Back
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
KRISHNA RAO, J.
In the Goods of: Smt. Jayabat Roy – Plaintiff
Versus
Minati Roy – Defendant
TS No. 20 of 2015 (Old No. PLA 226 of 2011)
Decided On : 29-02-2024
Probate - Testamentary Suit - Indian Succession Act, 1925, Section 63 - Execution of Will - Indian Evidence Act, 1872, Section 68 - Proof of execution of document required by law to be attested - Suspicious circumstances - Burden of proof - Grant of probate
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed an application for grant of probate of the last Will and Testament of the deceased Jayabati Roy dated 16th October, 2001. The defendant, Minati Roy, filed a caveat opposing the probate application, claiming that the deceased had executed a Will in 1992 bequeathing her properties to family members.
Finding of the Court:
The plaintiff proved the execution of the Will by presenting attesting witnesses and establishing the registration of the Will. The defendant failed to provide cogent evidence to support her claims of suspicious circumstances or coercion. The court found in favor of the plaintiff, granting probate in terms of the application.
Issues: The issues included the execution and genuineness of the Will, the authenticity of the testatrix's signature, the entitlement of the executor to probate, and the caveatrix's interest in the estate of the deceased.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for the propounder of the Will to prove its due and valid execution, and to remove any suspicions surrounding its execution. It highlighted the burden of proof on the caveator when challenging the validity of a Will. The court also stressed the importance of statutory compliance and the need to prove the testator's sound state of mind and free will at the time of execution.
Final Decision: The court granted probate in favor of the plaintiff, finding that the Will was duly executed and the plaintiff had met the necessary requirements for probate.
JUDGMENT :
KRISHNA RAO, J.
1. The plaintiff has initially filed an application for grant of probate of the last Will and Testament of the deceased Jayabati Roy dated 16th October, 2001 being PLA No. 226 of 2011. On receipt of caveat and affidavit in support of caveat, from one Smt. Minati Roy, the application is converted to a Testamentary Suit No. 20 of 2015 (Shri Samarendra Narayan Roy vs. Minati Roy).
2. CASE OF THE PLAINTIFF:
(a) Smt. Jayabati Roy, since deceased during the life time had executed her last Will and Testament on 16th October, 2001 which is duly registered on 12th November, 2001 wherein the testatrix has appointed the plaintiff as sole executor of her last Will and Testament.
(b) The husband of the testatrix, namely, Sri Kshitindra Narain Roy died on 17th January, 1979, leaving behind the testatrix as his legal heir. The testatrix died on 21st December, 2010 and the testatrix was issueless. After the death of the testatrix, the plaintiff has filed the instant proceeding.
(c) As the testatrix and her husband died issueless, the details of the family members of the deceased mentioned in paragraph 8 of the plaint/ PLA application and none of the parties disputes about the family members of the deceased.
(d) On receipt of special citation, the defendant namely Minati Roy has filed affidavit in support of caveat and other than the defendant none of the family members have filed any caveat or affidavit in support of caveat. The plaintiff/ executor of the Will is husband’s brother’s son of the testatrix.
(e) The deceased abovenamed died leaving behind movable, immovable properties, investment in shares, cash, amount in banks, bank deposits etc., the net value of such assets will not exceed Rs. 52,46,674.72/-.
(f) The Plaintiff submits that the deceased had referred to about two of her previous Wills, wherein the first one was dated 10th April, 1984 and the second one was dated 15th April, 1992 and both the previous Wills were revoked upon execution of the this last Will and testament dated 16th October, 2001.
(g) The plaintiff submits that Ms. Minati Roy is not the daughter-in-law of the deceased/testatrix but she is the daughter in law of the brother-in-law (husband’s brother) of the deceased/testatrix.
(h) In support of the case, the plaintiff has examined three witness namely:
(i) Mr. Prasanta Kumar Sil (One of the attesting witness of the Will) - as PW-1.
(ii) Mr. Nemai Charan Ghosh ( Attesting witness of the Will) - as PW-2.
(iii) Mr. Samarendra Narayan Roy (Plaintiff/Executor ofthe Will) - as PW-3.
(i) During the evidence of the plaintiffs witnesses the following documents were exhibited:
(i) Exhibit A: The Will dated 16th October, 2001.
(ii) Exhibit A-1 Series: Signature of the testatrix Jayabati Roy.
(iii) Exhibit A2: Signature of Mr. Prasanta Kumar.
(iv) Exhibit A3: Signature appearing on the Will, of one Mr. Pradip Kumar Sil.
(v) Exhibit A-4 Series: Signature of Mr. Nemai Charan Ghosh.
(vi) Exhibit B: Original Copy of the death certificate of Jayabati Roy, issued by the Kolkata Municipal Corporation.
(vii) Exhibit C: Death Certificate of Nripendra Narayan Roy, son of Surendra Narayan Roy.
3. CASE OF THE DEENDANT:
(a) A caveat has been filed by one Ms. Minati Roy, opposing the said probate application filed by the plaintiff.
(b) It is submitted by the defendant that the deceased Jayabati Roy, during her life had told her about her last Will and Testament which was executed by her in the year 1992.
(c) It is submitted by the defendant that after the death of the husband of Ms. Minati Roy, on 7th October, 2000, she was not allowed to meet with the deceased by the plaintiff/sole executor.
(d) It is submitted by defendant that from the records, it is apparent that a Partition and Administration Suit was instituted in the year 1993 by one Nilima Seal and after two years from filing of such partition and administration suit, Smt. Jayabati Roy (deceased) on 13th December, 1995 has made and published a Codicil to the Will of 1992.
(e) The def
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the propounder of a Will to prove its due and valid execution, remove suspicions surrounding its execution, and demonstrate the....
Point of Law : It has to consider relevant materials instead of adopting an ethical reasoning. It was further observed that a mere exclusion of either a brother or sister per-se would not create a su....
The propounder of a Will must prove valid execution by confirming compliance with legal requirements, and any allegations of forgery or mental incapacity must be substantiated by the contesting party....
The court established that the burden of proof lies on the propounder to dispel any suspicious circumstances surrounding a will's execution for it to be considered valid.
Probate of Will – Where due execution of Will is not established, Probate can be refused.
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
