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
Result: Appeal allowed.
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
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
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.