Calcutta High Court
For The vs Rakhi Singh & Ors. Reported In ... on 15 January, 2025
OD- 23
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
Testamentary & Intestate Jurisdiction
ORIGINAL SIDE
GA No. 2 of 2021
In
PLA No. 104 of 2016
IN THE GOODS OF:
DIPTY MAITY (DECEASED)
BEFORE :
The Hon'ble JUSTICE KRISHNA RAO
Hearing Concluded On : 18.12.2024
Order On: 15.01.2025
Appearance:
Mr. Debajyoti Basu, Adv.
Mr. Jayed Hossain, Adv.
Mr. K.M. Hossain, Adv.
... for the applicant.
Mr. Anirban Bose, Adv.
Mr. Jit Ray, Adv.
Mr. Satyajit Senapati, Adv.
... for the respondent no. 1/executrix.
2
ORDER
1. The applicant Smt. Sangita Das @ Sangita Maity Das has filed the present application being G.A. No. 2 of 2021 in PLA No. 104 of 2016 praying for the following reliefs:
"a) Refuse to accept Inventory as being filed by the respondent No.1 and further direct the respondent No.1 to submit a revised full and true inventory and to exhibit those same before this Hon'ble Court, in the manner as may be directed;
b) Refuse to accept Account as being filed by the respondent No.1 and further direct the respondent No.1 to submit a revised true and correct account of the properties and credit and to exhibit the same before this Hon'ble Court, in the manner as may be directed;
c) Direct the respondent No.1 to administer the property and assets of the said deceased properly and in any concerning to her said last will and to distribute shares to the legatees in manner as directed by the said deceased in her said will;
d) In default thereof, remove the respondent No.1 immediately from administering of the property and credits of the deceased and in any concerning to her said las will;
e) If and when do necessary, appoint a Special Officer in place and stead of the respondent No.1, to administer the properties and credits of the deceased and in any way concerning to her said last will and to distribute shares to the legatees in the manner as directed by the deceased in her said will;
f) Allow the applicant with the respondent No.1 to administer the property and credit of the deceased and in any way concerning to her said last will, in pendency of the instant application;3
g) Allow the applicant with the respondent No.1 to collect the rent from the occupiers of the said Sushila Sadan, in pendency of the instant application;
h) Pass ad-interim order(s);
i) Order costs and incidental;
j) Pass such other and further order(s) and/or direction(s) as to this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper."
2. One Dipti Maity during her life time published her last Will and Testament dated 19 Bhadra, 1420 B.S. corresponding to 5th September, 2013 of the English calendar. She died on 4th November, 2013 leaving behind her three daughters, namely, Smt. Sangita Das @ Sangita Maity Das, Sudipta Maity and Susmita Kar. The husband of the deceased had predeceased her.
3. As per the last Will and Testament of the deceased, her three daughters will be beneficiaries and legatees in equal shares and rates to each other to the estates, property and assets and the deceased's eldest daughter namely, Sudipta Maity, the respondent no.1 herein was appointed as the sole executrix of her last Will and Testament.
4. In the year 2016, the respondent no.1, being the sole executrix, applied for grant of probate of last Will and Testament, which was registered as P.L.A. No. 104 of 2016.
4
5. On 9th July, 2018, this Court was pleased to grant probate to the respondent no.1 of the last Will and Testament of the deceased, Dipti Maity.
6. In the Probate dated 9th July, 2016, it is categorically mentioned that the executrix in the said Will and Testament named within the State of West Bengal and she having undertaken the administration of the said property, estate and credits and to make full and true inventory thereof and to exhibit the same before this Court within six months from the date of issue of the said grant and also to render to this Court, a true account of the said properties, estates and credits within One Year from the issue of the order dated 9th July, 2016.
7. The schedule of the said last Will and Testament of the deceased describes two immovable properties and both are stated to be a bastu land and furthermore in the said Will and Testament, it has been stated that one of the schedule land amongst them comprises with the structure and constructions as a four storied building and named as "Sushila Sadan"
which is being fully occupied by bank and other offices like post offices, telephone office, women welfare office, government offices etc. on rental basis.
