Kanai Lai Roy Vs. Swaraswati Roy

Appellate Division Cases

(Civil)

PARTIES

Kanai Lai Roy ………………………Appellant

-vs-

Swaraswati Roy and ors ……………Respondents

JUSTICE

Md. Ruhul Amin. J

Syed J. R. Mudassir Husain. J

Abu Sayeed Ahammed J

JUDGEMENT DATE: 17th August, 2002.

Law of Probate and Law of Will.

Vacating the order of granting probate on compromise stating inter alia that in filing the petition of compromise in the High Court Division, fraud was practiced upon him and also it has been alleged that the lawyer of Kanai Lai, the appellant Mr. M. K. Rahman did not take his consent in submitting the compromise petition. The High Court Division did not lend any importance to the said application and the learned Judges of the High Court Division finding inter alia that the allegation of fraud was concocted one rejected the application for vacating the order of granting the probate and the High Court Division further found that the parties

voluntarily consented to the terms and conditions of the compromise petition and the High Court Division did not allow the allegation of restoration of the appeal to is its file and number upon vacating its earlier order dated 9.11.1999 granting probate…………………….. (5)

We are of the view is that although there is a will but unless and until it is proved in accordance with law, on the face of objection raised by any interested party (herein the appellant) a Probate cannot be granted on compromise and it is not permitted by law ……………………..(6)

The impugned judgment and order of the High Court Division is set aside and order of granting probate on compromise is set aside and it is cancelled. The probate case, however, is sent back to the original court, for hearing the same afresh in accordance with law by giving opportunity to the concerned party to produce the will itself in question and prove it by adducing evidence …………………(7)

Civil Appeal No. 151 of 1995 (From judgment and order dated 04.11.1999 passed by the High Court Division in Appeal from Original Decree (F.A) probate No. 246 of 1999).

M.K. Rahman, Advocate, instructed by Chowdury. Md. Zahangir, Avocate-onrecord. ………For the Appellants.

Abdul Basel Majumder, Senior Advocate, instructed by Mvi. Md. Wahidullah, Advocateon-Record ……………..For Respondent No. 1

Ex-Parte …………………Respondent Nos. 2-4

ORDER

1. Abu Sayeed Ahammed, J :- This appeal is at the instance of the contesting defendant and is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 04.11.1999 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court Division in the First Appeal (Probate) No. 246 of 1996, allowing the appeal on compromise and granting probate upon the disputed will and thereby setting aside the judgment and order dated 20.05.1996 passed by the Additional District Judge, 1st Court, Barisal in Probate Case No. 02 of 1992, refusing to grant probate of the last will of Trailakha Nath Roy made in favour of the respondent No. 1, Swarashati Roy wife of him.

2. Facts in this case, in short, are that Trailakha Nath Roy was the husband of the respondent No. 1 Swarashati Roy. Swarashati Roy and her son Bolai Roy used to look after the property of the said testator, Trailakha Nath Roy during his old age till his death. Trailakha Nath Roy made a will on 25.5.1990 and he died on 12.01.1991. Swarashati Roy was named as the executrix in the said will. Swarshati Roy and her son Bolai Roy filed Probate Case No. 2 of 1992 in the Court of the District Delegate Judge who is also the Additional District Judge. Barisal who refused to grant probate by his judgment and order dated 20.05.1996 upon the said will on contest by the parties in that case.

