The court established that a misidentification in a will does not invalidate its intent if the testator's actual intentions are clear.

1. This is an appeal by Mst. Rohila Kurmi who applied for letters of administration of the will of Mst. Somari Kurmi dated 27th January, 1955. She claimed to be the sole legatee under the will, and, as such, applied for the letters of administration with the copy of the will annexed. It was alleged that the testatrix died on 13th November, 1956 and that they will in question was the last will and testament executed by her.
It was shown in the said petition that one Temsu Kurmi was the brother of Somari Kurmi and a notice of this proceeding under S.270 of the Indian Succession Act was served on him. He opposed the application for the letters of administration and alleged that the will in question, that was produced in court, was not the last will and testament of Mst. Somari Kurmi. He further objected that the will was not genuine, nor the last will of Mst. Somari Kurmi and that it was not properly executed nor attested.
He further stated that Mst. Rohila Kurmi, who is described to be the daughter of Bhola Kurmi in the will, was not in fact the daughter of Bhola Kurmi, the husband of Mst. Somari Kurmi, but was the daughter of one Mst. Sanichari, the sister of Mst. Somari, through her husband Gopi. He further alleged that by a will Mst. Somari had left her properties to Mst. Rohila and Temsu, the objector, each being entitled to half. He, however, admitted that Mst. Somari had brought up Mst. Rohila treating her as her own child along with the sons of Temsu.

2. The learned Additional District Judge, who heard the case, formulated the following issues namely, (1) as to whether they will dated 27th January, 1955 was a genuine and valid will; (2) whether Mst. Somari Kurmi had a sound and disposing mind at the time of making the will; and, (3) whether the applicant - plaintiff was entitled to the grant of letters of administration as Prayed for. The learned Judge came to a half - hearted finding on issue No. 1 and did not say definitely whether he held the will to be genuine or a fabricated one
On the other hand, he was inclined to hold that the will was not properly executed or attested, and, as such, he considered that there was no valid will in the eye of law and that the plaintiff was not entitled to the grant of letters of administration. In regard to the second issue, he found that he could not say with any amount of emphasis that Mst. Somari had not a disposing mind at the time of making the will.
In the light of the finding, particularly on Issue No. 1, the learned Additional District Judge dismissed the application for letters of administration, and, it is against this order that the propounder has come to this Court in appeal. The learned Additional District Judge did not hold in so many words that there was another will as urged by the caveator but tentatively held the will in question to be the last will but not executed Or attested in accordance with the law.

3. Therefore, the first point that will naturally arise for our consideration is whether the learned Judge was correct in holding that the requirements under S.63 clause (c) of the Indian Succession Act were not properly complied with. Mr. Bhattacharjee appearing for the respondent further added a plea to the effect that since Mst. Rohila Kurmi was described to be the daughter of Bhola Kurmi, which she was not, any grant of letters of administration in her favour is hit by S.81 and that it should be read with S.89 of the Indian Succession Act , which provides that a will or bequest not expressive of any definite intention is void for uncertainty.

4. Before coming to the contentions raised on the question of uncertainty or ambiguity in the will, I would like to discuss first as to whether the provisions of S.63