SURESH CHANDRA AGARWAL Vs. RAJU AGARWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appeal arises out of an order dated May 4, 2017 by which an application by one of the joint executors named in the Will and who has applied individually for grant of probate, has been, in effect, rejected.

(2.) There is no dispute that Suresh Chandra Agarwal died in 2010 after having executed a Will on or about April 25, 2009. There is also no dispute that in terms of clause 6 of the Will, the appellant herein and the principal respondent, Raju and Manoj, respectively, were appointed joint executors of the Will. One of the prayers in the application which has been disposed of by the order impugned was that the original Will should be directed to be produced from the custody of the widow of the testator. Pursuant to a request by this Bench, the original Will has been carried to Court by Advocate representing the widow of the testator. According to the appellant, subject to the Will being probated, the widow of the testator has a life interest in the immovable property at Seal Lane, Tangra; but the widow has granted tenancies or allowed Manoj or even strangers to occupy portions of the immovable property with the intention of defeating the legacy in favour of the appellant. According to the appellant, the widow could not have exercised any rights in respect of the immovable property without first probate of the Will being obtained.

(3.) The appellant also refers to the widow lodging a caveat despite the original Will being in her possession. The appellant submits that the widow of the testator is in the grip of Manoj and Manoj has been manipulating her to wrest control of the entire estate of the testator to the exclusion of the appellant. The appellant claims that the circumstances as were demonstrated before the trial Court were such that an administrator pendente lite was required to be appointed to preserve the estate and to arrest the acts of waste indulged in by the widow or by Manoj by using the name of the widow.