0

Tripura High Court upholds Lower Court’s Judgement in rejecting the grant of probate in a disputed will case

Blog , ,

Case title:  Smt. Niyati Das Vs Smti. Milan Debnath & Ors.

Case no.:  MFA No.04 of 2022

Dated on: 03.06.2023

Quorum:  Hon’ble. MR JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD

 

FACTS OF THE CASE

This appeal has been filed under Section-299 of Indian Succession Act, 1925 read with Order-XLI Rule-1 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (as amended up to date) against the judgment passed in T.S.(Probate) 01 of 2014 by the learned District Judge, North Tripura, Dharmanagar on 06.04.2022.

The fact of the case of the appellant, in short, is that the testator Dhruba Kanti Gupta died at his residence on 12-03-2012. During the lifetime of deceased Dhruba Kanti Gupta his relation with his wife, son and daughter was not good and due to such bitter relation about 14 years ago his wife left his house along with her son and daughter and started living separately in her personal residence at Padmapur under Dharmanagar Sub-Division. During that period the appellant used to look after said Dhruba Kanti Gupta by nursing, cooking meal and helping to get medical treatment etc. and the appellant has been permanently residing in the house of Dhruba Kanti Gupta and being satisfied said Dhruba Kanti Gupta executed a registered Will dated 29-05-1997 before the Sub-Registrar, Dharmanagar in favour of the appellant, Smt. Niyati Das in respect of his all movable and immovable properties including gratuity, provident fund and deposited money in the Bank and Post Office. It is also stated that the appellant was named as the executor in the said Will and she is entitled to get movable and immovable properties including the money deposited in Bank as per description of the Will according to the last desire of the testator. But the appellant could not give details list of all assets and the debts of the deceased Dhruba Kanti Gupta as just after the death of Dhruba Kanti Gupta the present Opposite Parties forcefully captured all the documents of bank and post office, ration card including documents of landed properties and they forcefully drove out the appellant from the house of the deceased. It has been further stated that the deceased left behind Smt. Milan Debnath as his wife, Sri Biswajit Gupta as his son and Smt. Mitali Gupta as his daughter as his legal heirs and survivors but due to their misconduct and misbehaviour with the deceased Dhruba Kanti Gupta he being dissatisfied with them executed the said Will in favour of the appellant. Thus, the appellant has prayed for a direction to the respondents to produce the documents in connection with the Will and grant probate of the Will in favour of the appellant.

 ISSUES

  • Whether the application filed by the petitioner, Smt. Niyati Das under Section-276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 for grant of a probate of the Will executed by Dhruba Kanti Gupta valid?
  • Whether the judgment passed by the learned Court below is liable to be set aside?

LEGAL PROVISIONS

Section-299 of Indian Succession Act, 1925

Section 299 of this Act says that every order made by the District Judge by virtue of the powers conferred upon him by the Act shall be subject to appeal to the High Court.

Order-XLI Rule-1 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

Order XLI, Rule 1, of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that the memorandum of appeal shall be accompanied by a copy of the decree appealed against and (unless the Appellate Court dispenses therewith) of the judgment on which it is founded.

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT

Mr. S. Bhattacharjee, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that the learned Court below has erred in law and came to an erroneous conclusion as such the judgment passed by the learned Court below is liable to be set aside. The learned Court below misinterpreted the clauses of the WILL and completely on imagination draws inference while the respondents in spite of submitting written statement did not enter into witness box to rebut the evidence of the appellant. He has further contended that the learned Court below discussed and came to the conclusion that the WILL does not bear any description of the WILL but the learned Court has failed to read the contents of the WILL. There is no specific form for any WILL and the Court has to read so as to determine the question as to object and subject of WILL but, the learned Court below has most wrongly held that there was nothing in record that testator had right, title, interest over the suit land at the time of execution of WILL as such the findings of the trial is liable to be interfered with.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS

After registration of the suit initially order was passed directing ex-parte hearing of the suit against all the opposite parties as they did not appear before the court even after receipt of notice in connection with this suit. However, subsequently all the three opposite parties appeared before the Court and filed separate applications for vacating the ex-parte order passed against them and after allowing their applications, all the three opposite parties contested this suit by submitting their separate written statement.

