SM SHOSHI MUKHI DEBYA Vs. KESHAB LAL MUKHERJI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application by Srimathi Shoshi Mukhi Debya to restrain Keshab Lal Mukherji from proceeding with case No. 138 of 1922 now pending before the Calcutta Improvement Tribunal until the final determination of this suit, or in the alternative for the transfer of the case to this Court for determination with this suit or in the alternative for revision of the order of the Tribunal of the 14 August 1922.

(2.) The facts are shortly as follows: One Panchanon Bannerjee died on the 19 July 1878 leaving him surviving his widow, the plaintiff Srimathi Shoshi Mukhi, and three daughters. One daughter is dead and the surviving daughters are co-plaintiffs with her in the suit. Pachanon left a Will, dated the 23 June 1878, whereby he appointed one Kenaram Bannerjee and one Tripura Sundari Debi executor and executrix. Probate was granted to Kenaram alone on the 4 December 1901 out of the Hughli Court. By Clause 8 of the Will it was provided that any of the executors should in case of death be able to appoint by will another executor to carry out the directions of the will. Kenaram died on the 7 September 1921 having by his Will dated the 30 September 1905 appointed the defendant executor of his Will and also executor and trustee of Panchanon's estate. The Defendant proved Kenaram's Will in this Court on the 21st February 1912; he has not I understand, applied for administration de bonis non of Pachanon's estate. Whether this was necessary or not it is not necessary for me to decide for the purposes of this application.

(3.) Srimathi Shoshi Mukhi states that in February of this year she came to learn that a scheme had been framed (I suppose by the Improvement Trust) for the acquisition of 11, Sooterkin's Lane, one of the properties of the estate. On the 8 March 1922, she filed a petition before the 2nd Land Acquisition Collector stating that the defendant had no title to the property and that upon the true construction of Panchanon's will she was entitled to the premises and to the rents, issues and profits thereof for her life and asking that her name should be recorded as a person interested and that upon an award being made the matter should be referred to the Court of the Calcutta Improvement Tribunal for the determination of her rights.