8. It was further stated in the said last Will and Testament of the deceased that till she survives, she will alone enjoy all the monetary benefits that may be derived from the said properties and after her death, the 5 deceased's eldest daughter, namely, Sudipta Maity, the executrix/ respondent no.1 herein, will collect the rents from the occupiers of the said Sushila Sadan. If when requires she may evict existing occupier(s) and induct new occupier(s). It was also stated in the last Will and Testament that the executrix/respondent no.1 will pay taxes, mutate name of the legatees of the deceased and maintain said Sushila Sadan properly and such costs will be borne from the rents that may be collected from its occupiers. Further it was directed in the Will and Testament that if the costs required for payment of taxes and maintenances of said building cannot be arranged from the rent collected from the occupiers of said Sushila Sadan, then all three daughters will bear the additional expenses in equal shares and in case if there appears any surplus monies from the rents collected from the occupiers of the said Sushila Sadan, then the executrix/respondent no.1 shall distribute the said surplus monies in equal shares amongst the three daughters.
9. The applicant submits that after the death of the testatrix, the respondent no.1 alone took control of all the properties as left by the deceased including the said Sushila Sadan. The respondent no.1 had started collecting rents from the occupiers of the Sushila Sadan and appropriated surplus monies there-form even before the grant of probate.
10. The applicant states that the applicant remains unaware that after the grant of probate to the respondent no.1, whether the respondent no.1 had 6 mutated the property namely, Sushila Sadan in the name of the applicant along with the name of the respondents. The applicant also remains unaware as to what costs are required for payment of taxes and maintenances of the property because since the death of the testatrix, the respondent no.1 had never made the applicant known of any details or particulars about the rents collected from the occupiers of Sushila Sadan and also about the expenses regarding the maintenance of the property.
11. The applicant further submits that from different sources including the occupiers of the Sushila Sadan as being inducted there from time to time and till date, the applicant gathers that since 4th November, 2013 upto 4th March, 2021, the respondent no.1 has collected rents tentatively around Rs.44,44,000/-.
12. The applicant states that the respondent no.1, without any notice and knowledge to the applicant, the respondent no.1 has also made constructions on the first floor of the said Sushila Sadan. The applicant issued a letter to the respondent nos.1 and 2 in this regard dated 19th April, 2021, wherein no response was received by the applicant.
13. The applicant submits that in accordance to the order dated 9th July, 2018, wherein a probate was granted to the respondent no.1, the respondent no.1 was asked to administer the properties and to make a complete inventory and to exhibit the same before this Court within six months. Thereafter the applicant through her Learned Advocate-on- 7 record, had obtained a true certified copy of the Inventory which the respondent no.1 had filed on 7th January, 2019.
14. The applicant states that it would appear from the said Inventory that the respondent no.1 valued the said Sushila Sadan and other immovable property as per schedule of the said Will and Testament of the deceased being of Rs. 20,00,000/- and Rs. 10,00,000/- respectively. The applicant says that such valuation of the estates of the deceased is not correct and accurate in nature, therefore, the inventory presented by the respondent no.1 is deceiving in nature.
15. Mr. Debajyoti Basu, Learned Advocate representing the applicant submits that the respondent no.1 has not administered the property properly and not distributed surplus monies and profits that the respondent no.1 received in three equal shares as per desire of the deceased in terms of the Will. He submits that the inventory and accounts filed by the respondent no.1 and the particulars stated therein are totally false and incorrect.
16. Mr. Basu Submits that by an order dated 16th September, 2021, this Court permitted the applicant to see the accounts in relation to the four storied building in question and the rents collected therefrom by the executrix, the respondent no.1 herein till the matter is decided on affidavit but inspite of the order passed by this Court, the respondent no.1 has not allowed the application to see the accounts. 8
17. Mr. Anirban Bose representing the respondent no.1 submits that since the grant of probate to the respondent no.1, the respondent no.1 has been managing and administering the properties according to the desire of the testator prescribed in her last Will and Testament dated 5th September, 2013 and the records of the executor as maintained by her in the usual course of administering the estate of the deceased shall portray that proper and necessary administration is being done is the estate of the deceased.
18. Mr. Bose submits that the respondent no.1 has taken all necessary steps for the upkeepment, maintenance of both movable and immovable properties of the deceased. The respondent no.1 states that she has made expenses out of her own pocket for the purpose of maintaining of the properties.
19. The respondent no.1 further adds up to her submission stating that the respondent no.1 has taken all appropriate steps to mutate the property namely, Sushila Sadan, in the name of all the three daughters of the deceased on 10th May, 2022.
