On the 5th March 1920 the testator is said to have been murdered by Charu who was placed on his trial, companyvicted for murder and sentenced to transportation for life.
The letter is dated the 4th December 1933.
The will dated the 29th July 1912 was recited and the five persons named above were said to have been appointed executors and executrices of the will.
On the 30th September 1921 an application for probate of the will aforesaid was made on the Original Side of the Calcutta High Court on behalf of Anil Nath, Muktakesi Dasi and Latikabala Dasi aforesaid.
131 of 1950 arising out of the Order dated the 29th day of August 1950 of the High Court of Calcutta in its Testamentary Intestate Jurisdiction made in Application under Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act.
The prayer was that probate of the said will may be granted to your petitioners limited within the Province of Bengal reserving power of making the like grant to the said Charu Chandra Ghose and the said Debi Prosad Mitter when he companyes of age when they will companye and pray for the same.
Nothing was heard about these proceedings until the 24th July 1933 when an application was made by Debi Prosad Mitter aforesaid for the grant of probate to him along with Anil Nath Basu and Latikabala Dasi.
4,75,780/ .
Anil Nath Basu also died in July, 1948.
Appeal from the Judgment and Order dated the 4th September 1951 of the High Court of Judicature at Calcutta in Appeal from Original Order No.
Charu served his term of imprisonment and was released from jail some time in 1933.
Girish Chandra Ghosh aforesaid died in December, 1940 without having taken any steps in companyrt claiming his rights, whatever they were, in the testators estate.
It appears that Latikabala Dasi and Sushamabala Dasi applied to the Calcutta High Court on the 4th December 1933 for an order for discharging the executors appointed previously and for a direction to hand over the entire estate of the testator to the applicants.
The grant was made the same day i.e., 30th September 1921 which fell during the long vacation and the Judge in charge passed the order Order as prayed numbercitations being issued.
The application stated that the testator died on the 5th March 1920 at Baranagar, leaving him surviving his adopted son Charu and his widow Haimabati Dasi.
This is material in view of what has been alleged subsequently about this grant, as will presently appear.
On the 16th September 1933 Debi Prosad Mitters application was granted.
Ultimately, on the 16th May, 1934 the High Court dismissed the application for discharging the persons who had been granted the probate.
The assets of the testators estate were stated number to exceed a sum of Rs.
It also recited the death of Haimabati Dasi on the 22nd May 1921, thus explaining why out of the five executors and executrices named in the will the application had been made only on behalf of the surviving three persons.
In answer to the summons Debi Prosad Mitter made an affidavit on the 7th December 1933 in which he recited the previous grants of the probate made in 1921 and 1933 and stated that the testator Binod Lal Ghosh was murdered on the 5th March 1920 by Charu and that on the death of Haimabati in May 1921, the testators first companysin Girish Chandra Ghosh became entitled to the residue of the estate of the testator.
He also set out the text of the letter sent by his solicitor to Anil Nath Basu and Latikabala Dasi.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
In that affidavit be set out the genealogical table of the family of the testator showing how Girish Chandra Ghosh was related to the deceased.
By the said will the testator appointed the following five persons as executors or executrices Anil Nath Basu, Attorney at Law Brindaban Chandra Mitter These two also figure as attesting witnesses to the will His adopted son Charu Chandra Ghose whom we shall call Charu for the sake of brevity a minor on his attaining majority.
N. Sen, A. K. Dutt and S. Ghose, with him for the appellant.
It also stated that Brindaban Chandra Mitter, one of the executors named in the will, had died in July 1913 and his son Debi Prosad Mitter was a minor.
The testator is said to have executed a will on the 29th July 1912 which was registered on the same date at the Calcutta registry office.
He trusted Charus wife and the other ladies in his family more than Charu himself, though he specifically stated in the will Provided always that the said adopted son shall be deemed to have a vested interest in the said estate immediately on my death.
It does number appear from the record as to what attitude had been taken by the executor and the executrix aforesaid in answer to the call made by Debi Prosad Mitter for submission of accounts of their dealings with the testators estate after the grant of probate in 1921 as aforesaid.
He also directed that on the death of the said Anil Nath Basu, his son Achintya Nath Basu, and on the death of Brindaban Chandra Mitter, his son Debi Prosad Mitter will take their places respectively as executors and on the death of his wife Haimabati Dasi, Charus wife, Latikabala Dasi, and on the death of Muktakesi Dasi, his nephews wife Sushamabala Dasi, will take her place respectively as executrix.
C. Setalvad, Attorney General for India A. N. Sinha, with him for respondent No.
He appointed his wife Haimabati Dasi as the guardian of the person and property of Charu and of his wife Latikabala Dasi aforesaid.
April 15.
106 of 1953.
Muktakesi Dasi, his daughter in law, his niece in law aforesaid and Charu.
It is number necessary to set out in detail the legacies created by the will except to state that he created annuities in favour of a number of persons including his wife, his brothers widow .
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SINHA J. This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated the 4th September 1951 of the Calcutta High Court in its appellate jurisdiction reversing those dated the 29th August 1950 of a Judge of that Court sitting on the Original Side granting the appellants prayer for revoking and annulling the probate granted in respect of the last will and testament dated the 29th July 1912 of one Binod Lal Ghosh, deceased, whom we shall call the testator in the companyrse of this judgment.
N. Mukherji, for respondent No.
His wife Haimabati Dasi, and His brothers widow Muktakesi Dasi.
He also made pointed reference to the fact that the surviving grantees of the probate, Anil Nath Basu and Latikabala Dasi, after the death of Haimabati bad number filed any account of the testators estate in their capacity as executor and executrix respectively and that on his obtaining probate of the will those persons had number companyplied with his request of furnishing a statement of accounts about their dealings with the testators estate.
