The propounder of a will must remove all suspicious circumstances surrounding its execution, particularly when natural heirs are excluded from the bequest. Failure to prove due execution and disregard for inherent doubts leads to denial of probate.

JUDGMENT :

Soumen Sen, J.

1. The application for grant of probate dismissed by the learned 8th City Civil Court, Calcutta in OC No. 17 of 2009 by a judgment and order dated 7th March, 2022 is the subject matter of challenge in the present appeal.

2. One of the beneficiaries is the appellant.

Prelude:

3. Briefly stated, Harish Chandra Gogia (in short ‘Harish’) owned several properties in Kolkata, Delhi and Dehradun at the time of his death. Although he had purchased a valuable property on S.N. Mukherjee Road being Premises No. 2, Surendra Nath Banerjee Road along with his brothers and at the time of death had 20% share in the said property, he never resided at the said premises and instead, he was living in a rented accommodation at Premises No. 9/3, Dacres Lane. Harish had a mysterious death at Rajgir, Bihar on 21st November, 1981 and was cremated on 23rd November, 1981 after his body was brought back to Calcutta. He died within six weeks from the date of execution of his alleged will. The death certificate records that “from the PM report it appears that no definite opinion could be ascertained with regard to the cause of death”. The alleged will was executed by Harish on 10th June, 1981 with his two brothers namely, Arjan Dev Gogia (in short ‘Arjan’) the father of the appellant and Rattan Prakash Gogia (in short ‘Rattan’) as executors.

4. In or about 12 July, 1984 Kaushalya Devi Gogia, the wife of the testator filed an application under Section 372 of the Indian SUCCESSION ACT , 1925 being Succession Case no. 237 of 1984 for obtaining succession certificate in respect of the property of the deceased husband. During the pendency of the said application Arjan filed an application on 21st June, 1986 registered as Probate Case no. 83 of 1986 for grant of probate of the said alleged will. The wife and daughter of the deceased, however, contested the said proceeding and it was marked as a contentious cause.

5. On an application filed by Arjan in the aforesaid probate case the trial court stayed the proceeding of the succession case no. 237 of 1984.

6. Arjan died on 5th June, 1990.

7. Almost after four years in or about 28th February, 1994 the present appellant filed an application for grant of letters of administration with a copy of the will annexed under Section 276 of the Indian SUCCESSION ACT , 1925 being LA case no. 22 of 1994. In the said proceeding an ad interim order was passed directing the parties to maintain status quo till disposal of the injunction application. Kaushalya Devi died on 20th December, 2000. The application for substitution was allowed by the learned Trial court on 26th April, 2001. Subsequently on 2nd December, 2005 the ad interim order of injunction was extended till disposal of the probate case. In view of the fact that the appellant was delaying in submitting the original Will as also the original death certificate of testator which was contended to be intentional, a peremptory direction was passed by the learned trial court on 15th July, 2006. A prayer for extension to file the aforesaid documents was rejected on 19th August, 2006 consequent whereupon the probate proceeding was dismissed for default. However, on 6th November, 2006 the LA Case No.22 of 1994 was restored and a fresh notice was served upon Neena Puri, the only issue and legal heir of the testator. Thereafter, the said proceeding was revived and renumbered as OC No.17 of 2009.

8. Neena, the respondent herein transferred her ownership in respect of the Dehradun property being Premises no. 2/2 Raipur Road, Dehradun on 24th May, 2007. This transfer was the subject matte