CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
UMANATH MOOKHOPADHYA VS
NILMONEY SINGH ON 10-09-1880
NILMONEY SINGH ON 10-09-1880
Equivalent citations: (1881) ILR 6 Cal 429
Author: Morris
Bench: Morris, Prinsep
JUDGMENT Morris, J.
Summarised Judgement:
Question Raised:
The question that arises is, whether Nilmoney Singh, as creditor of
Taranath, has any locus standi? Whether he has such an interest in the estate
of the deceased Bamon Dass as gives him a right to apply for revocation of the
probate granted of his will? In support of the proposition that he cannot apply
for the revocation of probate, several authorities have been cited.
Taranath, has any locus standi? Whether he has such an interest in the estate
of the deceased Bamon Dass as gives him a right to apply for revocation of the
probate granted of his will? In support of the proposition that he cannot apply
for the revocation of probate, several authorities have been cited.
Observation & Judgement:
In support of the proposition that he cannot apply for the revocation of
probate, several authorities have been cited. In In the matter of Mee Tsee (15
W. R., 351), Mr. Justice Norman, delivering the judgment of the Court, says:
“We have no doubt of the soundness of the proposition that a person who is
not next-of-kin, and who has no interest in the estate of a testator, has no
right to oppose the grant of the probate or dispute the validity of the will.
probate, several authorities have been cited. In In the matter of Mee Tsee (15
W. R., 351), Mr. Justice Norman, delivering the judgment of the Court, says:
“We have no doubt of the soundness of the proposition that a person who is
not next-of-kin, and who has no interest in the estate of a testator, has no
right to oppose the grant of the probate or dispute the validity of the will.
Then the case of Baij Nath Shahai v. Desputty Singh (I. L. R., 2 Cal.,
208; S.C., 25 W. R., 489) is quoted to show that the learned Judges there
considered that, in this country also, the creditors of next-of-kin to the
deceased are not entitled to have citations served upon them under Section 250
Act X of 1865, calling upon them “to come and see the proceedings before
the grant of probate or letters of administration.”
208; S.C., 25 W. R., 489) is quoted to show that the learned Judges there
considered that, in this country also, the creditors of next-of-kin to the
deceased are not entitled to have citations served upon them under Section 250
Act X of 1865, calling upon them “to come and see the proceedings before
the grant of probate or letters of administration.”
But this case came subsequently under the consideration of another Bench
of this Court, of whom a member of the present Bench was one, in connection
with the case of Komollochun Dutt v. Nilruttun Mundle (I. L. R., 4 Cal, 360);
and Mr. Justice Markby, in giving the judgment of the Court, made the following
observations: “If we thought that the decision in Baij Nath Shahai v.
Desputty Singh (I. L. L., 2 Calc, 208; S.C., 25 next-of-kin of the deceased
attaching the property as belonging to his debtor has a right to file a
caveat:-Ibid. Subomongala Dasi v. Shoshi Bhoshan Biswas (1884) 10 Cal. 413. He
can oppose the under Section 69 of the Probate and Administration Act:-(1901)
28 Cal. 441.].
of this Court, of whom a member of the present Bench was one, in connection
with the case of Komollochun Dutt v. Nilruttun Mundle (I. L. R., 4 Cal, 360);
and Mr. Justice Markby, in giving the judgment of the Court, made the following
observations: “If we thought that the decision in Baij Nath Shahai v.
Desputty Singh (I. L. L., 2 Calc, 208; S.C., 25 next-of-kin of the deceased
attaching the property as belonging to his debtor has a right to file a
caveat:-Ibid. Subomongala Dasi v. Shoshi Bhoshan Biswas (1884) 10 Cal. 413. He
can oppose the under Section 69 of the Probate and Administration Act:-(1901)
28 Cal. 441.].
—————————————————————-
AS
– 24122019
– 24122019