RAMENDRA NATH MUKHERJEE Vs. SHIBARANI DEBI
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
RAMENDRA NATH MUKHERJEE
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) THIS Rule was obtained by the petitioners whose caveat (written statement) in the instant probate proceeding, pending before the learned District Judge, was rejected in limine upon the finding that, on the objection, taken in the said caveat, the petitioners had no locus standi as caveators.
(2.) THE probate proceeding in question relates to the Will of late Tarak Nath mukherjee of Uttarpara. In the caveat filed by the predecessor of the present petitioners, and adopted and pressed by them, an allegation was made inter alia as follows:
"that the deceased did not leave any assets and the list of property, moveable and immoveable. furnished in the affidavit of assets, does not comprise his property. These are property in which the deceased had only a limited estate in terms of the deed of settlement dated the 27th october, 1913, executed by Raja Peary mohan Mukherjee in favour of the deceased and as such the petition for grant of probate does not lie and the petition should be dismissed" [vide paragraph 5 of the above written statement (caveat) of the present petitioners].
(3.) UPON the above objection, the learned District Judge has held that the petitioners, as caveators, were trying to set up an adverse title to the deceased (testator) and were really denying the deceased's title to any property, which may be covered or affected by the Will, and, under the uniform decisions of the different High courts, such a caveat was not maintainable in law. The learned District judge referred, in particular, to the decision of this Court in Nabeen Chandra Sil v. Bhobosoondari Debee, (1)I. L. R. 6 Cal. 460, and to its later decision reported in Abhiram Dass v. Gopal dass, (2) I. L. R. 17 Cal. 48. The learned District Judge also referred to the several cases, cited on behalf of the petitioners, namely, Brindaban Chandra Saha v. Sureswar Sinha, (3) 10 c. L. J. 263, Nabin Chandra Guha v. Nibaran Chandra Biswas, (4) 36 c. W. N. 635. As, however, he was of the opinion that, under none of those decisions, and, particularly, in view, inter alia, of the decision of this Court in (2) I. L. R. 17 Cal. 48 supra, and the recent decision, reported in Southern bank Ltd. v. Kesardeo Ganeriwalla and others, (5) 62 C. W. N. 444, a caveat, containing an allegation of the type, set out above, cannot be entertained and the caveator would have no locus standi on such allegation to object to the grant of probate or to intervene in the probate proceeding, he discharged the petitioners' caveat.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.