RANJIT KUMAR BAG,J. - (1.) One Profulla Churn Law executed his last will and testament on September 24, 1976 in respect of his estate and properties and appointed his son and wife as joint executor and executrix respectively in respect of the said will. Profulla Churn Law died on May 12, 2011 leaving behind his wife - Sova Law, son - Atin Law, daughter - Shelly Roy Chowdhury and daughter - Shyamali Dutta, as his legal heirs. Satya Charan Pain, Santosh Kumar Pain, Hari Prasad Nath, Achala Nath Ganguly and Sanat Kumar Mukherjee are the attesting witnesses of the said will dated September 24, 1976. The deceased left the properties situated within as well as outside jurisdiction of the High Court at Calcutta. The wife, Sova Law and the son, Atin Law, have prayed for grant of probate of the said will dated September 24, 1976. Sova Law - wife of the deceased - Profulla Churn Law, died during pendency of the probate proceedings and her name was removed as executrix of the will from the record. The citation was served on two daughters, who entered appearance and filed separate affidavits in support of the caveats and thereby the probate proceeding was converted to Testamentary Suit.
(2.) The defendant Shelly Roy Chowdhury challenged the execution and attestation of the will dated September 24, 1976 by filing the affidavit in support of the caveat. It appears from the said affidavit that she was married to one Dipak Roy Chowdhury in the year 1971 and her eldest daughter was born in the year 1973. It is contended that the testator of the will raised objection against marriage of Shelly Roy Chowdhury with Dipak Roy Chowdhury. The further contention made out in the affidavit is that the relation between the father and the daughter became normal in the year 1974 and the daughter, Shelly Roy Chowdhury had unrestricted entry into the house of her parents from the year 1974 onwards. This defendant attended and participated in all social and religious functions in the family of her parents from the year 1974 onwards. The contention of the defendant is that her father could not have executed the will out of his own volition. The manner of disposition of the property by the testator indicates that the testator was unduly influenced by the son of the testator who happens to be the beneficiary of the will. It is also contended that full assets were not disclosed by the propounder of the will in order to lower down the valuation of the property of the testator. The defendant has specifically stated in the affidavit that the testator had no sound disposing mind and testamentary capacity to execute the will on September 24, 1976. The specific contention of the defendant is that the plaintiff dominated the will of the testator and influenced him to dispose of his estate and property in favour of the son of the testator. The defendant Shelly Roy Chowdhury has prayed for dismissal of the suit.
(3.) The defendant Shyamali Dutta has also challenged the execution and attestation of the will dated September 24, 1976 by filing an affidavit sworn by the husband of the said defendant. The defendant has contended that the testator was alive till the age of 91 years and as such there was no reason for the testator to make arrangement for disposition of his estate and property at the age of 55 years when the will is alleged to have been executed. It is further contended that the testator suffered from various medical complications and was mentally indisposed to comprehend the effect of the execution of the will. It is alleged that the son of the testator being the beneficiary of the will gave constant provocation to the testator of the will to dispose of the property in his favour. The signature of the testator on the will dated September 24, 1976 is denied by this defendant. It is further alleged that the plaintiff manipulated the decision of the testator and compelled him to execute and register the will when the testator was not aware of the contents of the said will. The specific allegation made by the defendant is that the will dated September 24, 1976 is vitiated by false personification. This defendant has prayed for dismissal of the suit.;