The court upheld that proper citation procedures were followed and the will was validly proved, dismissing the petitioner's revocation application.

“The Court: The propounder has produced a copy of deed of September 28, 1987 executed by the State in favour of the alleged testator under which a lease for 99 years was granted in favour of the alleged testator in respect of a Digha land.

Clause 2 (e) of the said deed provides as follows:

“2… e) The lease-hold interest will be heritable but shall not be transferable without the previous permission of the Government in writing and except to a party as may be approved by the Government.”

Thus, it is evident that as long as the leasehold rights are not transferred inter vivos, permission of the Government would not be necessary. In a sense, the propounder vindicates the initial assertion that the grant may not be bad.

However, since the service of the citations on the possible intestate heirs of the alleged testator has not elicited any response, it is desirable that the propounder be required to prove the Will in solemn form.

Accordingly, GA No. 4023 of 2015 is disposed of by directing the Will propounded in PLA No. 325 of 2014 to be proved in solemn form.

There will be no order as to costs.”

In view of the order passed by this Court dated 22nd December, 2016, the appeal preferred by the respondent became infructuous and the same was dismissed by an order dated 17th January, 2017.

23. The petitioners raised the contentions that the property is a leased land and as per Clause 2 (e) of the lease deed, and without previous permission of the Government the same cannot be transferred. By an order dated 4th July, 2016 (Supra) this Court has also taken the same view but after hearing the State and after going through Clause 2(e) of the lease deed, this Court finds that as long as the leasehold right are not transferred inter vivos, permission of the Government is not necessary.

24. As regard the fact that, the Will is a forged one and the attesting witnesses are not known to the family members of the deceased and the signature appearing in the Will is not the actual signature of the testator namely Priyaranjan Jana, this Court by an order dated 22nd December, 2016, passed an order to the effect that : “However, since the service of the citations on the possible intestate heirs of the alleged testator has not been elicited any response, it is desirable that the propounder be required to prove the Will in solemn form”.

In terms of the order dated 22nd December, 2016, the respondent had examined the attesting witnesses of the Will before this Court and has proved the Will in solemn form in accordance with the provisions of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 .

After examination of the attesting witness, this Court by an order dated 7th April, 2017 had passed the following order:

“The Court: The attesting witness of the last Will and Testament of Priyaranjan Jana (Deceased) is examined in Court. The said attesting witness has proved the Will in solemn form. The attesting witness has proved the Will in accordance with the provision of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 . The Court is satisfied with the evidence adduced by the said attesting witness.

In view thereof, the probate is granted of the last Will and Testament of Priyaranjan Jana (Deceased).

PLA No. 325 of 2014 stands disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs.”

25. After grant of probate, the land was mutated In the name of the respondent on 17th January, 2019. After the mutation of the land, the respondent has applied for transfer of the lease hold Plot No. 10 in Economy Hetel Sector, Digha and on 4th February, 2019, the Digha Sankarpur Development Authority had granted permission to the respondent and thereafter on 15th February, 2019, an Indenture of Transfer is registered in favour of Hotel Soumyaditi Private Limited.

26. In the case of Promode Kumar Roy (Supra), the Division B