P. C. MALLICK, J.

( 1 ) THIS is an application for revocation of a grant. This Court granted probate of the Will of Ganapati Sarkar deceased, dated 6-10-1954 to the daughters of the deceased, who are also named executors in the Will. The grant was made on 25-7-1957. The ground on which this grant is sought to be revoked is that by a subsequent Will dated 25-12-1954, the testator revoked the former Will. Under the subsequent Will, the petitioner, a son of Bidhu Bhusan Sarkar, is the sole executor, to whom practically the entire estate has been bequeathed. Bidhu Bhusan is a cousin of the testator. The testator had no son but 8 daughters. The testator's wife died years ago, in 1936, when the daughters were very young. The testator did not marry again.

( 2 ) SURENDRA, Bidhu Bhusan and Ganapati, the testator, were 3 sons of one Ram Charan. Ram Charan had a brother, Gagan Chandra, who had no son. Gagan adopted Ganapati, and by his will bequeathed half the estate to his adopted son Ganapati, and the remaining half to his two nephews, Surendra and Bidhu Bhusan in equal share. Gagan died in 1905, and probate of the Will was granted by this Court in the same year. In 1940, Surendra, Bidhu and Ganapati entered into a family settlement, whereby Ganapati relinquished a portion of his share in the estate and agreed to divide and partition the estate equally amongst the three of them. On 6-10-1954, Ganapati executed a holograph Will, whereby he left his entire estate to his daughters, who were appointed executors. This Will was registered on 26-11-1954. On 5-1-1955 Ganapati died.

( 3 ) THE case of the daughters is that Bidhu Bhusan adopted every means to prevent them from getting their patrimony, and processes of this Court have been abused. Bidhu Bhusan, first of all, took out an originating summons for the construction of the Will of Gagan, contending that Ganapati acquired only a life interest in the estate of Gagan under Gagan's Will, and the remainder was left to Bidhu and Surendra. This is O. S. Suit No. 720 of 1955. The daughters of Ganapati were thereupon compelled in their own interest to institute a suit for construction of the Will of Gagan, for partition and for other reliefs. Bidhu Bhusan tried to stay the suit, but failed. He also tried to prevent the appointment of a Receiver in that suit. He failed there as well. He put every obstacle in the way of the daughters getting any money out of the estate. In this also, he failed, and by an order of this Court the daughters were directed to be paid Rs. 4,500/-per month. A point was taken by Bidhu Bhusan to this effect, that before probate of the Will of Ganapati was granted, the daughters cannot get anything under the Will, so that, till the testamentary proceedings were pending the daughters may not get anything out of the estate. As stated before this contention was negatived by the Court.

( 4 ) THE daughters' case, further, is that Bidhu Bhusan, having failed to stop payment to them, conceived the idea of contesting the Will, and with that object in view, Bidhu caused a forged document to be brought into existence, being a Will alleged to have been executed by Ganarjati subsequently, on 25-12-1954.

( 5 ) IT is not necessary for me in this application to decide whether the testamentary document, above referred to, is a forged document or not. But I am bound to say that there are materials on the basis of which Mr. Deb, on behalf of the daughters, is entitled to argue that the testamentary document is not a genuine document.

( 6 ) ON 9-3-1955, the daughters filed a petition for the grant of probate of the Will dated 6-10-1954. The first caveat was filed by one Sailendra Kumar Mitter on 12-8-1955. Sailendra was a sister's son of Ganapati. He had a grudge against Ganapati because his mother was deprived of the property under the Will of Gagan. This caveat was discharged on 5-12-1956. Immediately thereafter, a second caveat was entered by Probir Sarkar, a son of Bidhu Bhusan. This

Click Here to Read the rest of this document