The court ruled that failure to notify all legal heirs and concealment of material facts during probate proceedings constitutes just cause for revocation of probate under Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act.

JUDGMENT :

Krishna Rao, J.

1. This is an application filed by the petitioner namely, Shaibal Saha for revocation of probate granted by this Court dated 22nd June, 2023 of the last Will and Testament dated 14th January, 2020 in an application filed by the executor namely, Surajit Kumar Saha being PLA No. 164 of 2022.

2. The petitioner is claiming that the petitioner is the son of the deceased brother of the late husband of the testatrix. The testatrix inherited the property left behind by her husband who died intestate on 4th September, 1990. The son of the testatrix, namely, Bitansa Saha also died on 2nd July, 1997. The testatrix died on 13th May, 2021 leaving behind the legal heirs of her husband side.

3. Mr. Soumyen Dutta, Learned Advocate representing the petitioner submits that the petitioner being the son of the deceased brother of the late husband of the testatrix has got caveatable interest over the property but no notice of the probate proceeding is served upon the petitioner. He submits that the executor had the knowledge about the address of the legal heirs of the husband of the testatrix but the petitioner knowingly has pleaded that he could not trace out the address of the legal heirs of the husband of the testatrix.

4. Mr. Dutta submits that executor had initiated a proceeding under Section 144(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the petitioner wherein the address of the petitioner has correctly mentioned and in the said application, the executor has also mentioned that the petitioner is the nephew of the testatrix.

5. Mr. Dutta also relied upon the certificate issued by the Sub-Divisional Officer regarding the legal heirs of the testatrix wherein the name of the petitioner is also appearing. He submits that in the month of June, 2019, the testatrix was suffering from serious illness and doctors advised her to undergo implantation of a pacemaker and accordingly, the petitioner has taken the testatrix to hospital wherein she was admitted, the petitioner has signed in the documents at the hospital as nephew of her husband.

6. He submits that the testatrix died on 13th May, 2021 in the midst of complete Covid lockdown. The petitioner has obtained necessary vehicle permission from the concern authorities for conducting last ritual of the testatrix. The petitioner did the last ritual of the testatrix. The petitioner superannuated from his service on 31st August, 2023 and from December, 2023 started residing at the residential house of the deceased more frequently. He submits that on 23rd December, 2023, the executor along with some persons visited the residence of the testatrix and started threatening the petitioner and his family for vacating the premises and accordingly, the petitioner has made complaint to Baguiati Police Station. The Officer-in-Charge of the said police station called both the parties and the brother of the executor has informed that the testatrix has left behind her Will in favour of the executor but the executor has not disclosed any document to the petitioner. Immediately, the petitioner has lodged two caveats before the lower and higher division of District Court at Barasat. He submits that the petitioner has initiated a proceeding under Section 144(2) of the Cr.P.C. in the month of January, 2024 but in the said proceeding, no PLA number was disclosed and when the petitioner came to know about the details of PLA, the petitioner has applied for certified copy of the same on 27th February, 2024.

7. Mr. Dutta submits that after obtaining certified copy, the petitioner found that the signature of the deceased in the alleged Will is not genuine and the same does not bear the signature of the testatrix.

8. Mr. Dutta in support of his submissions relied upon the judgment in the case of In Re: Ganesh Prasad (Deceased) dated 21st June, 2023 reported in MANU/WB/1260/2023 and submitted that the grant was made without citing the petitioner who ought to have been cited and no notice was served to the petiti