Disposed¶14

In the Goods of- Sri Animesh Banerjee (Dec.) v. Na

Calcutta HC13 Dec 2024PLA/173/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Calcutta High Court, Original Side (Testamentary and Intestate Jurisdiction); PLA/173/2024, In the Goods of Sri Animesh Banerjee (Dec.); Krishna Rao J.; decided 13.12.2024; uncontested grant of Letters of Administration; Will dated 21.06.1993; no executor appointed; petitioner-beneficiary; consent affidavits of daughters Surita Banerjee and Rinka Banerjee; attesting witness affidavit; sureties Rs.5 lacs (Rs.2.50 lacs each); Chapter XVI Rule 23A(xii); disposed of; advocate Uday Narayan Betal.

What did the court decide?

Letters of Administration of the last Will and Testament dated 21.06.1993 granted to the petitioner-beneficiary, subject to furnishing two sureties of Rs.5 lacs (Rs.2.50 lacs each); under Chapter XVI Rule 23A(xii) the order granting Letters of Administration need not be drawn up. ¶14

In the Goods of- Sri Animesh Banerjee (Dec.) Vs Na — Calcutta HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶14

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, a beneficiary under the unprobated Will dated 21.06.1993 of Animesh Banerjee (which appointed no executor), has proved the Will and is entitled to Letters of Administration.

¶12

Court's answer

The last Will and Testament dated 21.06.1993 of Animesh Banerjee stands proved; the petitioner, a beneficiary under the Will in which no executor was appointed, is entitled to Letters of Administration.

¶12

Ratio / Principle

Proof of the Will rests on the consent affidavits of both daughters of the testator and on the affidavit of an attesting witness (one of the daughters) that the testator executed the Will in her presence and in the presence of the other two attesting witnesses while in good health and a fit state of mind.

¶12

Key takeaways

The Department is directed to issue Letters of Administration of the Will dated 21.06.1993 subject to the petitioner furnishing two sureties of Rs.5 lacs (Rs.2.50 lacs each) upon completion of all formalities.ratio¶13

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Uncontested testamentary petition — Will dated 21.06.1993 of Animesh Banerjee (died 16.12.2019) appointed no executor; beneficiary-petitioner sought Letters of Administration — wife of testator pre-deceased (24.04.2019); both daughters (Surita Banerjee and Rinka Banerjee) filed consent affidavits; one daughter, an attesting witness, deposed to due execution in the testator's good health and fit state of mind — Will held proved; petitioner held entitled to Letters of Administration — Department directed to issue Letters of Administration subject to two sureties totalling Rs.5 lacs (Rs.2.50 lacs each) — per Chapter XVI Rule 23A(xii) the order need not be drawn up — PLA/173/2024 disposed of (Krishna Rao, J.).

¶1

¶2

OD – 12

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Testamentary and Intestate Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE

¶4

PLA/173/2024 IN THE GOODS OF : SRI ANIMESH BANERJEE (DEC.)

¶5

BEFORE :

¶6

THE HON’BLE JUSTICE KRISHNA RAO Date : 13^th December, 2024

¶7

Appearance : Mr. Uday Narayan Betal, Adv. …for the petitioner.

¶8

The Court : Mr. Uday Narayan Betal, counsel appearing for the petitioner. The petitioner has filed the present application for grant of letters of administration of the last Will and Testament dated 21^st June, 1993. Counsel for the petitioner submits that though the testator Animesh Banerjee has executed his last Will and Testament dated 21^st June, 1993 but in the said Will he has not appointed any executor in the said Will. Accordingly, the petitioner being the beneficiary has filed the present application for grant of Letters of Administration. The petitioner says that the testator died on 16^th December, 2019 leaving behind two daughters, namely, Surita Banerjee and Rinka Banerjee. He submits that the wife of the testator was pre-deceased to him, died on 24^th April, 2019. He submits that both the daughters of the testator have filed their affidavit of consent stating that they have no objection if the Letters of Administration is granted to the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner submits that in the Will there are three attesting witnesses out of which one of them is one of the daughter of the testator has

¶9

filed an affidavit as an attesting witness. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the

¶10

¶11

petitioner has proved the Will and the petitioner is entitled to grant of letters of administration.

¶12

Heard counsel for the petitioner, perused the original last Will and Testament dated 21^st June, 1993, death certificate of the testator, death certificate of the wife of the testator, affidavit of consent of both the daughters and the affidavit of attesting witness. It is found that both the daughters have categorically mentioned in the affidavit that they have no objection to the grant of Letters of Administration. One of the attesting witnesses being the daughter of the testator has also categorically mentioned in a separate affidavit stating that the testator has executed his last Will and Testament in her presence and in presence of the other two attesting witness while possessing good health and in fit state of mind. The petitioner has proved the Will and is entitled to get the Letters of Administration.

¶13

In view of the above, the Department is directed to issue the letters of administration of the last Will and Testament dated 21^st June, 1993 subject to furnishing two sureties of Rs.5 lacs (Rs.2.50 lacs each), upon completion of all formalities. At the time of grant of letters of administration, the copy of the Will has made a part of the letters of administration.

¶14

PLA/173/2024 is disposed of.

¶15

As per the prayer made by the counsel for the petitioner and as per Chapter XVI Rule 23A(xii), the order for grant of letters of administration need not be drawn up.

¶16

(KRISHNA RAO, J.)

¶17

sd/

¶18

In the Goods of- Sri Animesh Banerjee (Dec.) v. Na

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

In the Goods of- Sri Animesh Banerjee (Dec.) v. Na

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

In the Goods of Ashtam Kumar Dhara @ Astham Kumar Dhara Deced Vs Na

In the Goods of Sushila Shukla (Dec.) Vs Na

In the Goods of Biswanath Sarkar (Dec) Vs Na

Adi Mohini Mohan Kanjilal Marketing Private Limited Vs Prasanta Ghosh

Titagarh Rail Systems Limited Vs Yes Bank Ltd. and Anr.

In the Goods of Rajinder Kumar Modi( Rajendra Kumar Modi) Vs N