2017 (8) TMI 1727 - HC - Indian Laws

Probation of the will - contention of Bikash is that Mary withdrew various sums of money from the joint accounts held in the name of Mary and Abha. The moneys that she withdrew belonged to Abha and accordingly formed part of Abha's estate and hence Mary must pay back/deposit all such moneys withdrawn by her. HELD THAT - A probate court is required to decide whether the Will in question was the last Will of the testator, whether the same was duly attested by at least two witnesses and whether the testator had mental capacity to execute the Will. The Probate Court has also the jurisdiction to consider whether execution of the Will was vitiated by fraud, undue influence, coercion etc. being practised upon the testator or whether the Will was executed by the testator under some mistake or induced by false representation. It is settled law that a Probate Court is not entitled to go into the question as to whether or not the testator had title or possession in respect of the property covered by the Will. The probate granted by a Testamentary Court does not establish that the testator had title to the property covered by the Will. It is not the duty of the Probate Court to consider any issue as to the title of the testator to the property with which the Will in question purports to deal or as to what disposing power the testator may have possessed over such property or as to the validity of the bequests made. It would be most injudicious to upset the settled practice of this court which has been uniformly followed since a long time and for the Testamentary Court to embark on the adjudication of difficult questions as to the ownership of the properties bequeathed by a Will. The Probate Court has no authority or jurisdiction to decide questions of title. If a Will purports to deal with a property which belongs not to the testator but to somebody else, the remedy of that person is to approach the Civil Court to establish his right of ownership in respect of such property. Such person cannot seek to enlarge the scope of the probate proceeding by applying before the Probate Court to exclude his/her property from the affidavit of assets. Such person has to establish his/her right to such property in an appropriately constituted civil suit following due process of law. The rival claims made by Bikash and Mary in their respective applications are completely beyond the scope and ambit of the present probate proceeding - there are no reason to withhold grant of probate of the said Will. Application disposed off.

Summary

Issues Involved:

1. Application for probate of the Will dated 28 March, 2011.
2. Allegations of Mary Catherine Sinha withdrawing money from joint accounts.
3. Dispute over the ownership of funds in joint accounts.
4. Contentions regarding the affidavit of assets filed with the probate application.
5. Requests for injunctions and other reliefs related to the estate of the deceased.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Application for Probate of the Will:

The application for probate of the Will dated 28 March, 2011, executed by Abha Rani Sinha, was filed. The Will clearly mentions the manner in which Abha wanted her estate to be administered, identifying beneficiaries with precision. The language of the Will is unambiguous, indicating that Abha was fully conscious of her bequests. The Will was witnessed by three individuals, and no suspicious circumstances were surrounding its execution. No caveat or challenge to the validity of the Will was filed. Therefore, the court found no reason to withhold the grant of probate.

2. Allegations of Mary Catherine Sinha Withdrawing Money:

Bikash Sinha alleged that Mary Catherine Sinha had withdrawn substantial sums from joint accounts held with Abha, which should form part of Abha's estate. Mary contended that the funds in the accounts where she was the first holder belonged exclusively to her and were shown in her income tax returns. The court noted that a probate court is not entitled to decide on the ownership of property covered by the Will but only on the validity of the Will itself.

3. Dispute Over Ownership of Funds in Joint Accounts:

Bikash argued that joint bank accounts should be considered part of Abha's estate, citing several legal precedents. Mary countered that the funds in the accounts where she was the first holder were her exclusive property, supported by income tax returns and other documents. The court reiterated that a probate court cannot adjudicate on the ownership of properties and that such disputes should be resolved in a civil court.

4. Contentions Regarding the Affidavit of Assets:

Mary objected to the affidavit of assets filed by Anjan Chakraborty, claiming it incorrectly included her personal assets as part of Abha's estate. She sought rectification of the affidavit to reflect the true assets of Abha. The court held that it is beyond the scope of a probate proceeding to determine the ownership of assets listed in the affidavit and that such issues should be addressed in a civil suit.

5. Requests for Injunctions and Other Reliefs:

Bikash sought various injunctions against Mary to restrain her from dealing with the assets and properties of Abha, including bank accounts. The court noted that such requests are beyond the jurisdiction of a probate court and should be pursued in a civil forum.

Court's Conclusion:

The court concluded that the rival claims of Bikash and Mary regarding the ownership of funds and assets are beyond the scope of the probate proceeding. The court granted probate of the Will dated 28 March, 2011, to the joint executors Anjan Chakraborty and Mary Catherine Sinha without requiring security. The applications GA No. 2679 of 2012 and GA No. 3234 of 2012 were disposed of, with costs to come out of the estate of the deceased.