MILAN DAS Vs. SANDIP DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been preferred challenging the judgment dtd. 1/2/1999 passed by the learned District Judge, Howrah in Probate Case No. 03 of 2014 dismissing the application for grant of probate of the Will made and published by Netai Chandra Das, in a contentious cause.

(2.) The application for grant of probate accompanied by an affidavit of assets was filed by one Sri Milan Das (in short, Milan) stating inter alia that one Netai Chandra Das (in short, Netai) was the owner of the said assets and prior to his death on 20/6/2003, he voluntarily executed a deed of Will on 7/1/2023 and the same was registered on the self-same date. Claiming the said Will to be his last Will and testament, Netai settled his right, title and interest in the assets in favour of his only son, namely, Sandip Das (in short, Sandip) and his nephew, namely, Milan. The said Will was executed by Netai in presence of two attesting witnesses, namely, Uttam Das and Tapan Samanta and registered on the same date. The said Will was drafted by Sujit Bag, Advocate, Howrah Court and the same was typed by one Ashish Chakraborty, Howrah Court. Milan was appointed as the executor of the said Will. In the said application it was also specifically averred that Netai put his Left Thumb Impression (in short, LTI) on every page of the Will voluntarily, without any influence from any corner and in presence of the attesting witnesses and such LTI was identified by Sandip. Netai's wife, namely, Latika Das (in short, Latika) predeceased him and Sandip was their sole heir.

(3.) The probate application was contested by Sandip by filing a caveat and an affidavit in support thereof. In the said affidavit Sandip stated inter alia that Milan had no relation with Netai and was not an heir of Netai. Taking the advantage of acute mental and physical illness of Netai and the simplicity of Sandip, Milan prepared a Will by practicing fraud and misrepresentation.