Disposed¶15

Durga Chakraborty v. Gopal Chakraborty and Ors.

Calcutta HC21 May 2025CO/1694/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Article 227 revision disposed of without interference; will executed by Bela Rani Chakraborty; propounder to prove valid execution; attesting witness PW3 Sukumar Das denied signing the will and denied identifying LTI; prayer for Bengali signature for forensic test rejected; order dated February 20, 2025 by Additional District Judge 2nd Court, Bangaon, North 24 Parganas in O.S. No.39 of 2015 upheld; cogent reasons; Calcutta High Court; decided 21-05-2025; Hiranmay Bhattacharyya J.

What did the court decide?

It is well settled that it is for the propounder to prove the valid execution of the will. ¶13

Durga Chakraborty Vs Gopal Chakraborty and Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Calcutta HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Disposed

¶15

Issue for consideration

Whether the revisional court should interfere with the impugned order rejecting the petitioner's application for a direction upon PW3 Sukumar Das, the attesting witness of the will executed by Bela Rani Chakraborty, to appear before the court and provide his Bengali signature for forensic test/comparison with the signature appearing in the will.

¶8

Court's answer

It is well settled that it is for the propounder to prove the valid execution of the will.

¶13

Ratio / Principle

The learned trial judge assigned cogent reasons for rejecting the application filed by the petitioner.

¶13

Key takeaways

This court does not find any reason to interfere in the impugned order, and accordingly the revisional application is disposed of leaving the trial court's order undisturbed.ratio¶14

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Civil Revisional Jurisdiction, High Court at Calcutta. CO No.1694 of 2025, Durga Chakraborty v. Gopal Chakraborty & Ors., decided 21-05-2025 ([Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J]). An application under Article 227 of the Constitution by the plaintiff challenged the order dated February 20, 2025 of the learned Additional District Judge, 2nd Court at Bangaon, North 24 Parganas in O.S. No.39 of 2015, whereby her application praying for a direction upon PW3 Sukumar Das, the attesting witness of the will executed by Bela Rani Chakraborty, to appear before the court and provide his Bengali signature for forensic test stood rejected. On the record, Sukumar Das in his evidence had categorically stated that he did not put any signature as found in the will and denied that he identified the LTI of Bela Rani Chakraborty therein. Observing that it is well settled that it is for the propounder to prove the valid execution of the will, and finding that the learned trial judge had assigned cogent reasons for rejecting the application, the High Court found no reason to interfere in the impugned order and disposed of CO No.1694 of 2025.

¶1

21-05-2025 Item no.16 Subrata Bhattacharyya AR(C)

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Revisional Jurisdiction

¶3

CO No.1694 of 2025 Durga Chakraborty

¶4

-vs-

¶5

Gopal Chakraborty & Ors.

¶6

Mr. Bhaskar Chandra Manna …for the petitioner

¶7

This application under Article 227 of the Constitution is at the instance of plaintiff and is directed against an order dated February 20, 2025 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, 2^nd Court at Bangaon, North 24 Parganas in O.S. No.39 of 2015.

¶8

By the order impugned, an application filed by the petitioner praying for a direction upon the PW3, namely Sukumar Das, the attesting witness of the will executed by Bela Rani Chakraborty, to appear before the court and to provide his Bengali signature for forensic test stood rejected.

¶9

Mr Manna, learned counsel representing the petitioner, submits that the said witness during his evidence denied that he has signed in the will as an attesting witness. He further submits that the signature of Sukumar Das as appearing in the will executed by Bela Rani Chakraborty is to be compared with the Bengali signature of Sukumar Das collected through the intervention of the court.

¶10

It appears from the record that Sukumar Das adduced evidence in the said suit and during his evidence he has categorically stated that he did not put any signature as Sukumar Das as found in the will. He also

¶11

¶12

denied that he identified the LTI of Bela Rani Chakraborty in the will.

¶13

It is well settled that it is for the propounder to prove the valid execution of the will. This court finds that the learned trial judge assigned cogent reasons for rejecting the application filed by the petitioner.

¶14

Accordingly, this court does not find any reason to interfere in the impugned order.

¶15

With the above, CO No.1694 of 2025 stands disposed of.

¶16

All parties are to act on the server copy of this order duly downloaded from the official website of this court.

¶17

Certified copy of this order, if applied for, shall be made available to the parties.

¶18

[ Hiranmay Bhattacharyya, J]

Durga Chakraborty v. Gopal Chakraborty and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Durga Chakraborty v. Gopal Chakraborty and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sankar Sutradhar Vs Tarun Ranjan Sarkar and Anr.

Sumit Singh Vs Avijit Pal

Anjali Roy (Mondal) and Ors. Vs Usha Holding Enclave Pvt.Ltd and Ors.

Jayasree Mahumdar and Ors. Vs Biju Devi Bhansali

Nripotee Ranjan Das Vs Jharna Das

Sandip Ghosh and Anr. Vs Nemai Prosad Ghosh and Ors.