Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
APURBA SINHA RAY, J.
In The Goods Of : Smt. Makhan Rani Dutta (DEC) –
And
In The Matter Of Basuki Nath Dutta & Ors. - Plaintiffs
Versus
Arabinda Dutta & Ors. - Defendants
TS No.13 of 2005, PLA No. 22A of 1971
Decided On : 11-07-2023
WILL - PROBATE - GRANT - UNDUE INFLUENCE, FRAUD, COERCION - ABSENCE OF - CAVEATS LODGED BY RELATIVES CHALLENGING PROBATE WITHDRAWN - EXECUTORS-CUM-BENEFICIARIES APPOINTED IN WILL NOT PRESENT DURING EXECUTION - PRESUMPTION OF TESTATRIX'S INTENTION TO BENEFIT THEM - EVIDENCE ACT, 1872, SECTIONS 68, 69.
Fact of the Case:
A Will executed by Makhanrani Dutta in 1957 was challenged by relatives who lodged caveats against the grant of probate. The executors-cum-beneficiaries appointed in the Will were not present during its execution. The caveators later withdrew their caveats and did not contest the probate proceedings or the subsequent suit for letters of administration.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners, as the legal heirs of the beneficiaries named in the Will, were entitled to letters of administration. The court held that the evidence on record did not suggest any undue influence, fraud, or coercion in the execution of the Will. The court also found that the genuineness of the Will was proved by the testimony of the son of one of the attesting witnesses and the evidence of a local advocate who identified the signature of his father, another attesting witness.
Issues: 1. Whether the petitioners, as the legal heirs of the beneficiaries named in the Will, were entitled to letters of administration. 2. Whether the Will was procured by undue influence, fraud, or coercion. 3. Whether the genuineness of the Will was proved.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court relied on the Evidence Act, 1872, Sections 68 and 69, to hold that the genuineness of the Will was proved by the testimony of the son of one of the attesting witnesses and the evidence of a local advocate who identified the signature of his father, another attesting witness. 2. The court also held that the petitioners, as the legal heirs of the beneficiaries named in the Will, were entitled to letters of administration, as there was no evidence of undue influence, fraud, or coercion in the execution of the Will.
Final Decision: The court ordered that letters of administration in respect of the estate and properties of the deceased be issued in favor of the plaintiffs of the testamentary suit.
JUDGMENT :
(Apurba Sinha Ray, J.) :
1. The suit has a chequerd history.
2. On January 21, 1957 one Makhan Rani Dutta being a widow and issueless, executed an unregistered Will. On April 1, 1957, the said Makhan Rani Dutta died. On March 3, 1960 Baidyanath Dutta and Chandranath Dutta, being the Joint executors under the said Will, made an application for granting probate before the Learned District Delegate, 24 Parganas at Alipore, which was numbered as Probate Case No. 14 of 1960.
3. After service of citation upon the relatives of the deceased, Amulyanath Dutta, Biswanath Dutta and Sachindranath Dutta jointly lodged caveat challenging the prayer for grant of probate before the District Delegate, 24 parganas at Alipur and filed affidavit in support of such caveat. Another relative, Satyendranath Dutta also filed separate caveat along with supporting affidavit. As the matter became contentious, proceedings were transferred to the Learned Court of District Judge, 24 Parganas for adjudication.
4. However, on 6th July, 1961 a notice of motion was taken out by the joint executors under clause XXIIA of Letters Patent for transferring the said case from the Learned Court of District Judge, 24 Parganas to the Hon’ble High Court at Calcutta. By an order dated August 8, 1961 the Hon’ble High Court directed the Learned District Judge, 24 parganas at Alipore to transfer the said proceeding pending before it to the Hon’ble High Court and accordingly, records of probate proceedings were transmitted to the Hon’ble Court in or about 1971 and the matter was re-numbered as PLA Case No. 22A of 1971.
5. In the month of April, 1977 one caveator Amulyanath Dutta died and on January 17, 1988 another caveator, Biswanath Dutta also died. The Other caveator, Satyendranath Dutta died on March 23, 1990 leaving behind his heirs and legal representatives who were duly substituted in the proceeding. On February 18, 1991 an application was made by the joint executors for substitution of the names of the heirs and legal representatives of the deceased caveators and His Lordship Hon’ble Justice Prabir Kumar Mujumdar allowed the substitution and directed the necessary amendments by striking the names of the deceased caveators and inserting the names of their heirs and legal representatives. The said order of His Lordship was carried out accordingly.
6. By an order dated December 18, 1995 Her Ladyship, the Hon’ble Justice Ruma Pal (as Her Ladyship then was), discharged the caveats lodged by Amulyanath Dutta, Biswanath Dutta and also the affidavit filed by Satyendranath Dutta. The caveat lodged by Satyendranath Dutta continued to remain pending for adjudication.
7. On November 17, 1999 Baidyanath Dutta, one of the joint executors died and thereafter on March 9, 2000 the remaining executor, Chandranath Dutta also died. On August 11, 2004 the beneficiaries under the last Will of Makhanrani Dutta, inter alia, made an application as administrators for recording the death of both the executors and substituting the names of their heirs and representatives. On August 25, 2004, the said application was allowed by the Hon’ble Justice Subhrakamal Mukherjee but such order could not have been carried out as requisite records were not available in the department.
8. Accordingly the petitioners made an application for reconstruction of records and also for granting leave to the petitioner to carry out the amendments and substitution in terms of the direction of His Lordship, Hon’ble Justice Subhrakamal Mukherjee. On September 27, 2005 the said application was heard by the Hon’ble Justice Soumitra Sen who directed the department to reconstruct the record and to give effect the consequential amendment by converting the application for amendment of probate to an application for grant of letters of administration, as directed by the Hon’ble Justice Subhrakamal Mukherjee.
9. On November 16, 2005 the concerned department carried out the amendments and the case was converted into testam
The absence of undue influence, fraud, or coercion in the execution of a Will, coupled with the proof of its genuineness, entitles the legal heirs of the beneficiaries named in the Will to letters of....
The propounder of a Will must prove its valid execution and genuine nature, failing which, the Will cannot be upheld.
The court affirmed that the plaintiff sufficiently proved the valid execution of the Will, while the defendant failed to establish claims of forgery or suspicious circumstances surrounding it.
A Will's execution can be proven without living attesting witnesses if signatures are corroborated by acquainted witnesses, notwithstanding presumptions under Section 90 of the Evidence Act.
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
