IMPORTANT POINT
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.

JUDGMENT :

Krishna Rao, J.

1. The plaintiff has initially filed an application being PLA No. 6 of 1989 for grant of Letters of Administration of the last Will and Testament of the deceased, Krishna Koiri dated 4th April, 1966.

2. By an order dated 23rd July, 1990, this Court had granted Letters of Administration in favour of the plaintiff with respect to the Will and Testament dated 4th April, 1966. When the defendants came to know about the Letters of Administration granted by this Court, the defendants have filed an application under Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 for revocation of Letters of Administration being G.A. No. 3181 of 2012 on the ground that no citation was served upon the daughters and other legal heirs and legal representatives of the deceased on whom the properties of the deceased would have devolved upon.

3. By an order dated 30th July, 2015, this Court allowed the application filed by the defendants and the Letters of Administration granted by this Court with respect to the Will was revoked and the plaintiff was directed to deposit the original Letters of Administration.

4. After revocation of Letters of Administration, the defendants have filed their caveat and in terms of the order dated 30th July, 2015, the plaintiff has served the copy of the application to the defendants for grant of Letters of Administration.

5. On receipt of Caveat and affidavit in support of Caveat, this Court converted the application being PLA No. 6 of 1989 to Testamentary Suit No. 28 of 2016.

6. CASE OF THE PLAINTIFF :

a. The deceased, Krishna Koiri died on 13th November, 1966, leaving behind his last Will and Testament dated 4th April, 1966 by appointing his wife Sonia Koiri as sole executrix. The Will was attested by three attesting witnesses. As per Will, the deceased granted his right in his immovable property to his wife Sonia Koiri and his only son Mahadeb Koiri, in equal shares. In the Will, it is also clarified that since both the daughters, namely, Kamala Koiri and Bimala Koiri were successfully married in effluent families and huge amount and ornaments were provided to them and none of them were in need of any further grant from the deceased, Krishna Koiri.

b. By virtue of the Will, Sonia Koiri and Mahadev Koiri entitled to get the property in the District of 24 Parganas, Thana -Entally, under Sibadah Sub-Registry, included in Touzi No. 1298/2833, Dihi 55 Gram in Mouza Tangra Village, Holding No. 84, formerly 82, Division -4, Sub Division N and under the corporation of Calcutta situated at premises No.11, Paymental Garden Lane, Kolkata, total area of 2 Bighas, 7 Cottahs, 11 Chittaks, 10 sq.ft. of which 14 Cottahs of rent free land.

c. The deceased at the time of death left behind four legal heirs namely:

(i). Sonia Koiri …. Wife

(ii). Mahadev Koiri …. Son

(iii). Kamala Bhagat nee Koiri .… Daughter

(iv). Bimala Prosad nee Koiri .… Daughter.

d. Smt. Sonia Koiri has not taken any steps for grant of probate and died on 6th October, 1974. The legatee of the Will, namely, Mahadev Koiri has also not taken any steps for grant of Letters of Administration of the last Will and Testament and died on 15th July, 1971.

e. Now the plaintiff being the grandson of Krishna Koiri and the son of Mahadev Koiri has filed the present suit for grant of Letters of Administration of the last Will and Testament dated 13th November, 1966.

7. SUBMISSIONS OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE PLAINTIFF :

a. Mr. Ranjan Bachawat, Learned Sr. Advocate appearing for the plaintiff submits that P.W.1, the plaintiff herein and the grandson of the deceased has specifically deposed that he knew the attesting witnesses of the Will, one is the cousin brother of the deceased and other two witnesses are the friends of his grandfather. He further submitted that P.W.1 also stated that he also used to go to the said persons with his grandfather and they also used to come to the house of grandfather. He further submitted that P.W.1 also stated that all three attesting witnesses of th