- (1.) The Judgment of the Court was as follows : THE Motion in the aforesaid application has been taken out for revocation of grant of the probate dated 12th October, 2007 in P.L.A. 108 of 2007 and also interim relief incidental thereto.
(2.) In the petition the ground for revocation is that after the probate having been granted another subsequent Will and testament dated 23rd December, 2005 has been discovered. Thus, it constitutes "just cause" within the meaning of Section 263 of the INdian Succession Act, 1925 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act of 1925'). The case of the petitioner is that one Anil Kumar Basu has executed last Will and Testament on 23rd December, 2005 bequeathing unto and in favour of the applicant Suprotim, 94,260 number of equity shares in three companies namely Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Limited, The Adarsha Cotton Spinning and Weaving Mills Limited and The United Vegetable Manufacturers Limited to the exclusion of all others. It is contended in the petition that he was not aware of the earlier Will dated 30th March, 2005 to which probate has been granted by this Court. It is alleged that he was not cited though he is the son of niece of the said testator Anil Kumar Basu. Having come to know of the grant and existence of the said Will he had applied for certified copy thereof as well as the grant and other cause papers in the said probate proceedings. He came to know thence that by the earlier Will not only the shares but also 50% ownership of the premises No. 1A, Outram Street, Kolkata -700 017 have been bequeathed and/or given away in favour of the said Sujoy Kumar Basu. In the said Will one Ranjit Kumar Basu, Advocate has been appointed Executor for obtaining grant of probate. The said executor applied for and did obtain grant. He has admitted in his petition that said 50% share of the property given away under the Will has been sold away after obtaining the grant, however, he is not concerned with the share of the immovable property. This application is opposed not only by the beneficiary of the earlier Will but also by the named executor who has obtained the probate of the same had filed affidavit. It is appropriate to mention that at the time of filing of the said application no probate proceeding in relation to the alleged last Will and testament was initiated. In or about January 2009 during pendency of this application an application was made for obtaining probate to the District delegate in the District of 24 Parganas (South).
(3.) After affidavit-in-opposition and affidavit-in-reply are filed, the aforesaid subsequent development was brought to the notice of the Court by filing a supplementary affidavit by the applicant. The said supplementary affidavit was also dealt with by filing further affidavit by the respondents. In the affidavit-in-opposition it is alleged that subsequent document is not a genuine one and in any event the said last instrument does not record revocation of the earlier Will and furthermore this alleged last Will concern the shares only and has nothing to do with the immovable property.;