IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA TESTAMENTARY AND INTESTATE JURISDICTION ORIGINAL SIDE Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Sugato Majumdar TS/23/2018 IN THE GOODS OF:

RITA MUKHERJEE @

CHHANDA MUKHERJEE (DECED)

-AND-

SUDIPTA MUKHERJEE -VS-

PARAMITA MUKHERJEE For the Plaintiff : Mr. Aniruddha Mitra, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Lalratan Mandal, Adv.

For the Defendant : Mr. Shuvasish Sengupta, Adv.

Mr. Soumyajit Mishra, Adv.

Hearing concluded on : 01/09/2025 Judgment on : 24/09/2025 Sugato Majumdar, J.:

This is an application for grant of probate of the last will and testament of the deceased Rita Mukherjee also known as Chhanda Mukherjee.

The deceased Rita Mukherjee was a Hindu governed by Dayabhaga School of Hindu Law. Her last place of abode was at Nandan Kanan, P.O: Ganga Nagar, P.S: Madhyam Gram, District North 24 Parganas. She breathed her last on 05/11/2016 at Narayana Multi Speciality Hospital, Barasat, District: North 24 Parganas. Prior to her death she executed her last will and testament on 19/12/2009 in English language. The deceased left behind her one son, the present Petitioner and one daughter being the present Caveatrix. Her husband predeceased her.

The present Petitioner, being the Executor appointed under the will, filed the instant application for grant of probate of the aforesaid last will and testament of the Testatrix.

The Caveatrix lodged caveat supported by affidavit. The caveat was allowed for which the proceeding became a contentious one. The application was renumbered and converted into testamentary suit. The affidavit in support of the caveat was treated as the written statement. The Petitioner/Executor became Plaintiff and the Caveatrix became the Defendant.

Contentions of the Defendant, in nutshell may be summarized as follow: a. The father of the parties herein purchased a piece and parcel of land at Madhyamgram and constructed a two storied building. The brother of the Defendant, being the Plaintiff herein, is in the service of Kolkata Police. After death of the father, the Plaintiff did not allow the Defendant to meet with her mother, the Testatrix who had been living with the Plaintiff in the aforesaid house.

b. The Defendant had turmoil in her matrimonial life which ultimately ended in mutual divorce. Thereafter, the Defendant has been residing in the present address, alone.

c. The Testatrix had been suffering from various ailments. However, the Defendant used to talk to her over phone. The Plaintiff, although lives in the same house with family, neglected to take care of the Testatrix. The Defendant was never allowed to visit her mother. Getting news of the death of the Testatrix, the Defendant attended the cremation and also went to the hospital. At that time, the Plaintiff handed over her a file containing the pension book for family pension. As the Defendant is a divorcee, she was entitled to family pension. At that time, she came to know of the will.

d. It is contended in the written statement that the will is forged, fabricated and manufactured. The Plaintiff had detained the Testatrix wrongfully and illegally in the residence and did not allow any relative to meet her. The instant will could not have been made by the Testatrix out of her free consent.

e. It was further contended in the written statement that the Testatrix had no testamentary capacity to execute any will, within one year of the death of her husband excluding her only daughter who had been deserted by her husband and staying alone in a rented accommodation, without having any means to survive.

f. The instant Will had not been executed by the Testatrix; it is rather the Plaintiff who managed to get the signatures of the alleged attesting witnesses on the purported will. Being an employee of Kolkata Police, the Plaintiff exerted influence on all the family members and the relatives. The Plaintiff has also taken all the jewelleries of the Testatrix.

g. According to the Defendant, probate should not be granted.

On the basis of the rival pleadings, the following issues wer