20. Mr. Bose submits that Sushila Sadan is an old four storied building consisting of various halls, rooms and approximately 17 bathrooms, therefore, the cost of the maintenance of the said building is more than the income generated from the tenants. He submits that on several occasions, the respondent no. 1 requested the applicant and the 9 respondent no.2 to share the expenses for maintenance of the said Sushila Sadan according to the last Will but the applicant and the respondent no. 2 remained silent.
21. Mr. Bose submits that the age of the building is more than 40 years, the respondent no.1 has to carryout repairing works regularly.
22. Mr. Bose submits that the respondent no.1 was repairing the building on the 1st Floor at the behest of the requests made by the Postal Authorities who are the tenants on the ground floor due to severe leakage of water from the first floor damaging public property.
23. Mr. Bose submits that the applicant only to avoid the maintenance cost of the bequeathed property has filed the present application.
24. During the course of hearing on 5th February, 2024, this Court has appointed Mr. Debashis Kar, Learned Advocate as Special Officer to do the following:
(i) To verify the details of the properties and debts left behind by the testatrix in terms of affidavit of assets,
(ii) To enquire into the allegations made by the applicant,
(iii) If necessary, an auditor can be appointed to get a proper audit with respect to the properties and debts of the testatrix from the date of her death till date, 10
(iv) If the Special Officer is of the view that an Auditor is required to be appointed, the Special Officer shall appoint an Auditor and the fee of the auditor shall be borne by all the parties in equal shares.
25. On 20th September, 2024, the Learned Special Officer filed a report dated 20th June, 2024 after circulating the same to the Learned Advocates appearing for the parties. The respondent no.1 has filed exception to the report of the Special Officer.
26. The Special Officer has submitted his report by concluding the following:
"31. Conclusion:
The Properties:
(i) A Bastu land admeasuring 40 decimals situated at District: Purba Midnapore, P.O. & P.S. Nandigram, Mouza: Godaibalbar, J.L. No. 208, Khatian No. 34, Dag No. 250 with 4 (four) storied brick built building under present LR Khatian No. 330 in the name and style of "Sushila Sadan"
(ii) 52 Decimals of homestead land in Dag No. 897 under Khatian No. 440, Mouza: Nandigram, P.S. Nandigram, District: Purba Medinipur.
Property indicated as item no. i) is a huge property and entirely commercially exploited. There are additional construction tried to be made thereupon but no plan has been handed over for which it can be said that illegal construction was sought to be made to increase the floor area for illegal commercial exploitation of the same.
32. The rent which was said to be collected were even not true and correct as locally the rents 11 were on much higher side as gathered from nearby shops and commercially exploited plot of land.
33. No proper books of accounts has been maintained detailing the income and expenditure and the one which has been placed lacked authenticity as they were not backed by cogent documents. For example each of the tenant pay their own electricity bills but still the accounts furnished shows expenses towards electricity bills.
34. Funds generated from the rents collected seem to have been defalcated as will be evident from the non disclosure of certain rents in accounts. No details of the rent collected since the death of the Testatrix has been furnished save and except the statement which were submitted in the court which lacks authenticity.
35. No bills of expenses incurred for maintenance had been furnished.
36. It can even be said that the building lacks proper maintenance.
37. From the land records as it is seen that the name of Sudipta Maity has been recorded that too not in the capacity of the Executrix to the estate of Dipty Maity but in personal capacity which should not have been done.
38. There is no bank account where all the rents collected have been deposited and accordingly the expenses, if any incurred towards the property cannot even be ascertained.
39. The inflow and outflow of funds generated from the estate of Dipty Maity has not been properly and correctly made.
40. The debts of Dipty Maity was not disclosed thereby making me come to a conclusion that there was no debt in the name of Dipty Maity as of date.
12
41. Accordingly, the estate of Dipty Maity requires proper administration which is not being done in a fair, proper and effective manner."
27. Mr. Bose challenged the report of the Special Officer on the ground that the report filed by the Special Officer is self-contradictory report and without supporting his finding and evidence, filed reports, photographs and minutes recorded on 12th April, 2024. He submits that the report cannot be made as part of record. Mr. Bose submits that none of the allegation made by the Special Officer supports any finding. He submits that the respondent no.1 could not get an opportunity to cross-examine the Special Officer and thus the report cannot be taken into consideration.
