Sanchari De and Anr. Vs Plaban Seal and Ors. — Succession and Inheritance | Calcutta HC (2025)

Sanchari De and Anr. Vs Plaban Seal and Ors. — Succession and Inheritance | Calcutta HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Delay of 172 days condoned (CAN 1 of 2025); appeal and application disposed of with no interference in the impugned revocation order; probate application to be heard afresh as a contentious cause with objections treated as written statement within three weeks, failing which the original probate grant shall revive; beneficiary barred from relying on the revoked probate grant; no order as to costs.

Issue for consideration

Whether the order impugned (allowing revocation of the probate) is proper, i.e., whether this Court should interfere with the order passed by the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Calcutta. +1 more

Court's answer

The testatrix was a widow who died issueless; therefore the heirs mentioned in Section 15(1)(b) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 were the persons entitled to service of notice of the probate application.

Ratio / Principle

The delay of 172 days in preferring the appeal is condoned; the application for condonation of delay (CAN 1 of 2025) is allowed and disposed of.

Key takeaways

Non-mention of the revocation applicant's name in the special citation published was one of the grounds for which the revocation application was allowed by the learned Chief Judge.ratio¶18
On such consideration, the Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Calcutta.ratio¶21
The probate application is now required to be heard afresh.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

FAT 424 of 2024 (decided 04.08.2025, bench of Soumen Sen, J. and Apurba Sinha Ray, J.): Sanchari De & Anr. v. Plaban Seal & Ors. CAN 1 of 2025 - delay of 172 days in preferring the appeal condoned and the application allowed and disposed of. On merits, the appeal challenged the order of the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Calcutta allowing a miscellaneous revocation application filed in or about 2018 by one of the brothers-in-law who would have succeeded to the estate under Section 15(1)(b) of the Hindu Succession Act from the side of the deceased/testatrix. The probate had been granted on 19th March, 2018; the testatrix was a widow who died issueless, so the Section 15(1)(b) heirs were entitled to service of notice of the probate application, and the name of the revocation applicant had not been mentioned in the special citation published. Finding this a valid ground for the revocation, the Court saw no reason to interfere with the impugned order. The probate application is to be heard afresh: objections against the grant are to be treated as written statement filed within three weeks; the matter is to be marked a contentious cause, procedural orders passed to make it ready for hearing, and trial conducted in accordance with law; if no opposing affidavit is filed within the period, the original order granting probate shall revive. The directions are peremptory. In view of the revocation, the beneficiary shall not be entitled to rely on the grant of probate in any pending or future proceeding. No order as to costs.

04.08.2025 Sl No.19 Court No.16 (gc)

FAT 424 of 2024 CAN 1 of 2025 CAN 2 of 2025

Sanchari De & Anr. Vs.

Plaban Seal & Ors.

Ms. Aiswarjya Gupta

…for the Appellant.

Mr. Ujjal Ray, Mr. Ivan Roy,

Mr. Abdur Rahim

…for the opposite parties.

Re: CAN 1 of 2025

There is a delay of 172 days in preferring the appeal.

We are satisfied with the explanation offered for not being able to prefer the appeal within the period of limitation and hence the delay of 172 days in preferring the appeal is hereby condoned.

Accordingly, the application for condonation of delay is allowed and disposed of.

Re: FAT 424 of 2024 CAN 2 of 2025

We have heard the learned Counsel for the parties on merits with regard to the propriety of the order impugned.

The misc. revocation case filed by one of the brothers-in-law who would have succeeded to the estate under Section 15(1)(b) of the Hindu

2

Succession Act from the side of the deceased/testatrix, the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Calcutta has allowed the said application for revocation on the ground of non-citation of the said heirs that was obligatory under Section 15(1)(b) of the Hindu Succession Act. The probate was granted on 19^th March, 2018 and the application for revocation was filed in or about 2018. In the instant case, the testatrix was a widow died issueless and, therefore, the heirs mentioned in Section 15(1)(b) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 would be entitled insofar as service of notice of the probate application is concerned. It appears that in the special citation published the name of the applicant for revocation was not mentioned. This is one of the grounds for which the revocation application was allowed.

On such consideration, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Calcutta. The probate application is now required to be heard afresh.

In the event the applicants filed their objection with regard to the grant of probate which shall be treated as written statement be filed within a period of three weeks from date. The learned Chief Judge shall mark it as contentious cause

3

and pass appropriate procedural orders in order to make the probate matter ready for hearing and thereafter shall proceed with the trial in accordance with law. However, in the event no affidavit opposing the grant of probate is filed within the aforesaid period, the original order granting probate shall revive.

The aforesaid direction is peremptory.

Accordingly, the appeal and the application are disposed of.

It is needless to mention that in view of the revocation of grant of probate, the beneficiary shall not be entitled to rely on the grant of probate in any pending or future proceeding. 11. However, there shall be no order as to costs.

Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of all necessary formalities.

(Soumen Sen, J.)

(Apurba Sinha Ray, J.)