IT Act | Ambiguity in statutory notices undermines the principles of natural justice: Delhi High Court Dismisses Revenue Appeals Gauhati High Court Upholds Conviction Under NDPS Act: Procedural Lapses Insufficient to Overturn Case Himachal Pradesh High Court Acquits Murder Accused, Points to Possible Suicide Pact in "Tragic Love Affair" Tampering With Historical Documents To Support A Caste Claim Strikes At The Root Of Public Trust And Cannot Be Tolerated: Bombay High Court Offense Impacts Society as a Whole: Madras High Court Denies Bail in Cyber Harassment Case Custody disputes must be resolved in appropriate forums, and courts cannot intervene beyond legal frameworks in the guise of habeas corpus jurisdiction: Kerala High Court Insubordination Is A Contagious Malady In Any Employment And More So In Public Service : Karnataka High Court imposes Rs. 10,000 fine on Tribunal staff for frivolous petition A Show Cause Notice Issued Without Jurisdiction Cannot Withstand Judicial Scrutiny: AP High Court Sets Aside Rs. 75 Lakh Stamp Duty Demand Timely Action is Key: P&H HC Upholds Lawful Retirement at 58 for Class-III Employees Writ Jurisdiction Under Article 226 Not Applicable to Civil Court Orders: Patna High Court Uttarakhand High Court Dissolves Marriage Citing Irretrievable Breakdown, Acknowledges Cruelty Due to Prolonged Separation Prosecution Must Prove Common Object For An Unlawful Assembly - Conviction Cannot Rest On Assumptions: Telangana High Court Limitation | Litigants Cannot Entirely Blame Advocates for Procedural Delays: Supreme Court Family's Criminal Past Cannot Dictate Passport Eligibility: Madhya Pradesh High Court Double Presumption of Innocence Bolsters Acquittal When Evidence Falls Short: Calcutta High Court Upholds Essential Commodities Act TIP Not Mandatory if Witness Testimony  Credible - Recovery of Weapon Not Essential for Conviction Under Section 397 IPC: Delhi High Court University’s Failure to Amend Statutes for EWS Reservation Renders Advertisement Unsustainable: High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh Quashes EWS Reservation in University Recruitment Process Seniority Must Be Calculated From the Date of Initial Appointment, Not Regularization: Madras High Court Rules Section 319 Cr.P.C. | Mere Association Not Enough for Criminal Liability: Karnataka HC Himachal Pradesh High Court Upholds ₹25,000 Per Kanal Compensation for Land Acquired for Nangal-Talwara Railway Line, Dismisses Railway’s Appeal No Work No Pay Principle Not Applicable: Orissa High Court Orders Reinstatement and Full Back Wages for Wrongfully Terminated Lecturer No Assault, No Obstruction, Only Words Exchanged: Bombay High Court Quashes Charges of Obstruction Against Advocates Under Section 353 IPC Matrimonial Offences Can Be Quashed Even if Non-Compoundable, When Genuine Compromise Is Reached: J&K HC Plaintiff Entitled to Partition, But Must Contribute Redemption Share to Defendant: Delhi High Court Clarifies Subrogation Rights in Mortgage Redemption Labeling Someone A 'Rowdy' Without Convictions Infringes Personal Liberty And Reputation: Kerala High Court

Suspicious Circumstances Around the 1993 Will: Wife Declared Dead While Alive: Calcutta HC Voids Probate

25 September 2024 3:30 PM

By: sayum


On September 24, 2024, the Calcutta High Court, in Ramkrishna Saha & Others v. Rajkumar Saha (F.A. No. 185 of 2015 and F.A.T. No. 302 of 2015), adjudicated two appeals challenging probate granted to two competing wills of Monilal Saha. The court overturned the probate of a 1993 will citing “serious suspicious circumstances,” while dismissing a 1995 will for lack of authenticity. Both the trial court’s findings were modified, with one will voided and the other rejected as unreliable.

The case originated from a family dispute over the validity of two separate wills of Monilal Saha, who passed away in 1996. Monilal had left behind three sons and three daughters along with significant properties, including a hotel. Two probate proceedings were initiated—one for a will dated June 11, 1993, filed by his son Rajkumar Saha, and another for a will dated February 3, 1995, submitted by his daughter Kalpana Saha. The trial court had granted probate for the 1993 will while dismissing the petition for the 1995 will.

The appellants, Ramkrishna Saha and others, challenged the probate of the 1993 will, arguing that it contained false declarations about Monilal’s wife, who was alive at the time but declared deceased in the will. Kalpana Saha, meanwhile, contested the 1993 will, claiming that Monilal had revoked it and executed a new will in 1995.

The central legal issues involved the validity, execution, and revocation of the two wills, as well as the presence of suspicious circumstances. The court examined the application of Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, and relevant procedural rules under the Code of Civil Procedure (Order 41 Rule 27). The focus was on the execution and attestation requirements under Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act.

The appellants argued that the 1993 will was forged, pointing to several discrepancies, including the will’s false statement that Monilal’s wife had already died when, in fact, she lived until 1994. They contended that Monilal himself had revoked the 1993 will due to this error and executed a new will in 1995.

Conversely, the respondent, Rajkumar Saha, defended the 1993 will, asserting that it had been properly executed in compliance with legal standards, as attested by witnesses. He also argued that the 1995 will was a forgery, manufactured by Kalpana Saha to disinherit the sons of the testator.

The court found that while the execution of the 1993 will had been technically proven, the suspicious circumstances surrounding it could not be ignored. The most glaring issue was the fact that the will declared Monilal’s wife as dead at the time of its execution, when she was very much alive. The court noted that this “creates serious doubts about the genuineness of the will,” observing that Monilal’s failure to provide for his wife in the will further compounded the suspicions.

“When a will declares the testator’s wife dead, though she is alive, this unexplained inaccuracy strikes at the very credibility of the document. No satisfactory explanation has been provided to dispel this abnormality.”

The court was also unpersuaded by the appellants' claim regarding the 1995 will. It found discrepancies in the signatures and overwriting in the document, ruling that the 1995 will was not credible enough to warrant a grant of probate. The court upheld the trial court’s rejection of Kalpana Saha’s probate application, agreeing that the will did not meet the legal standards of authenticity.

The High Court further declined the appellants’ application under Order 41 Rule 27 CPC to introduce additional evidence regarding the testator’s wife’s death and the testator’s signature, stating that it was unnecessary given the already established facts.

The Calcutta High Court set aside the probate of the 1993 will, citing strong suspicions regarding its execution, particularly the false declaration about the testator’s wife. The court also rejected the 1995 will as forged and unreliable, affirming the trial court’s dismissal of Kalpana Saha’s claim. Both wills were ultimately voided, leaving the matter of Monilal Saha’s estate unresolved.

Date of Decision: September 24, 2024

Ramkrishna Saha & Others v. Rajkumar Saha

Similar News