Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

11. The application was opposed by Shyam Lal and Suk Lal who set up the Probate obtained by them, and Haramoni withdrew her application.

12. The second daughter Rameswari was married to one Durgadas Bose in 1883, and on the 29th April 1884 Haramoni applied for revocation of Probate in the Court of the District Judge of Rajshahye. The case came on for hearing on the 1st August 1884, and after one witness bad been examined on her side the hearing was adjourned and on the 26th August 1884 a petition was put in by Haramoni admitting the genuineness of the Will, and the Court disallowed the application for revocation accordingly. On the previous day, however, two ekrars were executed one by Haramoni in favour of Shyam Lal and Suk Lal and the other by the latter in favour of Haramoni, under which Shyam Lal and Suk Lal agreed to pay Rs. 425 a year to Haramoni in addition to the income of the Jessore properties for her life and on her death to pay her daughters and their heirs Rs. 300 a year. There were some other provisions which will be dealt with later on.

21. We are of opinion that there is no time fixed for an application for revocation of Probate.

22. As regards the second contention, we were referred to Doe, d. Oldham v. Wolley (1828) 8 B. & C. 22 : 2 M. & Ry. 195 : 3 Car. & P. 102 : 6 L.J. (O.S.) K.B. 286 : 108 E.R. 954 : 32 R.R. 329. In that case it was held that a Will more than 30 years old may be read in evidence without proof of its execution, although the testator has died within 30 years and, some of the subscribing witnesses are proved to be still living. In that case however, the question was whether the Will could be used as evidence of a certain fact in a suit for ejectment, without proof of its execution. It was not a case of proving a Will in a Court of Probate. If the rule were applicable to a Probate Court, it would not be necessary to prove Wills executed 30 years, before the death of the testator, nor in cases where 30 years have elapsed from the death of the testator. We are unable to hold, therefore, that the rule applies to proof of a Will in the Probate Court. Besides Section 90 of the Evidence Act merely says that in the case of a document 30 years old, the Court map raise presumptions mentioned in it, not that it must do so Where the genuineness of the document is for any reason doubtful it is open to the Court to reject it, however ancient it may be. In the present case the Court has referred to suspicious circumstances and has found that the Will is not genuine.

32. The evidence is conflicting as to whether Haramoni and her daughters were at Basuarih or at Rampore Boalia at the time of the application for Probate. The plaintiffs have adduced evidence that they were at Basuarih and went to Rampore Boalia about a year after the death of Ram Lal, i.e., after the sapindikaran (the first annual shradh) of Ram Lal took place, while the defendants have adduced evidence to show that they were taken to Rampore Boalia shortly after Ram Lal's first shradh by Basanta Kumar, who had been to Basuarih in consequence of his mother's illness sometime before Ram Lal's death. The Court below says, "It seems that she was in the same house at the time when the notices were issued but that no steps were taken to give the widow any notice of the Probate proceedings." We are inclined to agree with the Court below. It was contended on behalf of the defendants that if the brothers applied for Probate of a forged Will, they would have never taken the widow to Rampore Boalia at the time. But if the intention of the brothers was to obtain Probate fraudulently they might have taken Haramoni to the Rampore Boalia residence purposely, so that if she sought to revoke the Probate, her presence at Rampore at the time might be relied upon as showing her knowledge of the Probate proceedings. However that may be, Haramoni, being a pardanashin lady, would not ordinarily get any notice of the general citation unless she was informed of it by the male members of the family, and there is no doubt that she had no knowledge whatever of the Probate proceedings. She lived with her daughters for some time at Rampore, and then went back to Basuarih, they lived jointly with the brothers' family in the ancestral house there. Sometime afterwards she must have come to hear of the Will and in 1881 she applied for a Succession Certificate in the Jessore Court. The brothers opposed it and set up the Probate, and she had to withdraw the application. Matters remained in the same state for sometime. Her second daughter Rameswari was married to Durga Das Bose in 1833, and in 1884 she applied for revocation of Probate in the Rajshahye Court, so that it was about 6 years after the grant of the Probate that the application was made. This delay in making the application has been commented upon on behalf of the defendants. But although we do not believe that Haramoni first came to know of the Will in the Succession Certificate proceeding as stated by her in her application for revocation, the explanation for the delay as given in her affidavit dated the 22nd April 1884 sworn in the Jessore Court prior to her application for revocation appears to be reasonable and should be accepted. In her affidavit she stated (after referring to the Succession Certificate proceedings), "since then I intended to apply for revocation of the said Probate but I am a lady belonging to a respectable family. Particularly I had no means to pay the necessary expenses of the litigation. The opposite party are very influential men in this district. No one ventured to act on my behalf for fear of them. I could not make this application so long. Now having given away one of my daughters in marriage I am making this application with the help of my son-in-law." In her application for revocation of the Probate, she stated that her husband had not executed any Will, that the opposite party had caused a forged Will to be made to deprive her and her daughters of the properties, that the Probate had been obtained secretly without her knowledge and without service of notice upon her, and the reasons for the delay in making the application were that the opposite party were very powerful men and had great influence in Rajshahye, and the petitioner not having had sufficient funds in hand could not apply earlier.

67. It was contended on behalf of the defend ants that the fact that Haramoni did not apply for revocation of the Probate until Durga Das appeared on the scene, and her conduct before and after the revocation case, are cogent evidence of the genuineness of the Will.

68. The application for revocation was, no doubt, made about 6 years after the Probate was granted. She at first applied for a Succession Certificate in the Jessore Court in 188l and withdrew it when the executor set up the Probate. The application was, in respect of debts the aggregate amount whereof was only Rs. 91, made more than three years after Ram Lal's death by which time the debts were barred by limitation. There is no doubt that the application was the outcome of some misunderstanding between Haramoni and her brothers-in-law, and was merely a preliminary skirmish to the real fight about the Will. We have already held that Haramoni must have become aware of the existence of the Will sometime before she applied for the Succession Certificate in the Jessore Court; but that the explanation given by her for the delay in making the application for revocation is a reasonable one and should be accepted. It is true she did not object to the registration of the names of Sham Lal and Suk Lal under the Land Registration Act based upon the Will, nor did she apply for registration of her own name as heiress of Ram Lal. But there is nothing to show that she had any knowledge of the land registration proceedings. She admittedly lived as a member of the joint family, and no inference can be drawn under the circumstances against her for not applying for registration of her own name.