MIRA ROY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revisional proceeding raises a question of first impression.

(2.) One Smt. Giribala Devi died testate, leaving a will whereby she had nominated her grandson, Sri Hirak Roy, as the sole executor. On or about 3.11.83 the said executor applied for probate, giving rise to the instant probate proceeding, before the learned District Delegate, 24-Parganas. It is unfortunate that the said probate proceeding remained pending only for the purpose of valuation report of the Collector for more than 8 years. During the pendency of the said proceeding there were various litigations, going upto the Hon'ble Supreme Court, as off shoots of the said probate proceeding. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, however, by its order dated 18.11.91 issued a mandate for disposing of the probate proceeding within a period of two months. The learned District Delegate fixed up the hearing of the pro- bate matter on 3.1.92, when two applications were filed before him--one by the executor praying for leave to amend the probate application by incorporating 17 names including one of the executor's wife, 16 out of the said 17 persons, that is, all except the executor's wife, the petitioner before us, proposed to be added to the probate proceeding, appeared in Court and expressed their consent to the grant of probate. The wife of the executor Mrs. Mira Roy, filed a so called caveat expressing her intention to oppose the grant of probate and prayed for conversion of the probate proceeding into a contentious case. She, inter alia, pleaded, in her application, that she was a beneficiary under a previous will, which, she has now alleged in this Revisional Court, to be in the custody of one of the said 16 persons. The learned District Delegate having rejected her application, the present revisional application has been preferred on her behalf.

(3.) Before us detailed submissions have been made by the learned Advocates for the contesting parties and the question, which we are invited to decide, upon consideration of such submissions, relates to the scope, extent, authority and jurisdiction of the District Delegate in terms of section 283 of the Indian Succession Act. It has been contended on behalf of the revisional petitioner that as soon as caveat is filed, constituting a contest within the meaning of explanation to section 283 of the Indian Succession Act viz., appearance for the purpose of opposing the grant of probate, the proceeding for grant of probate becomes a contentious one and the learned District Delegate loses jurisdiction to deal with it in any manner save by transferring the same for adjudication by the learned District Judge. On behalf of the contesting parties, who are beneficiaries under the present will, it has been urged that mere appearance for the purpose of opposing the grant of probate does not divest the District Delegate of the jurisdiction, at least, to decide about the bona fides of such opposition, which necessarily involves the question of locus standi of the objector or caveator.