SURJYA BARO Vs. URMILA DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. DK Bordoloi, learned counsel for the appellants and Ms. S Chakraborty, Legal Aid Counsel on behalf of the respondents.

(2.) This first appeal depicts a very sorry state of affairs in the original jurisdiction of learned District Judge. A probate proceeding was instituted by three sons of Late Abhoy Baro stating that Abhoy Baro died on 21.04.2001 leaving behind three sons and three daughters. The three daughters have been named and their addresses have been furnished in paragraph 8 of the application. The three sons of the deceased claimed that deceased Abhoy Baro executed a registered Will bequeathing all his properties in favour of them and thus three daughters mentioned in paragraph 8 of the application were disinherited. The application was accompanied by verification of one attesting witness apart from affidavit filed by one of the petitioners. A copy of the Will was also annexed to the application along with death certificate of Abhoy Baro.

(3.) Upon such application being filed, Probate Case No. 232/2003 was registered. Two daughters, namely, Pramila Baro and Bimala Kalita appeared and submitted affidavit stating that they have no objection if the Will is probated. But the third daughter, namely, Urmila Das submitted written statement objecting to the probate prayer and stated that no such Will was ever executed by the testator and that execution, if there be any, was due to undue influence. The objector, therefore, prayed that the application for probate be rejected. In view of the contentions raised by the objector, the proceeding was converted in the form of a suit and this is how probate Case No. 232/2003 was registered.