SOUMEN SEN, RAVI KRISHAN KAPUR
In the Goods of Usha Kanta Das (Dec. ) – Appellant
Versus
Sefalika Ash – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Soumen Sen, J.
The appellant is the son-in-law of the caveatrix. The appellant is aggrieved by an order passed by Justice Moushumi Bhattacharya in connection with an application filed by the appellant under Order 3 Rules 1 & 2 read with Order 32 Rule 8(f) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for representing the caveatrix in the probate proceeding.
The probate is in relation to a Will executed by one Usha Kanta Das on 3rd October, 1975, which was registered with the Registrar of Assurances, Kolkata. This is the second Will of the testator. The first Will executed on 10th September, 1965 was revoked and substituted by the second Will in view of the death of one of the named executors in the Will, namely, Amar Nath Ash. Under the first Will, Amiya Kanti Das and Amar Nath Ash (now deceased) were made joint executors. The first Will was also a registered Will. In the last Will dated 3rd October, 1975, the testator replaced the name of his son-in-law Amar Nath Ash (now deceased) and included his wife Smt. Ushabari Devi (since deceased) as the joint executor along with Amiya Kanti Das, the plaintiff No.1. It was clearly mentioned in the last Will that in the event of death of Ush
Janki Vashdeo Bhojwani Vs. Indusind Bank Ltd reported at AIR 2005 SC 439
Samduhan versus Madanlal reported at AIR 1959 Raj 35
The Anglo-French Drug Co. v. V.R.D. Tinaikar AIR 1959 Bom 21
T.C. Mathai vs. District & Sessions Judge reported at (1999) 3 SCC 614
Hari Om Rajender Kumar v. Chief Rationing Officer reported at AIR 1990 AP 340
Goa Antibiotics and Pharmaceuticals Ltd. vs. R.K. Chawla and Anotherreported at (2011) 15 SCC 449
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.