MOUSHUMI BHATTACHARYA,J. - (1.) I have heard Counsel appearing for the parties and have considered the issues framed by them. It is agreed that TS No. 10 of 2015 and TS No. 4 of 2017 involves the same set of issues. The issues as settled are: TS No. 10 of 2015 Issues 1. Whether the last Will and Testament dated August 4, 2008 has been made and executed in accordance with law? 2. Whether the testatrix lacked testamentary capacity at the time of execution of her last Will and Testament dated August 4, 2008? 3. Whether the Will dated August 4, 2008 was executed under duress and undue influence of Chitralekha Sen, since deceased and Sugata Sen? 4. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to grant of Probate in respect of the last Will and Testament of Late Bela Chatterjee dated August 4, 2008? 5. Whether Smt.Bela Chatterjee executed the Will dated 4th August, 2008 with full senses and without of any influence being exercised on her. 6. Whether Smt. Bela Chatterjee executed the said Will on the basis of undue influence caused by her daughter and son-in-law. 7. Whether at the time of execution of the Will, Smt. Bela Chatterjee was physically and mentally sound. 8. Whether the properties and shares described in the affidavit of assets shall form part of the estate of Smt. Bela Chatterjee, upon her death. 9. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get the probate of the will executed by Smt. Bela Chatterjee dated 4th August, 2008 upon her death. 10. What relief or reliefs the plaintiff is entitled to. TS No. 4 of 2017 Issues 1. Whether the last Will and Testament dated August 4, 2008 has been made and executed in accordance with law? 2. Whether the testator lacked testamentary capacity at the time of execution of her last Will and Testament dated August 4, 2008? 3. Whether the Will dated August 4, 2008 was executed under duress and undue influence of Chitralekha Sen, since deceased and Sugata Sen? 4. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to grant of Probate in respect of the last Will and Testament of Late Rabindra Nath Chatterjee dated August 4, 2008? 5. Whether Rabindra Nath Chatterjee executed the Will dated 4th August, 2008 with full senses and without of any influence being exercised on him. 6. Whether Rabindra Nath Chatterjee executed the said Will on the basis of undue influence caused by her daughter and son-in-law. 7. Whether at the time of execution of the Will, Rabindra Nath Chatterjee was physically and mentally sound. 8. Whether the properties and shares described in the affidavit of assets shall form part of the estate of Rabindra Nath Chatterjee, upon his death. 9. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to get the probate of the will executed by Rabindra Nath Chatterjee dated 4th August, 2008 upon his death. 10. What relief or reliefs the plaintiff is entitled to. CS No. 106 of 2017 Issues 1. Whether the suit is barred by limitation. 2. What relief or reliefs the plaintiff is entitled to. 3. Whether the plaintiff can claim proprietary right, title or interest in the shares as mentioned in paragraph 6 of the plaint? 4. Whether the plaintiff as the second name joint holder of the De-Mat account No. 10081539 standing in the joint names of the plaintiff's mother, since deceased and the plaintiff is solely and exclusively entitled to the said shares standing in such account, after the death of plaintiff's mother, being the first named holder? 5. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to the entire amount of the sale proceeds together with interest accrued thereon kept in the fixed deposit account bearing no. 388381 maintained with Bank of Baroda, Beliaghata Branch, Kolkata ? 6. Whether the shares standing in the De-Mat account No. 10081539 standing in the joint names of the plaintiff's mother, since deceased and the plaintiff as well as the sale proceeds standing in the fixed deposit A/c No. 388381 from part of the estate of the plaintiff's mother Bela Chatterjee, since deceased.
(2.) Counsel for the propounder submits that his first witness will be the attending witness since both the attesting witnesses have died. He, however, submits that this matter is worthy of resolution of the disputes involved since the subject matter of the three suits concern family members.
(3.) Counsel appearing for the defendant in the first two suits and the plaintiff in the third (the son of the deceased) is not averse to this suggestion and assures this Court that best efforts will be made by both the parties to settle the matter. However, in the event the settlement does not work, list this matter on 5th September, 2018 for examination-in-chief of the plaintiff's witness in the testamentary suits.;