SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1957 Supreme(Cal) 222

RENUPADA MUKHERJEE, B.N.BANERJEE
SHOILESH CHANDRA MUSTAFI – Appellant
Versus
AMAL CHANDRA MUSTAFI – Respondent


Advocates Appeared:
MANINDRA NATH GHOSH, Pankaj Kumar Ghose, VISWANATH BANERJI

RENUPADA MUKHERJEE, J.

( 1 ) THE present dispute is an offshoot of an application for probate originally filed by one Amal Chandra Mustafi in the Court of the District Judge of 24-Per-gannas. Subsequently one Guruprosad Mustafi also joined as a co-applicant for the probate. The will in question purports to have been executed by one Hem Nalini Devi in October, 1950. Hemnalini had three sons, Profulla, Nirmal and Shoilesh of whom the first two are dead. Amal is son of Nirmal and Guruprosad is son of Profulla. As the application for grant of probate had become contentious, the application was subsequently registered as a plaint. Summons was duly served on Shoilesh and he appeared and contested the proceedings.

( 2 ) DURING the pendency of the suit in the Court of the District Judge an application for appointment of an administrator pendente lite in respect of the properties covered by the will was filed by the plaintiffs on the allegation that defendant Shoilesh had taken possession of the ground floor portion cf one of the properties, viz. , the house at 279/3, Upper Circular Road, and after having inducted tenants in that portion he was not paying anything towards the seba puja of






Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top