Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Cal) 3638
CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
ARINDAM MUKHERJEE, J
IN THE GOODS OF RAJAT KUMAR BASU (DEC) – Appellant
Versus
N – Respondent
Testamentary and Intestate Jurisdiction | PLA No. 9 of 2024
For the petitioner: Kuldip Mallick, Sayantika Mitra, Arindam Kundu, Debolina Dey, Aniket Nanda
For the Respondents: Sourav Bose
A caveator must demonstrate a caveatable interest as an heir-in-intestacy; the court ruled that pre-deceased relatives hold no claim to the estate.
Headnote:(A) Hindu Succession Act, 1956 - Section 8 - Caveator's interest in estate - Caveator claims to be nephew of deceased - Executor argues caveator has no caveatable interest due to being not an heir-in-intestacy - Court finds Sourav Bose's father predeceased the testator, eliminating his claim to inherit. (Paras 4, 7)
(B) Testamentary Jurisdiction - Executor's application for discharge of caveat - Caveator's rights assessed against statutory provisions determining heirs in case of intestacy - Court holds caveator has no valid claim based on inheritance rights. (Paras 8, 10)
Facts of the case:
Caveator claims interest in deceased's estate based on familial ties; executor submits caveator is not legally recognized as heir due to his father's predecease.
Findings of Court:
The caveator has no caveatable interest; thus, the caveat filed is discharged.
Issues: The primary question was whether the caveator has a valid claim as an heir-in-intestacy under the 1956 Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that pre-deceased relations hold no claim in inheritance under statutory provisions, affirming that caveator lacks precedence in the estate.
Result: Caveat discharged.
O-99 ORDER SHEET IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA TESTAMENTARY AND INTESTATE JURISDICTION IA No. GA/1/2025 In PLA No. 9 of 2024 IN THE GOODS OF:
RAJAT KUMAR BASU, DECEASED BEFORE:
The Hon’ble JUSTICE ARINDAM MUKHERJEE Date: 23rd July, 2025.
Appearance:
Mr. Kuldip Mallick, Adv.
Mrs. Sayantika Mitra, Adv.
For petitioner Mr. Arindam Kundu, Adv.
Ms. Debolina Dey, Adv. Mr. Aniket Nanda, Adv.
For caveator The Court:- Affidavit-in-opposition wrongly indicated as affidavit-in-reply by the caveator along with the rejoinder to the supplementary affidavit used by the executor/petitioner which is also wrongly described as affidavit-in-reply filed in Court today are taken on record.
This is an application for discharge of caveat by the executor to the last Will and Testament dated 22nd August, 2017 said to have been left behind by Rajat Kumar Basu, the testator as his last Will and Testament being the subject matter of PLA No. 9 of 2024. The grant as sought for in PLA No. 9 of
2024 is objected to by one Sourav Bose by filing a caveat. Sourav Bose claims to be the nephew of Rajat Kumar Basu, the deceased.
In this application, the executor has sought for discharge of the caveat, inter alia, on the ground that the caveator (Sourav Bose) is not an heir-in- intestacy of the deceased and, as such, is not entitled to citation as a consequence whereof he also does not have a caveatable interest.
The caveator says that Indu Bhusan Bose had two wives, namely, Bina Bose and Chabi Bose. Through Bina Bose, the first wife, Indu Bhusan Bose the father of the testator had four sons and four daughters, namely, Himagsu Bose, Nirmal Kumar Bose, Rajat Kumar Basu (the testator), Subrata Kumar Basu, Ranu Ghosh, Dipali Dutta, Meera Ghosh and Chaitali Ghosh. Through the second wife Chabi Bose, Indu Bhusan Bose had two sons and one daughter, namely, Debjiban Basu (the executor and applicant) and Kalyan Kumar Basu and Mandira Guha Thakurta. Sourav Bose, the caveator claims to be the son of Himangsu Bose, elder brother of the testator.
It is the case of the executor that the testator was a bachelor and, as such, his estate in case of death-in-intestacy would have devolved unto the Class II heirs as indicated in Section 8 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 read with the First Schedule thereto.
Himangsu Bose, according to the executor, died on 29th February, 2004 that is prior to the death of the testator, who died on 20th April, 2022 which is, however, not disputed by the caveator.
The executor also says that under the provisions of Section 8 of the 1956 Act read with the First Schedule thereto, the surviving brothers and sisters will jointly form the Class II heirs/heiresses and will inherit the property in case of death-in-intestacy. The pre-deceased brothers and sisters will have no right or claim in the estate. Himangsu Bose is the pre-deceased brother of Rajat Kumar Basu, the testator. Thus, Himangsu’s son Sourav, the caveator would never inherit the property of Rajat Kumar Basu as an heir-in-intestacy as his father Himangsu did not have any right. The date of death and the relationship between Rajat Kumar Basu, Himangsu Bose and Sourav Bose are not in dispute.
In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, since Sourav is not an heir-in-
intestacy of the testator, Sourav the caveator has no caveatable interest.
The judgment cited by the caveator reported in (2017) 14 SCC 285 ( Saroj Agarwalla Vs. Yasheel Jain ) also does not assist the case of the caveator. It will be clear from the said judgment the test which is applied is: - Does the claim of grant of probate prejudice the caveator’s right because it defeats some other line of succession in terms whereof the caveator asserted his right ?
As discussed above, the caveator’s father Himangsu did not have any right to inherit the estate of Rajat in case of his death-in-intestacy. The death- in-intestacy of the testator had got Himangsu eliminated from the category of Class II heir of Rajat as he predeceased Rajat.