28. Mr. Bose in support of his submissions relied upon the judgment report in the case of Committee of Management Anjuman Intezamia Masajid, Varanasi Vs. Rakhi Singh & Ors. reported in MANU/SC/0874/2023 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that:
"14. In terms of Order XXVI Rule 10, the Commissioner has to submit a report in writing to the court. The report of the Commissioner and the evidence taken by him constitute evidence in the suit and form a part of the record. However, the court and, with its permission, any of the parties may examine the Commissioner personally in open court touching any of the matters referred to him or mentioned in the report or as regards the report including the manner in which the investigation has been made. The court is also empowered to direct such further inquiry if it is dissatisfied with the proceedings of the Commissioner. The evidentiary value of any report of the Commissioner is a matter to be tested in the suit and is open to objections including cross-examination. A report of 13 the Commissioner does not by and of itself amount to a substantive finding on matters in dispute and is subject to the process of the court during the course of the trial."
29. Mr. Bose also relied upon unreported judgment of Karnataka High Court passed in the case of Sri Shadaksharappa Vs. Kumari Vijayalaxmi & Ors. in WP No. 201274 of 2022 dated 24th January, 2023 wherein it is held that:
"20. In the backdrop of the discussions made above, this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that in a large number of suits before the Trial Court, the applications are filed for the appointment of a Commissioner. In other words, this is one of the frequently invoked provisions of the Code. For this reason, this Court deems it desirable to summarise the broad guidelines that can be followed while exercising the power under Order XXVI Rules 9 and 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
a) The power of the court to appoint the Commissioner for local inspection or any other purpose provided in Order XXVI of the Code is discretionary. However, the said discretion is guided by not only Order XXVI Rules 9 and 10 of the Code but also the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act dealing with relevancy, expert opinion, and the burden of proof.
b) The discretion to exercise the power under Order XXVI of the Code of Civil Procedure is not governed by the form of the suit. The Court can appoint the Commissioner in any kind of suit, provided a report of the Commissioner under Order XXVI of the Code is necessary for elucidating the matter in dispute.14
c) The issue framed in the suit, or where the issue is not yet framed, the pleadings which give rise to issue/s and the documents placed on record would be a guide to ascertain the 'matter in dispute' referred in Order XXVI Rule 9 of the Code
d) The power to appoint the Commissioner for local inspection or scientific investigation/ expert's opinion can be invoked even suo motu by the court, without there being an application by either of the parties, if the Court deems it appropriate to secure the report of the Commissioner. However, the appropriate reasons must precede the order appointing the Commissioner. And such orders are to be passed only after hearing the parties before it.
e) The Commissioner can be appointed either before or after the commencement of the trial. However having due regard to the nature of the controversy, if the report is essential for elucidating the matter in dispute, it is desirable to have the local inspection before the commencement of trial as it is likely to reduce the volume of oral evidence in a given case.
f) In addition to the report, having regard to Order XXVI Rule 10 of the Code, the evidence taken by Commissioner reduced in writing can also be taken on record and examined by the court while considering the report.
g) The report of the Commissioner is not conclusive proof of what is stated therein.
The report is only a piece of evidence, that the Court has to examine based on the other materials on record.
h) Report of the Commissioner need not be formally marked for being considered as 15 evidence. Once submitted to the court, the report is part of the court record and can be looked into by the court.
i) The court may in its discretion examine the Commissioner on any matter concerning the report. There is no compulsion to examine the Commissioner.
However, if the objection is filed to the report, and the party filing objection seeks to examine the Commissioner then the Commissioner should be examined. In either case, once the Commissioner is examined, the court having due regard to the evidence, may reject or accept the report in its entirety or in part, provided there are materials to justify such a finding on the report. In appropriate cases, the merit of the report can be considered at the final hearing. While considering the report at the final hearing, if the court finds that the report is erroneous and fresh commission is required, the court may pass appropriate order in this regard.
j) If the court is dissatisfied with the 'proceedings of the Commissioner' as found in Order XXVI Rule 10 (3), it may direct further inquiry depending on the facts. As a matter of caution, it is clarified that examination and order under order XXVI 10 (3) are only to verify if the Commissioner has followed the proper procedure while carrying out his task.
k) The person who has filed an objection to the report has the option of cross-
examining the Commissioner to substantiate his objections or even without cross- examination, it is open to establish that the report is inadmissible in evidence.
