SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Subhro Kamal Mukherjee and Indrajit Chatterjee, JJ.
Bijoy Krishna Chandra —Petitioner
versus
Bishnupada Das & Ors. —Opp.Parties
F.A. No.225 of 2014
Decided on 9.4.2015

Counsel for the Parties:
For the Petitioner:Syed Nurul Arefin, Advocate
For the Opposite Parties:Hiranmoy Bhattacharyya and Atanu Chakraborty, Advocates

IMPORTANT POINT
Legatee of Will has every right to implead him as petitioner in application for LOA, because he and other legatees are actual beneficiaries.

Headnote:Civil Procedure Code, 1908 — Section 151 — Indian Succession Act, 1925 — Section 276 — Application under — HELD — Beneficiaries cannot be thrown out of arena of legal battle — Because executor not willing to proceed with application under S. 276 of Indian Succession Act. (Para 9)

       Result: Appeal allowed.

       

JUDGMENT

Indrajit Chatterjee, J.— This appeal has been directed as against the order No. 56 dated 20th May, 2014, as passed in other suit No.12 of 2012 which was previously numbered as Probate Case No. 50 of 2008 as passed by the learned Additional District Judge, First Court, Paschim Midnapore.

2. As per the said order the learned Trial Court rejected the petition dated 3rd of December, 2013, filed by one Bijoy Krishna Chandra, Son of Late Ananga Mohan Chandra, who was defendant no. 2 in that other suit to implead him as the plaintiff so that he can proceed with the said proceeding regarding the same Will after transposing himself as the plaintiff after converting the probate case into one application for letters of administration. It may be mentioned that Bishnupada Das, who filed the said application ultimately abandoned the probate case after he was examined and partially cross-examined and that Bishunupada Das alleged in his petition dated 18th of September, 2013, that he was misrepresented by Bijoy Krishna Chandra to file that probate case and further that he has been suffering from serious ailments. Vide that impugned order another application filed by Bijoy Krishna Chandra as filed under Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code praying for transposing him as the plaintiff in that other suit was also rejected.

3. As per that impugned order, the other suit number stated above and the proceeding was disposed of without any order as to costs by the learned Trial Court.

4. The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted by taking us to the decision of this Hon’ble Court in which one of us (Subhro Kamal Mukherjee, J.) was a party as reported in 2005(1) CHN Page 27 (Satidas Mukherjee alias S.D Mukherjee deceased and in the matter of Sudip Mukherjee) wherein the Hon’ble Single Judge held:

(i) It is settled law that a Court has got inherent power to take note of subsequent events and to mould the reliefs on the basis of the altered conditions to meet out justice. As far as possible the anxiety and the endeavor of the Court should be to remedy injustice rather than deny relief to an aggrieved party on pure technical ground.

(ii) Since the executor had died before he could prove the Will, the legatees under the Will are entitled to apply for grant of letters of administration under Section 232 of the Succession Act, 1925. There is no period of limitation governing such an application.

(iii) I, therefore, allow this application and permit the applicant to proceed with this application upon conversion of the proceeding into a proceeding for grant of letters of administration.

5. In that case before the floor of the High Court, the executor died before proving the ‘Will’ and one of the legatees under the ‘Will’ sought for leave of the Court to proceed with the said application upon conversation of the probate proceeding into a proceeding for grant letters of administration (henceforth called as LOA). In that decision referred to above, the said prayer was allowed and permission was granted to the appellant and permitted the applicant to proceed with the said application on conversation of the proceeding of probate into the proceeding for LOA.

6. It was submitted by the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant that the fact of this case suits with the decision of this Court as cited above and as such the order passed by the learned Trial Court is fit to be dismissed and liberty may be given to the appellant to proceed with the said application by converting it into one LOA.

7. The fact of this case on which the case was decided by the learned Trial Court can be stated in brief thus.

8. That one Ananga Mohan Chandra the predecessor in interest of Bijoy Krishna Chandra, Binay Krishna Chandra, Lila Bhowmik, Lushi Das and Mera Sen, executed one Will and appointed Bishnupada Das, his friend as the executor of the said Will. That Bishnupada Das filed an application before the District Judge, Midnapore for granting o










Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top