GUNJARIDAS Vs. SUBAL CHANDRA DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant. None has appeared on behalf of the respondents inspite of notice, when this matter was called for hearing.

(2.) IT appears from the materials on record and the submissions made by the said learned Advocate that one Sri Bhundul Das made an application for grant of probate in respect of the registered WILL and last testament dated 7th April, 1982 executed by one Smt. Bakya Bewa whereby she bequeathed the properties mentioned in the said WILL in favour of the said sri Bhundul Das and the appellant (Smt. Gunjari Das ). Bhundul Das was the eldest son of the testatrix, and Smt. Gunjari Das (appellant) is the widow of the pre-deceased son of the testatrix namely, Rajendra Nath Das. It also appears that in the said WILL it has been stated that after the death of the testatrix the said Sri Bhundul Das and the appellant should obtain probate of the WILL from a proper Court of Law. It further appears that the said bakya Bewa had another son namely, Sundar Das, who also pre-deceased the said testatrix but the testatrix did not bequeath any property in favour of the heir and legal representatives of Sundar Das under the said WILL. Bhundul Das made an application for grant of probate in respect of the said will but he died during the pendency of the proceedings before the Learned court below and the present appellant was transposed to the category of the applicant for the grant of probate.

(3.) THE said application for grant of probate was contested by Subal das, son of late Sundar Das, who happened to be the defendant No. 2 in the said proceeding which was converted into a suit being O. S. No. 6 of 1988 before the Learned District Judge, Alipore. The said suit was re-numbered as O. S. No. 7 of 1991 and it was placed for hearing before the learned 11th Additional District Judge, Alipore. It appears that only the defendant No. 2, that is, the aforesaid Subal Das, contested the said proceeding by filing a written statement alleging inter alia that the testatrix had no physical or mental condition to make the said WILL and she had no intention to make such WILL. He further alleged that the testatrix was an illiterate person and could not understand the implication of the said WILL and the said WILL was not executed by the testatrix and the left thumb impression was not given by the testatrix and the said WILL is vitiated by fraud and collusion between the plaintiff and other interested persons. The said defendant No. 2 further stated in his written statement that there was a deed of gift in respect of a portion of the property in the suit.