Back
2025 Supreme(Cal) 177
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Rajasekhar Mantha, Ajay Kumar Gupta, JJ.
Tapan Brahmachari – Appellant
Versus
Jyotirmoy Sen & Anr. – Respondents
F.A. No. 72 of 2021, I.A. No. CAN 1 of 2019 (Old CAN 8766 of 2019), I.A. No. CAN 4 of 2025
Decided On : 10-03-2025
For the Appellant :Mr. Aniruddha Chatterjee, ld. Sr. Advocate, Mr. S. Chatterjee
For the Respondent: Mr. S.K. Chakraborti
A probate court's function is limited to determining the execution validity and genuineness of a Will, not ownership of the subject property.
Headnote:(A) Indian Succession Act, 1925 - Section 276 - Grant of probate - Trial Court dismissed the application for probate of the last Will, claiming the testatrix could not own property post-renunciation - The Court upheld that all conditions for valid Will execution were satisfied, including sound mind and attestation by two witnesses. (Paras 3, 16, 18)
(B) Jurisdiction - A probate court determines the validity of a Will but does not decide on ownership or title to the property - The findings of the trial Court were deemed erroneous as it overstepped its jurisdiction. (Paras 14, 20)
Facts of the case:
The appellant, claiming to be the adopted son of the testatrix, sought probate for a Will dated 23rd February 1986 after the trial court dismissed the suit. The trial court based its decision on the premise that the testatrix renounced worldly affairs and could not own property. (Para 2, 4)
Findings of Court:
The judgment of the trial Court was found to be flawed, as it ignored the requirements laid out in Section 276 and committed an error in not granting the probate of the Will. (Paras 16, 18)
Issues: Whether the trial Court improperly determined ownership based on the testatrix’s status as a renunciant and whether the conditions for probate were fulfilled. (Paras 12, 16)
Ratio Decidendi: The Court reiterated that the probate process merely establishes the execution and authenticity of the Will without addressing the underlying property title issues. (Paras 14, 16)
Result: The appeal was allowed, and the trial Court was directed to grant probate of the Will dated 23rd February 1986.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. appellant's challenge against trial court judgment. (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. court's determination on the will's ownership. (Para 3 , 4) |
| 3. background of trust and testatrix's involvement. (Para 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 4. requirements for valid execution of a will. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 5. trial court's errors in evaluating evidence. (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 6. probate court's limitations on ownership determinations. (Para 14 , 15 , 16) |
| 7. court's conclusion on due execution of the will. (Para 17) |
| 8. final orders and obligations of the court. (Para 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 9. final administrative directives. (Para 21 , 22) |
JUDGMENT :
1. The instant appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 25th July, 2019 passed by the Additional District Judge, 1st Court at Sealdah, South 24-Parganas in O.S. No. 11 of 2011.
2. By the impugned judgment, the trial Court dismissed the suit for grant of probate of the last Will and Testament of one Sri Mangalmoyee Bandopadhyay @ Samhita Devi @ Mamoni dated 23.02.201986.
3. The Court found that the subject matter of the Will could not have been owned or standing in the name of the testatrix as she was a Hindu lady and ceased to have any interest on the property and had renounced all worldly affairs.
4. The Court further went on to find that in a Title Suit being No. 30 of 2010 filed by one of the added respondents in this proceeding and other devotees of the said “Ayachak Ashram and Swarupananda Philanthropic Trust”, that the appellant had asserted that the subject matter of the wing and the assets of the “Ayachak Ashram and Swarupananda Philanthropic Trust” were, in fact trust properties. The Small Causes Court, 1st Court at Sealdah did not have jurisdiction to entertain a suit for administration of the trust property in terms of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The suit was dismissed under the provision of Section 92 of the CPC, in an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code
5. The other facts relevant to the case are, inter alia, that the “Ayachak Ashram and Swarupananda Philanthropic Trust” was founded by one popularly known as “Babamoni”. He published his teachings and principles in his book called “Akhanda Samhita”.
6. After demise of Babamoni, the testatrix, Samhita Devi also known as Mamoni, was the person who ran the affairs of the said Ashram. The said Ashram has its headquarters in Kakurgachi at Kolkata and branches all over the country and some parts in the world.
7. The appellant Tapan Kumar Gupta who also known as Tapan Brahmachari claimed to be an adopted son of Samhita Devi @ Mamoni and propounded a Will executed by Samhita Devi @ Mamoni dated 23rd February, 1986. There were two independent attesting witnesses to the Will. The Will contained a schedule of properties. This Court is not concerned with the schedule of the properties or title and nature and character thereof.
8. In terms of Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, the trial Court was required to ascertain as to whether the testatrix was of sound mind and in good health had otherwise execute the Will in question without coercion and or undue influence. The Will is required to be attested by two independent witnesses.
9. In the instant case, it is seen that the PW-2, Binoy Kanti Ray, who was also an advocate by profession. He has deposed that he had prepared the Will as per the instructions of Sri Mangalmoyee Bandopadhyay @ Samhita Devi @ Mamoni at Gurudham, P-238, C.I.T. Road, Police Station- Phoolbagan, Kolkata- 700054. He was also witness to the will. The Will was executed in the presence of the witnesses. The Will itself was proved and the signature of the testatrix was also proved. He deposed that the Will was executed in sound mind and in free will by the testatrix.
10. The PW-1, Ananda Kamal Majumder was the other attesting witness to the Will. He stated in examination-in-chief before the learned trial Judge that the Will was handwritten by PW-2, Binoy Kumar Ray, advocate as per the instructions of Sri Mangalmoyee Bandopadhya
