AMAL BHUSAN BANERJEE Vs. HIMANGSU KUMAR BARDHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 22nd June, 2000 passed by the Additional District Judge, 3rd Court at Alipore in O.S. No. 5 of 1995. The said judgment and decree was passed upon an application made by the appellant for appointment of himself as an Administrator of the estate left by the deceased-testator. The testator one Bhujanga Bhusan Banerjee had executed a Will in which an Executor, namely, Bimal Bhusan Banerjee, was appointed. Bimal Bhusan applied for probate. All the heirs of Bhujanga Bhusan Banerjee had given consent in writing. A probate was duly granted in favour of Bimal Bhusan Banerjee. It appears that before the estate could be administered by the Executor pursuant to the probate granted, the said Bimal Bhusan Banerjee died. Therefore, the appellant had applied for grant of letters of administration in his favour. This is objected to by the other heirs. In their objections, one Nirmal Bhusan Banerjee was supported. The Court after hearing the parties and perusing the materials on record found Nirmal Bhusan Banerjee fit for grant of letters of administration and not the appellant. In arriving at such a decision, the Court has given reasons relying on the deposition and other materials produced before the Court.

(2.) The learned Counsel appearing for the appellant contends relying on Sec. 258 of the Indian Succession Act that the appellant has asked for grant of letters of administration in his favour as a representative for administering the un-administered estate of the testator. The appellant had put in the Court fees and had taken all other steps for administering the estate. He is now out of the estate. He badly requires accommodation in the estate.

(3.) On the other hand, Nirmal Bhusan Banerjee is not interested in residing in the property. He is residing outside the property. He is not interested in administering the estate. On the other hand, the objectors are interested in delaying the process. Thus, according to him, he is the person, who had applied for administration and is fit and as such, administration ought to have been granted in his favour. He further contends that Nirmal Bhusan Banerjee had never applied for administration. As such, he could not be preferred to the appellant.