the management on her behalf and has been in possession of and managing her estate since then.

2. On the 27th June 1921 the appellant made an application for Probate of the aforesaid Will to the District Judge of Dacca which gave rise to the present proceedings. The material facts stated in the application are that the