High Court Of Calcutta
BIMAL CHANDRA BASAK, SATYABRATA MITRA
HEMANTA KUMAR CHAUDHURY - Appellant
Versus
SUMITRA DEVI - Respondent
Appeal 444 Of 1976
Decided On : 09/02/1987
REVIEW - PROBATE - WILL - ATTESTATION - EXECUTION - INDIAN SUCCESSION ACT, 1925 - SECTION 63(C) - SUFFICIENCY OF ATTESTATION - DISCRETIONARY POWER OF SUPREME COURT - ORDER XLVII RULE 1 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 1908 - SUFFICIENT REASON - LIMITATION.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a petition for grant of Probate claiming herself to be a residual beneficiary under the last Will of Gajanand Chaudhury. The Will was executed on 4th March 1972 and registered on 13th March 1972. The testator died on 9th October 1973. A Caveat was filed by the eldest son of the testator challenging the Will. The Trial Court held that the Will was duly attested and validly executed. On appeal, the High Court set aside the judgment and order of the Trial Court and rejected the petition for Letters of Administration. The petitioner filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court, which was dismissed by a non-speaking order. The petitioner then filed a Review Petition before the High Court.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court held that the Review Petition was not maintainable as the petitioner had already preferred an appeal by filing a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court. The Court also held that there was no sufficient reason to review the judgment and order dated 5th May 1987.
Issues: 1. Whether the Review Petition was maintainable? 2. Whether there was any sufficient reason to review the judgment and order dated 5th May 1987?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. On the question of maintainability of the Review Petition, the Court held that filing a Special Leave Petition which is ultimately rejected, does not amount to preferring an appeal within the meaning of Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Court relied on the decisions in Tungabhadra Industries Ltd. v. The Government of Andhra Pradesh, Veluri Sitaramasastry and others v. Isukapalli Sundaramma and others, Workmen of Cochin Port Trust v. Board of Trustees, of the Cochin Port of Trust and Another, and Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. v. State of Bihar to support its conclusion. 2. On the question of sufficient reason to review the judgment and order dated 5th May 1987, the Court held that the petitioner had not shown any sufficient reason to review the judgment and order. The Court noted that the petitioner had not mentioned in the Review Petition or in the reply about the order of the Supreme Court dismissing the Special Leave Petition. The Court also noted that the petitioner had not taken the grounds which he sought to urge in the Review Petition in the Special Leave Petition. The Court held that the petitioner was seeking to indirectly unsettle the finality of the judgment and order dated 5th May 1987, which could not be allowed.
Final Decision: The High Court dismissed the Review Petition.
( 1 ) - This is an application for review of our judgment, dated 5th May, 1987, on the ground mentioned in the Memorandum of Review. The same are also stated in the petition.
( 2 ) WE are setting out the facts of this case from our judgment, review of which is sought for. These facts are not disputed and not under challenge in this application. The petition for grant of Probate was filed by one Smt. Sumitra Devi claiming herself to be a residual beneficiary under the last Will of the one Gajanand Chaudhury (hereinafter referred to as the Testator ). It was stated in the petition that the testator died on 9th October 1973 at No. 2/2a, Harrington Street, Calcutta within the jurisdiction of this Court. It was stated that the testator, during his life time, used to visit, from time to time and stay at his residential house at Sahabad Gate Hathras District Aligarh in the State of Uttar Pradesh where he had also considerable properties. Having regard to the importance of the averments made in paragraphs 4 and 6 of the said petition, we set out the same verbatim hereinbelow. "on the 4th day of March 1972 the deceased above named executed at Hathras outside the aforesaid jurisdiction the last Will and Testament in Hindi language Nagri Script and registered the same with the Sub-Registrar at Hathras on 13th Day of March 1972. The original Will of the deceased together with official translation thereto is annexed to the affidavit of Hathilal son of Sri Radhelal residing at Gali Malin, Hathras, District Aligarh one of the attesting witnesses to the said Will. The deceased did not appoint nor provided for any appointment of any Executor under the said Will of the deceased. " (paragraph 4 ). "the signature of the testator of the said Will was duly attested by Sri Nathilal, Harprasad Singh, Babulal, Jawahar Lal and Sri Govind Ram and the execution of the said Will is proved by an affidavit of Nathilal annexed hereto and marked with the letter 'a' and also be declaration at the foot herein. " (paragraph 6 ).
( 3 ) BY the said Will the testator gave, bequeathed and constituted the petitioner, who was the wife of Dharam Chand Chaudhury, the youngest son of the testator, as the sole beneficiary and legatee of all his assets. 1t was stated that the deceased left the persons referred to in paragraph 7 of the petition as his heirs and near relatives on whom. the estate would be devolved in case of intestacy according to Mitakshara School of Hindu Law. The relevant portion of the affidavit of Nathilal referred to in paragraph 6 of the petition are set out hereinbelow. "that on 4th day of March 1972 while the said Gajanand Chaudhury also known as Gajanand, possessed of good senses and full conscious executed at Chaudhury Bhawan, Sahabad Gate, Hathras, in the State of Utter Pradesh his last Will and Testament in Hindi language Nagri Script the original Will and official English translation that are hereto annexed and collectively marked with the letter 'x' by putting his signature with the own writing in my presence as well as in the presence of Shri Govind Ram, Harprasad Singh, Babulal and Shri Jawhar Lal, Sub-Registrar, Hathras and immediately thereafter I myself and the said Shri Govindram at the request of the said Gajanand Chaudhury and in his presence as well as in the presence of each other signed our respective names at the foot of the said paper writing as attesting witness hereof. " (paragraph 2)"thereafter, the said Gajanand Chaudhury also known as Gajanand had the said Will registered with the Sub-Registrar Hathras, District Aligarh, U. P. on 13th March, 1972. (paragraph 3)"that the signature of the said Gajanand Chaudhury appearing at the foot, of the said Paper writing and the signature of myself and the said Sri Govind Ram appearing at the foot of the said paper writing are in their respective proper handwriting and the said Testator of the said Gajanand Chaudhury and of myself and the said Shri Govind Ram. "
Indian Oil Corporation v. State of Bihar
Haji Ebrahim Kassani Coshinwalla v. Northern Indian Oil Industries Ltd.
Veluri Sitaramasastry and Ors. v. Isukpalli Sundaramma and Ors.
Northern India Caterers (India) Ltd. v. Lt. Governor of Delhi
Mohindroo v. Dist. Judge, Delhi
Ahmedabad Manufacturing and Calico Printing Co. Ltd. v. Workmen
Sajjan Singh v. State of Rajasthan
REFERRED TO : Workmen of Cochin Port Trust Ltd., v. Board of Trustees
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.