LAWS(CAL)-1982-1-20

GOLOK CHANDRA BERA Vs. GOLAPI BEWA

Decided On January 28, 1982
Golok Chandra Bera Appellant
V/S
GOLAPI BEWA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present application for grant of a probate was filed by one Golak Chandra Bera, who is one of the alleged executors of the will said to have been executed by the deceased, Trailokya. The allegation is that on the 20th October, 1955, he duly executed a will in favour of his relatives in presence of attesting witnesses. The suit was contested by his widow, Golapi, (defendant no. 1) and also by one Gitanjali Pramanick, (defendant no. 3), who filed separate written statements. Their defence is almost on similar lines. They allege inter alia that Trailokya did not execute any such will. It was manufactured after his death.

(2.) The learned Subordinate Judge disbelieved the plaintiff's version and said that the suspicious circumstances had not been removed. The will in question was not conscious act of Trailokya and it was not a genuine document. The prayer was, therefore, refused and the suit was dismissed.

(3.) The learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant has stated that the learned Subordinate Judge did not refer to many documentary evidence including the letters, (Ext. 2 series) written by one Bimalananda, son of Trailokya's brother, Baikuntha and husband of defendant no. 3, Gitanjali. He renounced the world, became an ascetic and used to live in Gauriya Math from before 1955. Consequently, Trailokya thought it proper not to give any portion of his property by the disputed with (Ext. 1) to Bimalananda or to any member of his family or to his wife, Gitanjali. After becoming an ascetic, he assumed the name of Brajendra Nandan Das. These letters show that though he had renounced the world, he asked for money from his father regularly from before 1955. Even when he was a student of College, he wrote a letter, Ext. 2 (i) dated 9 -10 -1947 to his sister, Asha. That letter clearly shows his bent of mind. The Court will have no hesitation in holding that he was a religious type of man from Ms student days. Therefore he left the world, as stated by P.W.3, Rakhal, and other P. Ws. This has also been stated in the documentary evidence, Ext. 3, executed by Golapi on the 16th October, 1966. Of course, the will was executed in 1955, but the present suit filed in 1968. But proper explanation has been given by P. W. 6, Golak, executor of the will. He had stated that there was Bhag Chas and thus a search was made by P. W. 5, Bibekananda, for Trailokya's documents. After that search, the present will, Ext, 1, was discovered in Baisakh, 1375 B. S. So, delay has been sufficiently explained and all the suspicious circumstances have been removed. Of course, subsequently, Trailokya and Golapi purported to take Bimalanda as their adopted son and had also executed a document (Ext. O) on the 8th November, 1957, stating that Bimalananda was their adopted son, But that deed has been declared invalid by the High Court, because at the time of the alleged adoption Bimalanda was a married fellow. Gitanjali has no locus standi to contest the suit because Bimalananda is alive and he did not contest the suit.