SADANANDA PYNE Vs. HARINAM SHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The principal question for decision in this appeal is whether the Dikshaguru of a Hindu not being the person who invested him with the sacred thread is his heir, on failure of other heirs. The appeal is against the decision of a Probate Court, allowing an application for revocation of a probate that bad been granted of a will of one Manmatha Nath Mandal, who will be later referred to simply as Manmatha. Manmatha died in July 1933, leaving his widow Manada Bala Dassi hereinafter referred to as Manada. Manada died in 1945. Disputes arose over properties left by Manmatha, after the death of Manada, between purchasers from Pachkari Bhuian who sold as a guardian of Gokul said to have been adopted by Manmatha and the purchaser from Janaki Nath Chakravarti who claimed to be Manmatha's heir on the death of Manada, on the ground that he was Manmatha's "Dikshaguru". On 23rd August 1945, Panchkari Bhuian applied for Probate of a will said to have been left by Manmatha. He stated therein that there was no other heir of the deceased except Gokul Chandra Mandal, who had been taken in adoption by Manmatha. No special citation was, therefore, issued, and Probate was granted in November 1945, On the last May 1946, Harinam Sha filed an application for revocation of Probate. He stated therein that the will was a forged document, that the story of adoption of Gokul was false, that Manmatha had died leaving Manada as his heir, and on Manada's death, as no blood relations who would be heirs according to Hindu law existed, Manmatha's Dikshaguru Janaki Nath Chakravarty (who will be hereinafter referred to as Janaki) succeeded to Manmatha's estate as his heir, but this fact was fraudulently concealed in the application for probate, and probate was obtained without any citation being issued on Janaki. It was stated that Harinam had purchased the properties of Manmatha from Janaki by registered Kobala on 2lst June 1945. The main contentions of Panchkari Bhuian, in reply to this application were that the will was genuine, that Gokul was really the adopted son of Manmatha, and that Janaki was not Dikshaguru of Manmatha. These contentions were adopted by Sadananda Pyne, who was added as a party. At the trial, the dispute centred round the question of law, whether a Dikshaguru is the heir of a Hindu, on failure of nearer heirs. The first question that was raised was whether Harinam Sha, as purchaser from Janaki, had locus standi to apply for revocation of probate, the other question was whether non-mention of Janaki as an heir was a "just cause for revocation of the Probate." The decision of both these questions turned on the question whether Janaki would be Manmatha's heir, on failure of nearer heirs. The learned trial Court held that Janaki was an heir; under the Hindu law, and allowed the application for revocation.

(2.) Before entering into the question whether Janaki, as Dikshaguru, is an heir under the Hindu law, it is necessary to consider the contention of Mr. Apurbadhan Mukherji the learned advocate for the respondent that Harinam Sha, has locus standi to apply for revocation for probate, even if Janaki is not an heir, and so Harinam has not acquired any interest in the property by his purchase from Janaki. Mr. Mukherji contends that the mere fact that Harinam was in actual possession of the property gives him an interest in the property, which gives him a locus standi. If Janaki was not Manmatha's heir, Harinam has acquired no interest by his purchase from Janaki and Harinam's possession is merely a trespasser's possession. Does possession as a trespasser amount to an interest which gives the locus standi to apply for revocation of probate

(3.) Mr. Mukherji relied for his proposition that a trespasser has locus standi to file an application for probate on the dictum in Mortimer's Probate and Practice, which was accepted by Mukherjee J. in Haripada Saha v. Ghanesyam Saha, 49 C. W. N. 713, that any interest is sufficient to gives locus standi. There can be no doubt whatsoever that both Mortimer and Mukherji J. are thinking of some interest in law--some legal title, however remote or however slight when they say" any interest is sufficient . . . ." A trespasser has no interest in law; if he may be said to have a "possessing interest" it has to be remembered that the possession being without title, this interest is against 'law'.