9911796707
TMI Blog1957 (12) TMI 43X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... em Nalini Devi in October, 1950. Hemnalini had three sons, Profulla, Nirmal and Shoilesh of whom the first two are dead. Amal is son of Nirmal and Guruprosad is son of Profulla. As the application for grant of probate had become contentious, the application was subsequently registered as a plaint. Summons was duly served on Shoilesh and he appeared and contested the proceedings. 2. During the pendency of the suit in the Court of the District Judge an application for appointment of an administrator pendente lite in respect of the properties covered by the will was filed by the plaintiffs on the allegation that defendant Shoilesh had taken possession of the ground floor portion cf one of the properties, viz., the house at 279/3, Upper Circula ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ra Nath Ghosh appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted two principal contentions before us. In the first place, he has argued that the learned District Judge was wrong in holding that the question of the disposing power of the testatrix could not be raised by the objector in any way. Secondly, he has argued that upon the facts of the case as made out before the District Judge he should have held that it was not necessary to appoint an administrator pendente lite in respect of the disputed house. We shall take up these two contentions one after another. 4. As regards the first contention put forth, on behalf of the objector appellant we must say that or dinarily no probate Court should enter into a question of title, where conflict ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... edication appears to be an absolute one. The disputed property also appears to be included in the will executed by Hemnalini in 1950. The question, therefore, naturally arises whether after having executed a deed of dedication in 1939 Hemnalini retained the power of incorporating the disputed property in the will of J950. We are not entitled to say anything finally on that question in the present appeal. All that we mean to say is that for the purpose of appointing an administrator pendente rite we should look into this deed of dedication on which the objector appellant is relying for the purpose of questioning the propriety of the appointment. The District Judge thought that no such question could be raised in any manner in this proceeding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lite so far as the disputed house is concerned. This house is a four storeyed building the ground floor portion of which only has been let out. It is an admitted fact that tenants have been inducted into that portion by the appellant. Mr. Pankaj Coomar Ghosh appearing on behalf of the opposite party has submitted before us that the other floors are occupied by different sebaits. As the tenants have been inducted by the appellant who is claiming to be the sole sebait under the deed of dedication of 1939, and who is admitted to be at least a co-sebait, we are of opinion that the District Judge should not have appointed an outsider as administrator pendente lite so far as the disputed house is concerned. Such an appointment would only involve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