16
21. Having examined the provisions referred to above and given the fact that Order XXVI of the Code of Civil Procedure is often invoked in the trial court, this court is of the view, broadly speaking in the following cases, the appointment of an appropriate Commissioner as provided under Order XXVI of the Code is desirable.
(i) The dispute relating to the easement of air, light, pathway, road, watercourse, etc.
(ii) The dispute relating to the boundary, encroachment;
(iii) The dispute relating to forgery;
(iv) The dispute relating to the existence or otherwise of a stream, pond, drainage, watercourse, road, pathway, pollution, or nuisance.
22. The examples given above are exhaustive but merely illustrative. The guidelines in this order should not be construed as having exhaustively listed the cases in which the Commissioner can be appointed. Nor the observations should be construed as having diluted or expanded the discretion vested with the trial court in such matters.
23. This court is also conscious of the fact that in quite a large number of cases, the Commissioners are appointed by the trial courts. By the time the report is submitted to the court, quite often, if not all the time, a lot of time is spent awaiting the report. To save the precious time of the court and to streamline the procedure, as far as practicable, the following procedures may be adopted;-
a) The Court may fix the date and time for local inspection, directing the parties to be present at the disputed property, to 17 avoid the process of issuance of notice to the parties by the Court Commissioner.
b) The court shall also fix the time frame for the parties to file a memo of instructions and shall scrutinize the instructions submitted and if need be reframe the instructions to focus the attention on the matters in dispute.
c) If the court feels that the Commissioner is required to submit a report on a particular matter or a question, the court shall also frame the specific question to be answered by the Commissioner.
d) It is desirable to specify in the order whether or not the parties are entitled to submit an additional memo of instructions to the Commissioner at the time of local inspection
e) The time frame be fixed for submitting the report to the Court and while fixing the time, due regard must be had to the nature of the commission work and the urgency involved in the matter;
f) If the survey of any land is ordered to be conducted by a head of the survey department or any other designated officer, the court having regard to the nature of the work may also specify in the order, whether the Commissioner appointed is authorized to delegate the work to some other person in the same department.
g) Wherever practicable, the court shall direct the court Commissioner, to furnish a number of true copies of the report to the counsel representing the parties to the suit, while submitting the report to the court.
18
h) Time schedule should also be fixed for filing objections to the report of the Commissioner if any.
i) In all cases, where the report of the Commissioner is awaited, the court may if practicable proceed with the trial or other stages of the proceeding."
30. Prior to the exception filed by the respondent no.1, the respondent no.1 has filed supplementary affidavit disclosing the revised Inventory and accounts upto 31st March, 2022 to the estate of the deceased Dipti Maity.
31. After grant of probate, the respondent no.1 has filed first inventory on 5th July, 2019 submitting the details of two immovable properties showing the total value of the said properties as Rs. 30,00,000/-. On 10th May, 2022, the respondent no.1 has filed revised inventory and accounts upto 31st March, 2022 wherein the respondent no. 1 has disclosed income and expenditure statement and balance sheet from 1st April, 2013 to 4th September, 2021. In the said documents, the respondent no.1 has disclosed monthly rents from four tenants i.e. Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS), Punjab National Bank and Post Office. She has disclosed expenditures such as cleaning charges, electricity charges, repair and maintenance and salaries and wages. The income and expenditure statement and balance sheet disclosed by the petitioner is neither certified by any chartered accountant nor by the respondent no. 1 herself. The respondent no.1 has disclosed that she has received monthly rent from the above mentioned authorities 19 but no documents have been disclosed with regard to receipt of monthly rent. The four tenants are the authorities and it is impossible to say that the said authorities have paid rent without any receipt or in cash. Regarding expenditure also the respondent no.1 has not disclosed any document to establish that actual the respondent no.1 has made such expenditures.
32. The respondent no.1 has filed exception to the report of the Special Officer and in the exception, the respondent no.1 has disclosed details of the tenants of Sushila Sadan at page 55 being Annexure "G" and in said details as regard the rent of Punjab National Bank, it is mentioned that "Arrears due upto December, 2018 from death of Dipti Maity" but in the income and expenditure for the year 2013 to 2014, the rent from Punjab National Bank has shown as Rs. 44,275/-, 2014-2015, Rs. 106260/-; 2015-2016, Rs. 106260/-; 2016-2017, Rs. 106260/-; 2017-2018, Rs. 106260/-; and 2018-2019, Rs. 106260/-; thus the details shown by the respondent no.1 is contradictory.
