ALPANA MUKHERJEE Vs. GOUTAM MUKHERJEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The hearing stems from an appeal preferred by the defendants/appellants against the judgment and decree dated 31.03.2000 passed by the Id. Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Calcutta in O.C. Case No. 9 of 1997.

(2.) A thumbnail sketch of the petitioner's case is that Rama Devi, lately a resident of premises No. 112G, Acharya Prafulla Chandra Road, P.S. Amherst Street, Calcutta - 700 009, went under forced circumstances to her sister's residence at Andul Mouri, Howrah for her security and nursing and there she fell ill and died on 08.07.95. But before her death during her stay there she duly executed her last and only Will and Testament dated 28.12.94 appointing the petitioner as executor to her said Will. The testatrix Rama Devi at the time of her death left behind her sole daughter Smt. Purnima Chatterjee, a resident of Lucknow in the State of Uttar Pradesh as sole beneficiary under the Will, Miss Anindita Mukherjee & Miss Paramita Mukherjee being the daughters of her pre-deceased son Ramendra Nath Mukherjee. No other application for grant of probate or letters of administration in respect of the assets and properties of the deceased has been made.

(3.) The suit was contested by the defendants Alpana Mukherjee, daughter- in-law of the testatrix and two granddaughters Anindita Mukherjee and Paramita Mukherjee by filing a written statement inter alia denying the material allegations made in the application. Their case, in short, is that Ramendra Nath Mukherjee, husband of Alpana, who was the absolute owner of premises No. 112B, Acharya Prafulla Chandra Road, Calcutta - 700 009 had also 1/3rd share in premises No. 112G, Acharya Prafulla Chandra Road and on his death, the defendants and Rama Devi became joint owners of undivided 3/4lh share of premises No. 112B, Acharya Prafulla Chandra Road, having 1/4h share each, and also 3/4th share of the l/3rd share of Ramendra in premises No. 112G, Acharya Prafulla Chandra Road. During the lifetime of Ramendra, the defendants and Rama Devi used to stay together in one mess. Smt. Purnima Chatterjee, daughter of the deceased, was married long before and is living with her husband in Lucknow. After the death of Ramendra, defendant No. 1 was forced to live separately with her two minor daughters defendant Nos. 2 & 3 with great difficulty in premises No. 112B, Acharya Prafulla Chandra Road which is now entirely in possession of the defendants. The testatrix had no testamentary capacity to execute the Will nor was she aware of the contents of the Will, and she was forced to execute the Will in favour of her daughter Purnima. The present application has been made only to deprive the defendants of their legitimate right in the properties and to harass them, and hence the application merits dismissal.