Ashish Kumar Mitra Vs. Suparna Mitra

Ashish Kumar Mitra vs Suparna Mitra

Type Court Judgment Court Kolkata Decided Apr 28, 2014

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/1139043

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/1139043
Court: Kolkata High Court
Judge: Soumen Sen
Decided On: Apr 28, 2014
Subject: MRTP

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

MRTP

Key legal issue: MRTP

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Ashish Kumar Mitra

Respondent

Suparna Mitra

Excerpt

.....could be taken up, this application has been filed by one of the beneficiaries under the will. mr.suman dutt, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the beneficiary submits that initially the probate was granted in common form but subsequently the said order was set aside. the beneficiary as well as one of the attesting witnesses have been examined on commission. mr.dutt has referred to the depositions of the said witnesses as recorded before the contest this commissioner. none appears on behalf of the caveatrix to proceeding. it appears from the record of proceedings that the caveatrix also did not appear before the commissioner. the after commissioner completion of has the returned the commission. evidence on to this consideration court of the evidence on record, it appears that the will has been validly executed in accordance with section 63 of the indian succession act, 1925. in absence of any evidence contrary to what has been recorded during commission and on the basis of such irrebuttable testimony of the witnesses, in my view, the beneficiary is entitled to the grant. upon payment of ad valorem court fees, if not already paid, and furnishing a personal bond of rs.1 lakh with one surety, there shall be an order in terms of prayer (d) of the petition. the department is directed to draw up the decree expeditiously as possible. ( soumen sen, j. ) s. kumar a.r.(c.r.) as

Full Judgment

ORDER

TS No.5 of 2008 PLA No.80 of 1999 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Testamentary & Intestate Jurisdiction IN THE GOODS OF: SMT.

NAMITA MITRA (DECEASED) ASHISH KUMAR MITRA VS SUPARNA MITRA BEFORE: The Hon'ble JUSTICE SOUMEN SEN Date: 28th April 2014.

Appearance: Mr.Suman Kumar Dutt, Advocate Mr.S.Senguupta, Advocate Mr.Arnab Dutt, Advocate.

COURT: This is an application for grant of letters of administration attached to the original Will taken out by one of the beneficiaries of the last Will and Testament of Smt.

Namita Mitra, widow of Shambhu Nath Mitra.

Since the executor died before the application could be taken up, this application has been filed by one of the beneficiaries under the Will.

Mr.Suman Dutt, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the beneficiary submits that initially the probate was granted in common form but subsequently the said order was set aside.

The beneficiary as well as one of the attesting witnesses have been examined on commission.

Mr.Dutt has referred to the depositions of the said witnesses as recorded before the contest this Commissioner.

None appears on behalf of the caveatrix to proceeding.

It appears from the record of proceedings that the caveatrix also did not appear before the Commissioner.

The after Commissioner completion of has the returned the commission.

evidence On to this consideration court of the evidence on record, it appears that the Will has been validly executed in accordance with Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.

In absence of any evidence contrary to what has been recorded during commission and on the basis of such irrebuttable testimony of the witnesses, in my view, the beneficiary is entitled to the grant.

Upon payment of ad valorem court fees, if not already paid, and furnishing a personal bond of Rs.1 lakh with one surety, there shall be an order in terms of prayer (d) of the petition.

The department is directed to draw up the decree expeditiously as possible.

( SOUMEN SEN, J.

) S.

Kumar A.R.(C.R.) as

Same Court & Year Kolkata · 2014 Same Parties Ashish Kumar Mitra vs Suparna Mitra Same Subject MRTP Same Judge Soumen Sen