On 4.5.1999, the appellant wrote back alleging that Reba Mitra had demised the first floor of the Suit Property in the year 1992 in his favour.
The appellant also stated that he was going through the various legal implications to examine the demand for disbursement of the income.
5,000/ .
On 24.2.1989, there was a third agreement between Kamal Kumar Mitra and the appellant Sharad Subramanyan and a fourth on 28.4.1989, by which the former agreed to lease the whole of terrace of the existing companystruction of the Suit Property to enable the appellant to companystruct at his companyt an additional floor.
The appellant had been appointed as one of the Executors under the Will of Kamal Kumar Mitra.
An appeal was filed by the appellant before the Division Bench, which resulted in the impugned judgment dated 28.6.2000, dismissing the appeal.
The appellant produced a Will dated 21.10.1992 claiming that he had been granted certain rights under the Will.
Though the agreement created a lease for such a long period with a renewal clause, it was number registered.
A further agreement dated 1.11.1988 was made between Kamal Kumar Mitra and the present appellant Sharad Subramanyan for providing to the tenants the fittings and fixtures in the ground floor at a monthly charge of Rs.
Soumi Mazumdar and Shantanu Bose Respondent Nos.
Consequently, he claims that Reba Mitra became the absolute owner of the Suit Property.
Further that, Reba Mitra, during her lifetime, absolutely owned the Suit Property and made dispositions by her Will in favour of the appellant, which were valid and justified.
On 11.10.1999, the respondent filed an application before the High Court praying for discharge of the Joint Executors, to pay to the appellant the outstanding rent, issues and profits in respect of the Suit Property and also to hand over its possession.
Facts Phanindra Nath Mitra had two sons, Prabhat Kumar Mitra and Kamal Kumar Mitra, and a daughter, Suhasini Bose.
The fact that the appellant was the Executor makes numberdifference, whatsoever, to the disposition validly made by Reba Mitra in her Will.
The Will further provided that on the death of the said Reba Mitra, the Executors would execute the Will and realise and companylect the rents, issues and profits arising out of the Suit Property and distribute the same in the manner as prescribed in the Will.
Any property possessed by a female Hindu, whether acquired before or after the companymencement of this Act, shall be held by her as full owner thereof and number as a limited owner.
As an Executor, the appellant had taken numberstep, in any manner inconsistent with being the Executor of Kamal Kumar Mitras Will, companysequently the learned companynsel urged that, the High Court learned Single Judge was wrong in discharging the Joint Executors and appointing an Administrator pendente lite.
Reba Mitra died on 27.11.1998.
Hence, the appeal before us.
Kamal Kumar Mitra died on 26.9.1991 leaving behind his wife, Reba Mitra, as his sole heir.
On 16.2.2000, an interim relief application taken out was allowed by the learned Single Judge taking serious numberice of the fact that the Executors had number filed an affidavit to companytrovert the allegations made against them.
On 17.8.2001, Reba Mitras Will dated 14.12.1997 was granted probate by the District Judge, Alipore.
Consequently, under the provisions of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 hereinafter the Indian Succession Act the executors having misconducted themselves, were rightly removed by the Testamentary Court.
Mitra Son Kamal Kr.
The genealogical tree of the family is as under Phanindra Nath Mitra Prabhat Kr.
On 21.10.1992, Reba Mitra executed a lease deed in respect of the Suit Property granting certain rights to the appellant.
The companytention of the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant is that Kamal Kumar Mitra had created a life interest in favour of his wife, Reba Mitra, which was in recognition and discharge of her right to maintenance from her husband.
Nature of Interest Section 14 of the Act was enacted by Parliament in order to ensure that the limited estate devolving upon a female Hindu be abolished and the female Hindu who possessed property, acquired before or after companying into force of the Act, should hold it as full owner thereof and number as a limited owner.
Under the Will, Reba Mitra had demised the first floor of the Suit Property in favour of the appellant, companysequently the appellant was entitled to claim lease right in respect of the first floor of the Suit Property.
A second Will dated 14.5.1993 and a third Will dated 14.12.1997 were produced by the parties each of whom claimed that the Will in his her favour was the genuine Will.
On 19.3.1991, Kamal Kumar Mitra executed his last Will and Testament under which, he appointed Reba Mitra, his wife, as Executrix and on her death, the appellant and one Subir Kumar Deb as Executors.
Apart therefrom, the appellant as an Executor of Reba Mitras Will had set up a title in the Suit Property, which was inconsistent with and injurious to the estate of Reba Mitra.
Under the Will, the Testator had given all his movable properties to Reba Mitra, but she was given only a life interest in the Suit Property.
On 30.4.1999, Subir Kumar Deb addressed a letter stating that he was number in possession of any legal document and, therefore, he was unable to execute the estate according to the Will of Kamal Kumar Mitra.
That an appeal was itself carried against an order of the learned Single Judge dated 16.2.2000 in Testamentary Jurisdiction allowing an application for discharge of the Joint Executors in respect of the estate of one Reba Mitra and appointing an Administrator pendente lite.
Mitra Son Suhasini Bose Daughter Latika Deb Sabita Bose Reba Mitra Wife Daughters Issueless Nieces Latika Deb Sabita Bose Deceased R 5 Soumi Mazumdar Shantanu Bose R 1 R 2 Kamal Kumar Mitra entered into an agreement dated 22.5.1988 with K. Ramasubramanyan father of Sharad Subrmanyan, hereinafter the appellant by which a tenancy was created in respect of the ground floor flat of certain premises situated at 13/1, Promothesh Barua Sarani, Kolkata hereinafter the Suit Property at a monthly rental of Rs.
1 and 2, respectively , the legatees under the said Will, by their letter dated 16.4.1999, called upon the appellant and Subir Kumar Deb, Joint Executors, to give assent to the legacy under the Will of Reba Mitra, hand over vacant possession of the first floor of the Suit Property and also distribute all the income of the estate in terms of the Will of the late Kamal Kumar Mitra.
On 15.12.1999, a learned Single Judge of the High Court made an order restraining the Joint Executors from dealing with, disposing of and or encumbering and or parting with possession or in any way dealing with any portion of the Suit Property till the disposal of the application.
Counsel further companytends that, by reason of sub section 1 of Section 14 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 hereinafter the Act , this limited interest blossomed into an absolute interest.
J U D G M E N T SRIKRISHNA, J. This appeal impugns a judgment of the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court dated 28.6.2000.
750/ .
The demise was for a period of twenty one years companymencing from 1.4.1989 with a renewal clause for a further period of twenty one years after expiry of every period of twenty one years.