3. Against the said judgment and order of the District Delegate Judge First Appeal No. 246 of 1996 was filed, before the High Court Division by the present appellant who was contesting in the said probate case, In the High Court Division, the parties filed a compromise petition in the said First Appeal, and the High Court Division granted the probate as was prayed for, by the compromise petition and in the terms of the compromise. It is noticed that the appellant herein contested in the probate case in the original Court contending inter alia that the will itself was not genuine and it was a forged and fabricated one created by the respondent No.l. Swarashati Roy. Respondent No. 1 and her son Bolai Roy, the respondent No.2 after death of the said testator of the will . Upon haring the parties the trial court refused granting of probate by its judgment and order dated 04.11.1999 . But in the compromise petition before the High Court division on 18.11.1999 it was stated that the parties being relatives, on the advice of their common relatives and according to the instruction of their common well wishers the parties have compromised the matter out side the court and the parties would not contest the appeal before the High Court Division. In the compromise petition prayer was made to allow the appeal and to grant probate upon the said will and accordingly the compromise petition was accepted by the High Court Division and the First Appeal (Probate) No. 246 of 1996 was allowed on 30.11.1999 making the terms and conditions of the compromise petition as part of the judgment and order and thereby it set aside the judgment and order of the trial Court who refused to grant Probate and in terms of compromise the Probate was granted by the High Court division in favour of said Swarashati Roy, the executrix of the will, respondent No.l

4. Against the judgment and order of the High Court Division granting Probate on compromise said Kanai Lai Roy has filed the leave petition No. 267 of 2000 and obtained the order of granting leave in this appeal to consider the grievance of the petitioner whether the High Court division has jurisdiction to grant the Probate merely on the consent of the parties without the will being proved in accordance with law.

5. It is noticed that the appellant filed in application before the High Court Division for vacating the order of granting probate on compromise stating inter alia that in filing the petition of compromise in the High Court Division, fraud was practiced upon him and also it has been alleged that the lawyer of kanai Lai, the appellant Mr. M. K. Rahman did not take his consent in submitting the compromise petition. The High Court Division did not lend any importance to the said application and the learned Judges of the High Court Division finding inter alia that the allegation of fraud was concocted one rejected the application for vacating the order of granting the probate and the High Court division further found that the parties voluntarily consented to the terms and conditions of the compromise petition and the High Court Division did not allow the allegation of restoration of the appeal to is its file and number upon vacating its earlier order dated 9.11.1999 granting probate.

6. We have hear the learned Counsels of both parties and upon considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the impugned judgment and order of the High Court Division, we are of the view is that although there is a will but unless and until it is proved in accordance with law, on the face of objection raised by any interested party (herein the appellant) a Probate cannot be granted on compromise and it is not permitted by law.

7. For the reasons and discussions made above, we find merits in the appeal and accordingly the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order of the High Court Division is set aside and order of granting probate on compromise is set aside and it is cancelled. The probate case, however, is sent back to the original court, for hearing the same afresh in accordance with law by giving opportunity to the concerned party to produce the will itself in question and prove it by adducing evidence. No order as to costs.

Ed

Source: I ADC (2004), 339

Disclaimer:

The information contains in this web-site is prepared for educational purpose. This site may be used by the students, faculties, independent learners and the learned advocates of all over the world. Researchers all over the world have the access to upload their writes up in this site. In consideration of the people’s participation in the Web Page, the individual, group, organization, business, spectator, or other, does hereby release and forever discharge the Lawyers & Jurists, and its officers, board, and employees, jointly and severally from any and all actions, causes of actions, claims and demands for, upon or by reason of any damage, loss or injury, which hereafter may be sustained by participating their work in the Web Page. This release extends and applies to, and also covers and includes, all unknown, unforeseen, unanticipated and unsuspected injuries, damages, loss and liability and the consequences thereof, as well as those now disclosed and known to exist.  The provisions of any state’s law providing substance that releases shall not extend to claims, demands, injuries, or damages which are known or unsuspected to exist at this time, to the person executing such release, are hereby expressly waived. However the Lawyers & Jurists makes no warranty expressed or implied or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product or process disclosed or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product process or service by trade name, trade mark, manufacturer or otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation or favouring by the Lawyers & Jurists. The views and opinions of the authors expressed in the Web site do not necessarily state or reflect those of the Lawyers & Jurists. Above all, if there is any complaint drop by any independent user to the admin for any contents of this site, the Lawyers & Jurists would remove this immediately from its site.