 In their respective written statements the opposite parties denied and disputed each and every averments made in the application by the appellant and raised objection regarding genuineness of the so called last Will of deceased Dhruba Kanti Gupta. It is also pleaded by the opposite parties that deceased Dhruba Kanti Gupta did never execute any Will in respect of his movable and immovable properties including the service benefits in favour of the appellant rather the appellant has approached before the Court for granting a probate in respect of the so called last Will of deceased Dhruba Kanti Gupta submitting some false and fabricated documents.

COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT

The court stated that the burden of proof of execution of a Will as also the suspicious circumstances attached to execution of such Will always lies on the propounder of the Will who has to prove the due execution of Will and remove the suspicious circumstances from the mind of the court by cogent and satisfactory evidence. The case of the appellant is that deceased Dhruba Kanti Gupta during his lifetime had no good relationship with his wife and children for which deceased Dhruba Kanti Gupta used to reside at his own residence at Office road, Dharmanagar alone for about 14/ 15 years from the date of execution of the Will and that the respondent No.1 even did not allow her son and daughter to keep any relation with their father Dhruba Kanti Gupta (now deceased). So, from the story of the appellant itself it may safely be presumed that late Dhruba Kanti Gupta had not been passing his days in a peaceful condition. On the other hand, being the executrix or trustee, the appellant was very much aware about that clause of the last Will of deceased Dhruba Kanti Gupta. Facing of unnatural death by the testator Dhruba Kanti Gupta at his residence in the presence of the appellant and subsequently obtaining a forged death certificate of deceased Dhruba Kanti Gupta by the appellant, showing the place of death as District Hospital, Dharmanagar itself raise some reasonable suspicion regarding the genuineness of the Will.

The court also  looked into the procedure to resolve the inconsistency in a Will wherein latter clause in the Will inconsistent with earlier clause and in such of inconsistency the last intention of the testator is to be given effect, therefore, the latter clause is held to prevail over the earlier clause of the Will. In the present case testator Dhruba Kanti Gupta in the first part of his Will had bequeathed his all movable and immovable properties without giving details of the properties in favour of the appellant after death of the testator Dhruba Kanti Gupta but, in the last part of the Will he deserved his right alive for cancellation of the said Will at any point of time during his lifetime. The court further stated that if the version of the appellant is to be believed that the deceased is alone and no one has taken care and she is the only one, the deceased would have made the beneficiary the appellant herein in respect of his movable and immovable properties including all service benefits. But, nothing has been indicated except, the landed property and thus, it creates an amount of doubt in the mind of the Court and in view of above, discussion and observation, the present appeal stood dismissed consequently, the findings as observed by the learned Court below stood affirmed.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Judgement Reviewed by – Fathima Sara Sulaiman

Click here to view judgement

 

0

Tripura High Court modifies Lower Court’s Judgement and Grants Commutation of Death Sentence to Life Imprisonment

Blog , ,

Case title:  Sri Pradip Debroy Vs The State of Tripura

Case no.:  CRL.A(J) NO.40 OF 2022

Dated on: 12th February 2024

Quorum:  Hon’ble. MR JUSTICE T. AMARNATH GOUD                    Hon’ble MR. JUSTICE BISWAJIT PALIT

FACTS OF THE CASE

The appeal under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. and reference under Section 366 of Cr.P.C. arise out of common Judgment and Order of conviction and sentence dated 23.11.2022 passed in connection with ST(T-1)09 of 2022 by the learned Sessions Judge, Khowai, Tripura whereby the learned Court below convicted the appellant for the commission of offence under Section 307 of IPC and sentenced him to suffer R.I. for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.10,000/-, i.e. to suffer S.I. for 2 months and convicted under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to death as per law.

The brief fact of this case is that on 26.11.2021 at about 11.00 p.m. the brother of the informant namely, Sri Pradip Debroy went to sleep after dinner. After that all of a sudden, the informant and other inmates of the house including his elder brother Amalesh Debroy heard a cry coming from the room of Pradip Debroy. Immediately they rushed to the room of Sri Pradip Debroy and told him to open the door but he did not. Then they broke the door of the veranda and went near the door of the room. When they peeped through an opening of the door, they saw the dead body of Aditi, the younger daughter of Pradip lying on the ground. They also noticed that Pradip was attacking his elder daughter and his wife with a big crowbar. After a while, he opened the door and chased the informant and others to kill. The informant Raju Debroy and his mother and others could manage to save themselves but the elder brother of the informant namely, Amalesh could not run away. Amalesh was killed by Pradip with a crowbar infront of the room of Amrit Debroy who was the uncle of the informant. When their uncle tried to resist, he was also attacked. After that, on hearing the sound of a vehicle he became naked and started running with the crowbar along the Bir Chowmohoni road. At that time, the vehicle of police came and when it stopped in front of the house of the Pradhan, Pradip attacked one police with a crowbar and also attacked the vehicle of the police. He also chased police and went along Bir Chowmhoni road. He attacked one Autorickshaw and also attacked one Krishna Das and his son Karnabir Das. Subsequently, the informant learned that the injured police officer succumbed to his injuries at GBP hospital. It is also learned by the informant that the injured Krishna Das was declared brought dead at Khowai Hospital. Karnabir Das, the son of Krishna Das and Smt. Mina Paul (Debroy), the wife of Pradip Debroy suffered serious injuries and were shifted to GBP Hospital. It is further alleged that Pradip killed his elder daughter Mandira. The informant came to know that the name of the police officer who died was Inspector Satyajit Mallik. Hence the FIR was lodged by Raju Debroy against his brother Pradip Debroy.

