JUDGMENT :

Krishna Rao, J.

1. The petitioner Smt. Meena Gupta Das had filed the present application being GA 1 of 2019 (Old No. GA 1698 of 2019) praying for the revocation of probate granted by this Court by an order dated 15th March, 2019 and issued on 10th May, 2019 executed by Samir Gupta and allied prayers.

2. The petitioner has filed the present application on the ground that the petitioner is the widow of the deceased Samir Kumar Gooptu (Gupta) and marriage between Samir Kumar Gooptu (Gupta) and the petitioner is solemnized on 20th February, 2010, according to the Hindu rites and customs and the marriage was registered on 22nd May, 2013 under Section 16 of Special Marriage Act, 1954.

3. It is the further case of the petitioner that out of their wedlock, no child was born and her husband Samir Kumar Gooptu died on 6th July, 2018 leaving behind her as his sole legal heir. The husband of the petitioner was the owner of two immovable properties i.e. :

(i) CA-48, Sector-I, Salt Lake City, Kolkata – 700064 consisting of two storied building.

(ii) 71/C, Netaji Subhas Road, Kolkata – 700001, consisting of a partly three storied building.

4. The petitioner further contended that in the month of May, 2019 she came to know from reliable sources that one Ramji Singh who was the caretaker of one of the properties of her husband situated at 71/C, Netaji Subhas Road, Kolkata - 700 001 is claiming to be the owner of the said property and the said Ramji Singh further claimed that the said property has been bequeathed unto him by the deceased Samir Kumar Gooptu by way of a Will. On getting the said information, the petitioner had made enquiries and came to know that Ramji Singh has obtained a probate of the Will of the deceased Samir Kumar Gooptu with respect of the property being No. 71/C, Netaji Subhas Road, Kol 700 001.

5. On getting said information, the petitioner has applied for certified copy of all the documents in connection with PLA 320 of 2018 and after obtaining the document, the petitioner came to know that the said Ramji Singh has described the petitioner in the application being PLA 320 of 2018 as domestic helper and nurse of the family of testator, knowing fully well that the petitioner is the legally wedded wife of the deceased Samir Kumar Gooptu (Gupta). After receipt of all the documents, the petitioner has filed the present application.

6. Mr. Dhruba Ghosh, Learned Senior Advocate representing the petitioner submitted that the said Ramji Singh was well aware that the petitioner was the legally wedded wife of Samir Kumar Gooptu (Gupta) but had deliberately described her as the domestic helper and family nurse of the deceased. Shri Ramji Singh had willfully and deliberately not issued any notice to the petitioner before the grant of probate.

7. Mr. Ghosh submitted that Shri Ramji Singh had never looked after anything related to the premises No. CA-48, Salt Lake City, Sector-I, Kolkata – 700 064, but in the alleged Will, it is mentioned that Ramji Singh was looking after the said property.

8. Mr. Ghosh submitted that from the bare perusal of the alleged Will dated 2nd July, 2009, it is apparent that the alleged Will is a forged, fabricated and manufactured document and the signature appearing in the said Will is not a genuine signature and not the signature of Samir Kumar Gooptu. He further submitted that the petitioner being the wife of the deceased is well acquainted with the signature of the deceased as the petitioner has seen the signatures of Samir Kumar Gooptu on several documents.

9. Mr. Ghosh submitted that the petitioner being the legally wedded wife of the deceased Samir Kumar Gooptu is the Class-I heir of her husband but the said Ramji Singh has not made her a party in the probate application and no notice was served to the petitioner and behind the back of the petitioner, the said Ramji Singh has obtained probate.

10. Mr. Ghosh submitted that in the affidavit of assets filed by the said Ramji Singh, wherein he had mentione