Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 3 of 3 (0.25 seconds)Dharani Mohan Roy vs Pramatha Nath Roy And Anr. on 10 January, 1936
Mr. Jishnu Chowdhury, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the petitioner submits that if the later Will is decided on merits
then the authenticity of the first Will is immaterial and there can
be only one Will under which the parties were derived their
benefits. Mr. Chowdhury has referred to an unreported judgment
of this Court in Priyamvada Devi Birla (G.A. No. 3879 of 2004
arising out of PLA No. 242 of 2004), where it has been observed
2
that if the probate is granted in the later instrument the former
instrument will automatically fail.
Per contra, Mr. Probal Kumar Mukherjee, learned senior
counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties has referred to
a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Jagdish Prasad
Tulshan (D) by LR vs. Yasheel Jain, reported at AIR 2007 Cal 218
(para 21), where the Hon'ble Division Bench has referred to an
earlier Division Bench judgment of this Court in Usharani Roy vs.
Hemlata Roy, reported at AIR 1946 Cal 40 wherein it was held that
in such an eventuality two separate proceedings should be heard
analogously by giving opportunities to the contesting claimants to
contest those proceedings by lodging separate caveat in the
proceedings.
Jagdish Prasad Tulshan, Since Deceased ... vs Yasheel Jain on 4 May, 2007
Mr. Jishnu Chowdhury, learned counsel appearing on behalf
of the petitioner submits that if the later Will is decided on merits
then the authenticity of the first Will is immaterial and there can
be only one Will under which the parties were derived their
benefits. Mr. Chowdhury has referred to an unreported judgment
of this Court in Priyamvada Devi Birla (G.A. No. 3879 of 2004
arising out of PLA No. 242 of 2004), where it has been observed
2
that if the probate is granted in the later instrument the former
instrument will automatically fail.
Per contra, Mr. Probal Kumar Mukherjee, learned senior
counsel appearing on behalf of the opposite parties has referred to
a Division Bench judgment of this Court in Jagdish Prasad
Tulshan (D) by LR vs. Yasheel Jain, reported at AIR 2007 Cal 218
(para 21), where the Hon'ble Division Bench has referred to an
earlier Division Bench judgment of this Court in Usharani Roy vs.
Hemlata Roy, reported at AIR 1946 Cal 40 wherein it was held that
in such an eventuality two separate proceedings should be heard
analogously by giving opportunities to the contesting claimants to
contest those proceedings by lodging separate caveat in the
proceedings.
1