Back
SOUMEN SEN, UDAY KUMAR
Rajiv Gogia – Appellant
Versus
Neena Puri – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the background and initiation of the probate case. (Para 1 , 2 , 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 2. specifics of the alleged will's certain provisions. (Para 9 , 10 , 28) |
| 3. arguments concerning the will's execution and validity. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 21) |
| 4. court's duty to ensure due execution of a will. (Para 35 , 39 , 40) |
| 5. final judgment regarding the appeal on merits. (Para 63 , 64) |
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 o
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 disregar....
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
