Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

c. The deceased at the time of death left behind four legal heirs namely: 
                 (i). Sonia Koiri          .... Wife

                 (ii). Mahadev Koiri       .... Son
(iii). Kamala Bhagat nee Koiri .... Daughter
(iv). Bimala Prosad nee Koiri .... Daughter.

d. Smt. Sonia Koiri has not taken any steps for grant of probate and died on 6th October, 1974. The legatee of the Will, namely, Mahadev Koiri has also not taken any steps for grant of Letters of Administration of the last Will and Testament and died on 15th July, 1971.

d. Mr. Choudhury submitted that P.W.1 admitted that the testator was suffering from old age ailment since 1965. He submitted that as per evidence of P.W1, he is not the direct witness of execution of the Will by the testator and he has also not seen the attesting witness signing in the Will thus the evidence of P.W.1 is hearsay evidence which cannot be said to prove the execution of Will through the evidence of P.W.1. e. Mr. Choudhury submitted that the date of alleged Will is 4th April, 1966 and the testator died on 13th November, 1966. The executor of the Will died on 6th October, 1974 and the legatee of the Will died on 15th July, 1971 and the application for grant of probate is filed in the month of September 1988 but the plaintiff has not provided any explanation why the executor or the legatee has not filed any case for grant of probate during their life time and why the plaintiff has filed the present case after the period of 14 years from the death of executor. f. Mr. Choudhury submitted that though P.W.1 has stated that all the attesting witnesses passed away and he identified their signature but the fact remains that he has not seen the attesting witnesses have signed the Will. Mr. Choudhury in support of his submissions relied upon the judgement in the case of H. Venkatachala Iyengar Vs. B.N. Thimmajamma and Others reported in AIR 1959 SC 443 and submitted that it is the duty of the propounder to show satisfactory evidence that the Will was signed by the testator, that the testator at the relevant time was in a sound and disposing state of mind, that he understood the nature and effect of the dispositions and put his signature to the document of his own free will. g. Mr. Choudhury submitted that admittedly in the present case, none of the attesting witnesses of the Will come forward to prove the attestation of the Will. He submitted that the plaintiff has proved the death of one of the attesting witness but has not proved the death of other attesting witness. He submits that there was delay of 22 years in presenting the petition for grant of grant of Letters of Administration. On the date of filing of the application, Balai Lal Dey was alive but the plaintiff has not taken any steps to ensure the presence of Balai Lal Dey to have his evidence recorded de bene esse. He further submits that the plaintiff has also not availed the provisions of Order XVI Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908. Mr. Choudhury relied upon the judgment in the case of Babu Singh and Ors. vs. Ram Sahai @ Ram Singh reported in AIR 2008 SC 2485 and submitted that mere fact the signature of the attesting witness is proved, is not sufficient to prove the due execution of the Will. h. Mr. Choudhury submitted that plaintiff has admitted that the executrix, Sonia Koiri died in the year 1974, the plaintiff has also admitted that Mahadev Koiri died on 15th July, 1971 and the plaintiff being the grandson of the testator was aware of the alleged Will in the year 1971 but the plaintiff has not explained the delay in the application for grant of Letters of Administration. He submits that it is admitted that the plaintiff attained majority in the year 1974 but has filed the application only in the year 1988. In support of his submissions he has relied upon the judgment in the case of Kunvarjeet Singh Khandpur Vs. Kirandeep Kaur and Others reported in AIR 2008 SC 2058 and submitted that delay beyond 3 years after the deceased's death would be aroused suspicion and greater the delay, greater would be the suspicion.

16. The Will is dated 4th April, 1966 and is registered one. The testator Krishna Koiri has executed his last Will by appointing his wife Sonia Koiri as Executrix and his son Mahadeb Koiri as legatee of the said Will. Testator died on 13th November, 1966, executrix died on 6th October, 1974 and the legatee died on 15th July, 1971. Executrix during her life time has not filed any application for grant of probate of the Will. The plaintiff being the son of legatee and grandson of the testator as filed the present suit for grant of Letters of Administration.

20. The Will is dated 4th April, 1966. As per Will the wife of the testator Sonia Koiri is the executrix of the said Will and the father the plaintiff, namely, Mahadev Koiri is the legatee. Testator died on 13th November, 1966. The executrix died on 6th October, 1974. Prior to death of executrix the legatee died on 15th July, 1971. The executrix was alive about eight years after the death of testator. Executrix has not taken any steps during her life time to get probate of the said Will. It is the evidence of P.W.1, the plaintiff herein that the executrix being the grandmother of the plaintiff, informed the plaintiff that the testator has executed the Will, admittedly, the grandmother had the knowledge of the Will and the plaintiff also came to know about the Will during the life time of his grandmother. The Plaintiff tried to explain the delay and during his examination in chief that he was only 10 years old and when he attained majority proceed with the matter. He also tried to explain that he has no money to initiate proceeding. What are the explanations the P.W.1 has given during his examination before commissioner, the plaintiff has not made any averments with regard to the explanation of delay caused in filing the application for grant of probate.