IMPORTANT POINT
Conclusiveness of Probate Court is only with relation to validity of Will – Right under Will based on interpretation of various terms contained in Will are matters on which Probate Court has no jurisdiction.

JUDGMENT

Ajoy Kumar Mukherjee, J.—This application has been directed against order dated February 16, 2019 passed by the learned District Delegate at Alipore in Letters of Administration case no. 336 of 1984. One Anilananda Saha was the owner of the flat situated at the 2nd floor of premises no. 176 Rasbihari Avenue. Said Anilananda by the last will and testament bequeathed all his share in the said flat to his sister-in-law MRs.Sukumari Saha and her son Paramananda Saha with a stipulation that in case said Paramananda does not marry and dies without issue, the property will revert back to the present petitioneRs.The testator Anilananda died on 25th July 1983 and consequent to the death of the testator, aforesaid Paramananda and Sukumari applied for Letters of Administration of the said will and testament being Act XXXIX Case No. 336 of 1984 (L.A.) During pendency of the said proceeding, aforesaid Sukumari Saha expired on 09/07/1987. By order no.101 dated 11/09/2008, learned District Delegate was pleased to grant Letters of Administration in favour of the said petitioner Paramananda Saha @ Kanu Saha upon filing the court fee Rs.10,000/-. Thereafter Paramananda filed administrative bond under Section 291 of the Indian succession Act 1925 and the court accepted the said bond. Paramananda filed court fee Rs.10,000/- on 17.09.2008 and the Letters of Administration was issued in favour of Paramananda on that date.

2. Thereafter Paramananda died intestate leaving behind his wife Sriparna Biswas as his sole surviving heir and legal representative. Thereafter the present petitioners Amitabha Saha and Tapas Kumar Saha filed application under Order XXII, Rule 3 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure in the aforesaid proceeding being Act XXXIX case No.336 of 1984 praying that the present petitioners be substituted in place of deceased Paramananda, in terms of the will and to permit them to deposit adequate court fees for issuance of Letters of Administration along with the copy of the will dated 08.06.1981 left by aforesaid testator.

3. The court below by an order dated 20th August, 2015 was pleased to allow the present petitioners to be substituted in place of deceased Paramananda. After substitution present petitioners filed amended probate application incorporating their names and prayed for grant of Letters of Administration and to permit them to deposit the maximum court fees of Rs.50,000/-. Thereafter present petitioners filed maximum court fees of Rs.50,000/- and learned District Delegate by an order dated 19.11.2015 directed to issue certificate accordingly.

4. Petitioners thereafter filed an application for refund of the court of Rs.50,000/- but thereafter they have not pressed the application for refund of court fee.

5. Thereafter Learned district delegate by an order dated 12.06.2017 directed the petitioners to file the certificate which was issued on 17.09.2008 in favour of Paramananda. Learned advocate on behalf of the petitioner by a letter dated August, 9 2015 requested the opposite party herein/widow of Paramananda to hand over the original letters of administration to her to enable the petitioners to comply with the aforesaid order dated 12th June, 2017. The learned advocate on behalf of the opposite party by a reply dated 11th August, 2017 allegedly expressed his inability to cooperate with the petitioneRs.Aforesaid Sriparna Biswas wife of Paramananda then filed an application for recalling of all the orders which were passed by the learned court after the grant of Letters of Administration dated 17.09.2008 by the learned District Delegate. Present petitioners contested the said application by filing written objection denying all material averments made in the said application.

6. Aforesaid application for recalling of the orders together with its written objection came up for hearing before the learned District Delegate. and learned court by the impugned order has been pleased to allow the said applicatio