IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA [CIRCUIT BENCH AT PORT BLAIR]
SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA
Rani Bala Mistry – Appellant
Versus
Harekrishna Mondal – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SABYASACHI BHATTACHARYYA, J.
1. The respondent nos.1 & 2 are the sons and the appellant nos.1 and 2 as well as respondent no. 3 the daughters of Late Binod Mondal. The plaintiffs pleaded that the said Binod Mondal, who met his demise on April 28, 2009, had executed and registered a Will dated January 28, 2009, allocating his property amongst the plaintiffs and the defendants. On the strength of the Will, the plaintiffs initiated Revenue Case No.172 of 2009 and 299 of 2009 before the Tehsildar, Diglipur for mutation of the property. Accordingly, the land was mutated vide orders dated December 18, 2009 in RC No.230 of 2009, and vide order dated December 21, 2009 in RC No.172 of 2009 as well as RC No.229 of 2009.
2. Subsequently, the defendant nos. 1 and 2/appellants filed their objection to the mutation on January 06, 2010 and January 27, 2010 seeking a review of the order of mutation. The Tehsildar, upon hearing the parties, passed an order dated May 03, 2010 cancelling the earlier mutation by reviewing his earlier order and directing the property to be mutated in the joint names of all the legal heirs of Binod Mondal.
3. The plaintiffs/respondents, accordingly, instituted a
(1) Proof of execution of Will – Mere nomenclature of a person in Will as an Identifier is not sufficient to hold that Will was not attested by two witnesses.(2) High Courts should restrain itself fr....
The execution of a will must strictly adhere to statutory requirements, including valid attestation by witnesses, and mere registration does not suffice to validate a will in the presence of suspicio....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.