33. As regard to the rent of Integrated Child Development Service (ICDS), the respondent no.1 has shown monthly rent as Rs. 4,036/- and in the remark column of Annexure "G" page 55 of exception to the report, she has mentioned that "Arrear due (2016-2017, 2017-2018, 2018-2019, 2019- 2020, 2020-2021 and 2021-2022)" but in the income and expenditure statement filed by the respondent no.1, the rent from 1st April, 2013 to 20 31st March, 2021 have been shown as receipt thus the details shown by the respondent no.1 at Annexure "G" is contradictory.
34. The respondent no.1 has shown further eight tenants from the years 2022, 2023 and 2024 but has not shown who was in occupation in the said eight rooms till the years 2022, 2023 and 2024. The respondent no.1 has not disclosed the monthly rent of mobile plaza who is also a tenant in the said premises.
35. Without taking into the consideration of the report of the Special Officer, this Court finds that at the time of grant of probate, the respondent no.1 being the executrix undertaken to administer the properties and credits and will make full and true inventory and exhibit the same before this Court within six months from the date of issuance of grant. Probate was granted on 9th July, 2018, the respondent no.1 has filed inventory on 5th July, 2019 wherein the respondent no. 1 has only declared about the description of two properties and the value of the properties is shown as Rs. 30,00,000/-. The respondent no.1 has not submitted any account or details about the tenants and the rent of the tenants of the said properties.
36. The respondent no.1 has not filed complete inventory in terms of probate, the applicant has filed the present application on 13th September, 2021. The respondent no.1 has filed affidavit-in-opposition wherein the respondent no.1 only disclosed about four tenants and their respective 21 rents, namely, BSNL, ICDS, PNB and Post Office as monthly rent of Rs. 11,155/-, Rs.4,036/-, Rs. 8,855/- and Rs. 7,080/- respectively.
37. Subsequently on 14th March, 2023, the respondent no.1 has filed another affidavit wherein, the respondent no.1 has disclosed six (6) tenancy agreements in white paper of six tenants, namely, Bela Bal, Samit Maity, Partha Agasti, Shambhu Das, Pradip Das and Mahadeb Maity. To the exception to the Special Officer, the respondent no. 1 in the details of the tenants has disclosed further two tenants namely, Suparna Pramanik and Souvik Panda.
38. The respondent no.1 has got sufficient opportunity to disclose inventory and accounts of the assets of the testatrix but till date, the respondent no.1 has not disclosed proper inventory and account. The details of expenditures and receipt disclosed by the respondent no.1 are contradictory to the details of tenants disclosed by the respondent no.1 in the exception to the report of the Special Officer.
39. This Court without taking into the consideration of the report of the Special Officer, but considering the details disclosed by the respondent no.1 with respect to the property of the testatrix in various affidavits as stated above, this Court finds that the respondent no.1 has not disclosed proper inventory and account of the property of the deceased till date. 22
40. Now that question whether the respondent no.1 is liable to be removed from administrating of the property and credits of the deceased for not disclosing proper inventory and accounts.
"301. Removal of executor or administrator and provision for successor.--
The High Court may, on application made to it, suspend, remove or discharge any private executor or administrator and provide for the succession of another person to the office of any such executor or administrator who may cease to hold office, and the vesting in such successor of any property belonging to the estate."
41. The respondent no.1 relied upon the judgment in the case of the Pankaj P. Doshi vs. Jyotsanaben Doshi reported in 2013 5 MhLJ 432 and submitted that there is no failure on the part of the respondent no.1 to exhibit an inventory of accounts. He submits that the respondent no.1 has submitted all the details of the two properties as mentioned in the Will.
42. As held above that the respondent no.1 has not disclosed proper inventory and account of the property of the deceased. Admittedly, the several parts of property namely, Sushila Sadan let out to several tenants including some authorities and the respondent no.1 is collecting rents from the said tenants. The details of the rent which the respondent no.1 has disclosed are contradictory. The respondent no. 1 also claimed that she has maintained the building and she has invested amount for maintenance, taxes and electric charges but has not disclosed any documents to the said claim by the respondent no.1.
