JUDGMENT

Shampa Sarkar, J. - This revisional application has been filed challenging an order dated June 29, 2019 passed by the learned District Delegate/Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Kalyani, Nadia in Miscellaneous Case No.60 of 2017 L.A. (grant of letters of administration of the estate of Mohanlal Banerji, since deceased).

2. The opposite party no.1 filed an application for grant of letters of administration of the estate of Late Mohanlal Banerji before the learned District Delegate at Kalyani, Nadia. The same was registered as Misc. Case No.60 of 2017 (L.A.). According to the applicant/opposite party no.1, Late Mohanlal Banerji died intestate leaving his last will and testament and bequeathed the estate to Abhimanyu Bhattacharjee Memorial Trust. The applicant no.1 is the trustee and joint managing director of the said trust. On the strength of said will the application under section 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) was filed. The petitioners filed two applications; one, to contest the proceedings for grant of letters of administration; and the other for inspection of the will. According to the petitioners, the wife of Late Mohanlal Banerji, that is Late Latika Banerjee, by a deed of gift bestowed the property in question to the petitioners. The petitioners have started developing on the same by entering into a development agreement during the lifetime of Late Latika Banerjee. Subsequently, the petitioners were shocked to discover a notice from the learned court affixed on the property with a intimation that a proceeding for grant of letters of administration of the estate of Late Mohanlal Banerji had been instituted. The petitioners filed two applications as stated hereinbefore. The said applications were considered by the learned court below and by the order impugned dated June 29, 2019 the applications were dismissed by the learned court below on various grounds. The learned court below held that although the deed of gift may have been genuine, yet the petitioners could not have a caveatable interest.

3. According to the District Delegate, the petitioners/objectors failed to show that they have a caveatable interest in the property. The proceedings could not be termed to have become contentious and as such the District Delegate by the order impugned decided to proceed with the applications for grant of letters of administration without allowing the contentions of the petitioners.

4. The learned court below held that in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of Krishna Kumar Birla v. Rajendra Singh Lodha & Ors., (2008) 4 SCC 300 , in order to make a proceeding contentious, caveatable interest must be shown. The learned court below also observed that the Apex Court had clarified in the said judgement that a statute should be interpreted having regard to the purport and object of the Act. The doctrine of purposive construction must be resorted to in a case of interpreting Section 284 of the Indian Succession Act. The court must place itself in the chair of a reasonable legislator. In doing so, it would not be permissible for the court to construe any provision in such a manner which would destroy the purpose for which the Act was enacted. The Apex Court further observed that under section 283(1)(c) citations were to be issued calling upon all such persons who claimed to have any interest in the estate of deceased.

5. The learned court below also distinguished the decision relied upon by the petitioners in the case of Ajay Kumar Maiti & Ors. V. Dr. Anil Kumar Maiti & Ors., (2008) 4 CalLT 315 . The learned court observed that the facts leading to the decision of the High Court were completely different and not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case in hand. In the said case before the High Court the petitioners who approached this court was already contesting the proceedings. Thus, in the said case rival contentions for grant of letters of administration