SACHI DULAL SAHA Vs. SARASWATI MONDAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal from judgment and decree, dated 24th August, 1982 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court on an application of the propounder for a probate of the Will, dated 29th June, 1979 executed by Sushila Bala Saha, mother of the propounder.

(2.) By this judgment and decree the learned Trial Judge granted probate in favour of the propounder to the said Will and testament of Sushila Bala Saha dated 29th June, 1979.

(3.) The said Sushila Bala Saha died on 16th March, 1980. She executed her last Will and Testament in English language and character on 29th June, 1979 wherein she appointed the propounder Sm. Saraswati Mondal, her daughter, as executrix of the said Will and Testament. Under the said Will the executrix left behind her estate in favour of her daughter Sm. Saraswati Mondal, who is the respondent before us. She is the sole legatee under the said Will. On intestacy the properties left behind by the testatrix would have devolved on Sri Sachi Dulal Saha, the only son, who is the appellant before us and Sm. Saraswati Mondal, the propounder and Sm. Lakshmi Pramanik, daughters of the testatrix. On citations being issued, the caveat was entered into by the son of the testatrix Sri Sachi Dulal Saha, the appellant. In the affidavit filed in support of the caveat, the appellant contended that the testatrix during her lifetime was under the sole control and dominance of the propounder. He has also disputed the validity and legality of the Will executed on 29th June, 1979. The appellant, by the said affidavit, has also disputed the testamentary capacity of the testatrix, who executed the said Will. The appellant has also taken a point that the property left behind by the testatrix was an undivided half share in the premises No. 5A, Rammohan Saha Lane, Calcutta and according to the terms of settlement filed in another Testamentary Suit No. 8A of 1973 before this Court on 14th September, 1973 a decree was passed in the said testamentary suit recording said terms of settlement whereby the testatrix had only life interest and on her death the appellant would become entitled to the said property. Therefore, according to the appellant the testatrix had no power to dispose of the said property by her said Will and testament.