HRIDAY CHAND PATRA Vs. BHABARANI DASI AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The short point, but no less important, that arises for consideration in this application is whether a probate proceeding should be dismissed on the basis of a compromise arrived between the parties to such proceeding. The petitioners in this application are the caveator and the caveatrices in the probate proceeding, which after being marked as contentions cause has been numbered as Testamentary Suit No. 2 of 1967 and they are opposing the grant of the probate of the will of one Sm. Sudha Bala Dasi, deceased. The respondent herein Hriday Channd Patra, the executor appointed by the said will is the propounder of the said will and plaintiff in the above suit. The petitioners' main player in this application is that the terms of settlement dated 24th of Aug., 1976 be recorded and the suit be dismissed and/or decreed accordingly. there are also other prayers in the petition.

(2.) In view of the limited nature of controversy mentioned above, it is not necessary to set out the facts in any detail but I shall refer only to those facts which are relevant for the purpose of appreciating the controversy. involved in this application as stated hereinbefore.

(3.) The hearing of the above. suit commenced before me on the 12th of July, 1976 and, thereafter, it was heard for several days. During the hearing of the suit the parties obtained adjournment of the same on the ground that they would settle their disputes and differences. There after, the parties compromised their disputes and differences and a draft terms of settle nest recording the compromise signed by the parties were produced in Court on the 28th of July, 1976 but inasmuch as all the parties were not present on that date further adjournment was obtained in o wet to enable the parties to come ready with the signed terms of settlement for filing thereof. The compromise was on the footing that Hriday would not proceed with the application for grant of probate of the will and that some payments would be made to him by the petitioners herein as filly mentioned in the terms of settlement a copy of which is an annexure to the petition. On the 24th Aug., 1976 the suit appeared in my daily list for being taken up at 2 P.M. On that date all the parties were present in Court with the signed terms of settlement and with certain sum to be paid by the petitioners to the respondent but as there was a Full Court reference in the afternoon on that date I had to rise and, therefore the filing of the terms of settlement, was postponed until the next day. On the next day the suit appeared again in my list and on that day counsel appearing for the respondent informed me that his client was not agreeable- to withdraw the application for grant of probate as stated in the terms of settlement. In other words, the respondent Hriday did not want of stick to the compromise embodied in the terms of settlement. As the petitioner's counsel informed me that his clients would take step for enforcement of the terms of settlement, I directed that the same should be kept with the suit papers. Thereafter, this application has been made by the petitioners for reliefs mentioned hereinabove.