23
43. Considering the above at this stage, this Court is not inclined to remove the respondent no.1 from administrating the property but for the benefit of all the parties, it would be proper to first ascertain the actual rents collected by the respondent no. 1 after the death of the testatrix, tax with respect to the property, electrical charges and other charges and the details of the tenants of the said property, accordingly:
(a) The Chief General Manager, Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited or any of the competent authority is directed to furnish the agreement or any written documents entered between the land lady/ landlord and BSNL of the office situated in the First Floor of the Four Storied Building situated at Dag No. 250, Khatian No. 34, JL No. 208, P.O & P.S: Nandigram, District: Purba Medinipur. Details of the rent per month from November, 2013 till date. It may also be clarified to whom the rent is paid. If it is transferred to any bank account, details of the bank account shall be furnished. It is also to be clarified whether BSNL have paid the electricity charges and other taxes in addition to the monthly rent.
All the said details be furnished to this Court within six weeks from the date of receipt of this Order.
(b) The Post Master General or any of the competent authority of the Post Office is directed to furnish the agreement or any written documents entered between the land lady/ landlord and Indian Post Office Authorities of the office situated in the Ground Floor of the Four Storied Building situated at Dag No. 250, Khatian No. 34, JL No. 208, P.O & P.S: Nandigram, District: Purba Medinipur. Details of the rent per month from November 2013 till date. It may also be clarified to whom the rent is paid. If it is transferred to any bank account, details of the bank account shall be furnished. It is also to be clarified whether you have paid the electricity charges 24 and other taxes in addition to the monthly rent. All the said details shall be furnished to this Court within six weeks from the date of receipt of this Order.
(c) The Branch Manager or any of the competent authority of the Punjab National Bank is directed to furnish the agreement or any written documents entered between the land lady/ landlord and the Punjab National Bank situated in the Ground Floor of the Four Storied Building situated at Dag No. 250, Khatian No. 34, JL No. 208, P.O & P.S: Nandigram, District: Purba Medinipur. Details of the rent per month from November 2013 till date. It may also be clarified to whom the rent is paid. If it is transferred to any bank account, details of the bank account shall be furnished. It is also to be clarified whether you have paid the electricity charges and other taxes in addition to the monthly rent. All the said details shall be furnished to this Court within six weeks from the date of receipt of this Order.
(d) The Officer-In-Charge or the competent authority of the Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS) Nandigram is directed to furnish the agreement or any written documents entered between the land lady/ landlord and Indian Post Office Authorities of the office situated in the Third Floor of the Four Storied Building situated at Dag No. 250, Khatian No. 34, JL No. 208, P.O & P.S: Nandigram, District: Purba Medinipur. Details of the rent per month from November 2013 till date. It may also be clarified to whom the rent is paid. If it is transferred to any bank account, details of the bank account shall be furnished. It is also to be clarified whether you have paid the electricity charges and other taxes in addition to the monthly rent. All the said details shall be furnished to this Court within six weeks from the date of receipt of this Order.
(e) The respondent no.1 is directed to furnish the details of the rent collected from 1. Smt. Bela Bal, 2. Shri Samit Maity, 3. Shri Partha Agasthi, 25
4. Shri Shambhu Das, 5. Pradip Das, 6.
Mahadeb Maity, 7. Smt. Suparna Pramanik, 8. Shri Souvik Panda and 9. Mobile Plaza from the date of their induction as tenant till date. The respondent no.1 is also directed to give each and every details of electric meters provided in four storied building along with the electric bills of respective meters from November, 2013 till date within six weeks from date.
(f) The Executive Engineer or any of the Competent Officer of the WBSEDCL is directed to furnish details i.e. number, name, date of installation and payment made from November, 2013 till date of the each and every meter provided at the Four Storied Building situated at Dag No. 250, Khatian No. 34, JL No. 208, P.O & P.S:
Nandigram, District: Purba Medinipur within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of this Order.
(g) The Officer-In-Charge of the Nandigram Police Station is directed to inspect the Four Storied Building situated at Dag No. 250, Khatian No. 34, JL No. 208, P.O & P.S: Nandigram, District:
Purba Medinipur and to furnish details of each and every occupier of the said building i.e. name, father/ husband name, address, from which date they are in occupation, monthly rent and to whom rent is paid. The said report shall be filed within six weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
44. The applicant is directed to communicate this order to all the above authorities for their compliance and furnishing their respective report. The respondent no. 1 is directed to cooperate with all authorities.26
45. Let the matter appear on 6th March, 2025 for filing report and further order.
(KRISHNA RAO, J.) p.d/-