IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
KRISHNA RAO, J.
In the Goods of: Sephali Bose (Dec.) Joydeep Guha – Plaintiff
Versus
Gautam Bose – Defendant
T.S. No. 4 of 2018
Decided On : 03-11-2022
Plaintiff has filed application for grant of Letters of Administration of last Will and testament of the deceased – Held, defendant by filing affidavit and by cross examine the witness nos. 1 and 2 has taken the plea that the testatrix was illiterate and did not understand English and her mental and physical condition was not good but during the cross-examination of the witnesses no. 1 and 2 nothing was brought on record to prove his defense - The defendant has also not produced any witness to support of the plea taken in the affidavit and during the cross-examination of the witness no. 1 and 2 - The defendant has not come forward to examine himself or any person as his witness in support of his plea - After going through the pleadings, evidence of the witness particularly, the witness nos. 1 and 2, this court finds that the plaintiff has able to prove that the testatrix had executed the Will and the Codicil while possessing good physical and mental health in presence of the witnesses and the same was duly registered before the Sub-Registrar - Disposed of.
JUDGMENT :
KRISHNA RAO, J.
1. The plaintiff has filed the instant application for grant of Letters of Administration of the last Will and testament of the deceased Sephali Bose dated 07.12.2006 and Codicil dated 18.07.2008. Initially, the said Will and Codicil was propounded by Joydeep Guha being PLA No. 188 of 2015 in which Gautam Bose the son of the testatrix had lodged his caveat and filed affidavit in support of his caveat. On receipt of the caveat and affidavit the PLA No. 188 of 2015 is converted as Testamentary Suit No. 4 of 2018.
2. As Joydeep Guha did not take any steps to pursue for grant of probate, Taniya Guha a beneficiary of the said Will and Codicil, had filed an application being GA No. 5 of 2015 for transposing herself as plaintiff in the instant suit and accordingly the same was allowed by this Court.
3. As per the case of the plaintiff, the deceased Sephali Bose was the owner of both movable properties and immovable properties. On 07.12.2006, the said Sephali Bose had executed a Will which was duly registered before the Additional District Sub-Registrar, Alipore and subsequently on 18.07.2008, the said Sephali Bose had also executed a Codicil which was also registered before the Additional District Sub-Registrar, Alipore.
4. As per the case of the plaintiff by virtue of the said Will and testament, the proforma defendant namely Joydeep Guha was appointed as executor of the said Will and testament and the Codicil. In the said Will and Testament, there are two attesting witnesses namely Gita Guha (Now deceased)and Surajit Choudhury. One attesting witness, namely Gita Guha died on 13.03.2013.The said Sephali Bose executed the Codicil in presence of three witness namely Amitabha Sarkar, Surajit Choudhury and Sreemati Sarkar on 18.07.2008.
5. Sephali Bose died on 26.12.2014 leaving behind Gautam Bose (Son/caveator), Taniya Guha granddaughter (plaintiff herein) and Joydeep Guha grandson (erstwhile executor of the Will). The husband of Sephali Bose namely R.N. Bose was the pre-deceased of his wife.
6. Rabindranath Bose, pre-deceased husband of Sephali Bose, Gita Guha now deceased wife of Late Asis Kumar Guha and pre-deceased daughter of Sephali Bose were died intestate on 13.01.2000 and 13.03.2013 respectively leaving behind Gautam Bose as her son, Joydeep Guha as her grandson of the pre-deceased daughter and Taniya Guha as her granddaughter of pre-deceased daughter.
7. During the evidence, the plaintiff had adduced three witnesses namely Surajit Choudhury, Amitabha Sarkar and Taniya Guha (plaintiff herself). The first witness namely Surajit Choudhury is one of the attesting witness of the Will and Codicil and the second witness namely Amitabha Sarkar is the attesting witness to the Codicil dated 18.07.2008. The witness no. 3 is the plaintiff who is the beneficiary of the said Will and Codicil.
8. The first two witnesses namely Surajit Choudhury and Amitabha Sarkar were cross-examined by the defendant but subsequently the defendant stop contesting the present suit. The witness no. 2, namely Amitabha Sarkar was examined before this Court and cross-examined in part and subsequently the witness no. 2 was cross-examined through Commission. The Learned Advocate Commissioner had submitted report before this Court on 18.07.2022 by circulating the report to the Learned Counsel for the contesting parties but on 18.07.2022 none appeared on behalf of the defendant and this Court has directed the counsel for the plaintiff to inform the next date of hearing to the Learned Counsel for the defendant and accordingly the case was fixed on 03.08.2022 for examination of witness no. 3 on behalf of the plaintiff. On 03.08.2022, the Learned Counsel for the defendant had appeared and submits that he is not getting any instructions from the defendant and prays leave to retire from the instant case and accordingly the Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the defendant had retired from the instant case. On 03.08.2022, the witness no. 3 was examin
The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 to establish the due execution of a Will, considering evidence of witnesses, me....
A Will can be proved by the evidence of a single attesting witness who can identify the signature of the testator and the other attesting witnesses.
The propounder of a Will must prove its valid execution and genuine nature, failing which, the Will cannot be upheld.
The propounder of a will must prove its valid execution and the testator's mental capacity, with the burden of removing any suspicion surrounding the will's authenticity.
The validity of a will requires strict adherence to statutory execution and attestation procedures; failure to prove execution results in denial of probate.
Shebaitship of a temple is property under Indian law and can be bequeathed through a valid will.
A person is free to make as many Wills as he wishes – Once Court certifies a particular Will to be genuine and puts its seal of approval thereon, all previous Wills automatically stand nullified.
The court established that the burden of proving forgery lies with the defendants, who failed to demonstrate any valid evidence against the genuineness of the Will and Codicil.
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.