MADHAB BOHARA Vs. BRAJA KISHORE NANDA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal filed by caveator-defendants 2 to 5 is directed against the order dated 22-9-1990 of the learned District Judge, Puri granting letter of administration in favour of respondent No. 1.

(2.) Respondent No. 1 made an application for grant of letter of administration (with the copy of the will annexed to the estate of the deceased Sarajumani Dashi) to the learned District Judge, Puri which was registered as O.S. No. 1 of 1986-11.

(3.) The case of respondent No. 1 is that the deceased Sarajumani Dashi was a disciple of late Taponidhi Ramakrushna Bharati Goswamy. She had entered into the religious order of Vaishnav Cult and was residing at Bharati Math, Badhoibanks Chhak, Old Bhubaneswar. She was the owner and in possession of agricultural as well as homestead lands. On 15-1-1982, she executed a will in his (respondent No. 1s) favour bequeathing her agricultural land measuring Ac. 4.187 and homestead land along with house standing thereon. The will was registered on the very day before the District Sub-Registrar, Bhubaneswar. Although the registered will was handed over to him, the same having been lost, a certified copy thereof was obtained and was filed along with the application. Sarajumani Dashi died on 5-6-1983. During the period between the execution of the will and her death, she had disposed of some properties bequeathed under the will. Therefore, at the time of her death, she only left behind Ac. 3.597 of agricultural land and Ac. 0.046 decimals of homestead land. These lands have ultimately come to his (respondent No. 1 s) hands by virtue of the will who is the sole legatee under the will and no executor was appointed. Death duty on the value of the estate of the testatrix as assessed by the Assistant Collector of Estate Duty, Orissa, had been paid by him and clearance certificate was obtained on 4-3-1985. Although there were two sets of caveators, this appeal has been filed by only one set. Their common case is that the testatrix was not a Sanyasini and was not residing in Bharati Math. She had never executed any will and the properties mentioned therein have not come to the hands of respondent No. 1 at any time. According to them, the will is a forged and fabricated one. It was also not duly and properly executed nor attested. The death certificate of the testatrix is also a fabricated one. According to the appellant, the testatrix was staying in the house of appellant No. 1 during her life-time and after her death, the estate is in his possession. The other appellants claim that the testatrix was being maintained by them and appellant No. 1 jointly who was residing with them and died in their residence.