Will's Date Debacle: Calcutta HC Rejects Probate in Bitter Family Inheritance Battle

In a meticulous dissection of a family's inheritance claims, the Calcutta High Court 's Testamentary and Intestate Jurisdiction has refused probate for the 2001 will of late Gour Lal Mitra. Justice Sugato Majumdar delivered the verdict on February 24, 2026 , emphasizing that shaky witness evidence cannot satisfy the rigid formalities of will execution. The petitioner, Kamal Kumar Mitra—one of the testator's sons and named executor—sought to validate the registered will dated February 28, 2001 . Opposing him were his siblings, including brother Shyamal Kumar Mitra and sisters Kum Kum Biswas, Jhum Jhum Sen, and Chandra Das, who lodged caveats challenging its validity.

Roots of the Rift: A Grandfather's Shadow Over Sons' Legacy

Gour Lal Mitra passed away on June 3, 2005 , at his Kolkata residence, leaving behind a web of properties allegedly inherited from his father, Adhar Kumar Mitra. The 1944 will of Adhar granted life interests to his sons, including Gour Lal, restricting their ability to alienate the estate—properties spanning Raja Rajballav Street, Gokul Mitra Lane, and others. Gour Lal's siblings argued he held no transferable rights, rendering his will ineffective over those assets. They also pursued letters of administration for Adhar's unprobated will.

Kamal filed for probate in 2007 (TS/1/ 2007 ), triggering caveats that evolved into a full suit. A parallel civil suit (CS/90/2008) by Chandra Das and others against Kamal was tagged along. The court framed nine issues, boiling down to the will's authenticity, execution, and the testator's capacity.

Sibling Showdown: Undue Influence or Legitimate Disinheritance?

Petitioner's Pitch: Senior advocate Dhruba Ghosh urged the court to grant probate, asserting Gour Lal was "physically fit and mentally alert." Witnesses, including attesting witness Ashok Kumar Ghosh (PW-1), confirmed execution and registration. Ghosh dismissed title questions as beyond probate jurisdiction—citing Krishna Kumar Birla v. Rajendra Singh Lodha —and argued caveats failed to prove undue influence or coercion. The will explained disinheritance of Shyamal due to poor child-rearing, calling it a "reasoned will." On the date mismatch (will dated 28th, registered 27th), Ghosh blamed a clerical error by Gobinda Lal Mitra's affidavit.

Defendants' Defense: Suman Dutt , for the caveators, hammered the date anomaly: registration on February 27 precluded execution on the 28th. PW-1's flip-flopping testimony—claiming same-day execution-registration yet insisting on the 28th—breached Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act. They highlighted failure to examine second attestor Gobinda Lal Mitra, suspicious silence on property titles despite known life interests , the testator's limited English, and unnatural exclusion of Shyamal despite cordial ties. Dutt invoked H. Venkatachala Iyengar v. B.N. Thimmajamma for heavier onus amid " suspicious circumstances ."

Dissecting Doubt: Why Witness Wobbles Sank the Will

Justice Majumdar upheld Gour Lal's testamentary capacity , rejecting equation of title flaws with mental incapacity. Witnesses across sides affirmed he was "strong-willed" and alert—even defense witness Jhum Jhum Sen concurred.

But execution crumbled under scrutiny. Section 63 mandates the testator sign intending it as a will, attested by two witnesses who see the signing or acknowledge it personally, signing in presence. Section 68 Evidence Act requires at least one attesting witness's proof if available.

PW-1's evidence imploded: he repeatedly dated execution February 28 yet admitted registration February 27 , claiming same-day events. Registrar's records confirmed the 27th. "Repeated insistence... is not true," the court noted, deeming PW-1 unreliable. Gobinda Lal Mitra's presence unproven, his affidavit—withdrawn without exam—left attestation in limbo. Citing Shivakumar v. Sharanabasappa and Ramesh Chand v. Suresh Chand , the judge stressed: suspicious circumstances demand cogent rebuttal, not suppression of the " best evidence ."

Precedents like B. Venkatamuni v. C.J. Ayodhya Ram Singh reinforced strict compliance; registration alone ( Rani Purnima Debi ) doesn't dispel doubts without scrutiny.

"Effect of contradictory statements of PW-1 is that his evidence cannot be regarded as trustworthy and reliable."

"The propounder of the will withheld the best evidence or withheld evidence which could have clarified the matter."

No Probate, New Path Ahead

"For reasons discussed above, this Court is of view that due execution of the will, in accordance with Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 is not established... the Plaintiff is not entitled to grant of probate and accordingly the probate is refused."

The testamentary suit stands dismissed; CS/90/2008 returns to the appropriate bench. This ruling underscores probate courts' laser focus on execution formalities, sidelining title till later. Families eyeing probate must marshal impeccable witness proof—especially under suspicion—or risk intestacy's default shares. A stark reminder: a will's validity hinges not just on intent, but ironclad process.

As other reports note, the decision spotlights how "withholding this crucial witness... amounted to suppression," fortifying Section 63's sanctity in Kolkata's divided legacies.