 ISSUES

  • Whether the accused Pradip Deb Roy attacked and murdered his younger daughter namely, Aditi Deb Roy, elder daughter Mandira Deb Roy, elder brother Amalesh Deb Roy, another person Krishna Das and Inspector Satyajit Mallik and that thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC ?
  • Whether the accused on or about the aforesaid date and time did an act to wit assault with such intention (or knowledge) and under such circumstances that if by that act he had caused the death of his wife Mina Paul and Karnabir Das he had been guilty of murder and also caused hurt to Smt Mina Paul and Karnabir Das and thereby, committed an offence punishable under Section 307 of IPC ?

LEGAL PROVISIONS

Section 302 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860

This section prescribes the punishment for murder as “Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.”

Section 307 of The Indian Penal Code, 1860

Section 307 of the IPC prescribes punishment for attempt to murder. The punishment can extend up to 10 years and in case the victim is hurt, then the maximum punishment is imprisonment for life.

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT

The counsel contended that a normal human being without any motive, pre-plan and intention would not commit such type of crime of killing 5(five) persons one after another and injuring 2(two) other. The convict appellant after murdering his two minor daughters was moving in a naked condition on the road and thereafter, he committed further murder. The learned Trial Court did not consider the sequence of commission of offence as a sound mind person would not be in a position to do so. The convict appellant somehow became abnormal and he could not say what the consequence of his activities was. The convict appellant has no previous enmity with the victims. So, no prior plan or motive of the convict appellant is established. Learned counsel further submitted that prior to the incident, the convict appellant was known to be a good and loving person in the locality which is evident from the evidence of various witnesses. T He had very good relations with all the family members but at the time of the incident, he was acting like a madman. Convict-Pradip used to love his children very much. He also used to love his family members. Mr.H.K. Bhowmik, learned counsel urged this Court to take a lenient view keeping in mind the fact that convict appellant had no prior bad record and no motive while committing the crime. Stating thus, learned counsel advocated to convert the death sentence of the convict-appellant into life imprisonment.

CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS

The counsel contended that the Judgment and order of conviction as passed by the Court below is just and proper and needs no further interference. Learned P.P., also stated that the question of the sanity and motive of the convict-appellant was never raised before the Court below. Stating thus, learned P.P. urged this Court to confirm the impugned judgment by confirming the death sentence and not to take any lenient view.

COURT’S ANALYSIS AND JUDGEMENT

The court observed that during the course of hearing, Mr. H.K. Bhowmik, learned counsel appearing for the convict-appellant submitted that the convict-appellant had no motive to commit the said crime. To support his argument, the court considered the statements of the witnesses being that the convict was a good person and he was having very good relations with all the family members. The said witnesses further stated that the convict loved his children and family members. Here it is seen in the above-mentioned statements that admittedly, no motive has been established behind the commitment of such a heinous crime. But, it cannot be said that that crime committed without any motive is not a crime and the accused is entitled to acquittal.

During the course of argument, learned counsel appearing for the convict-appellant also contended that there was no mens rea to kill the deceased and injure the victims. From the evidence of various eyewitnesses, it was evident that the convict-appellant had not preplanned and committed the murders and caused injuries. But a crime committed without any mens rea does not entitle to acquittal. This Court negated the issue of mens rea against the convict appellant. The question arose in the mind of the court whether there was any temporary  insanity condition and the court held that unless there is any strong reason that would influence the mind of the convict-appellant, the instant incident cannot be reasonably believed in the light of the evidence and the witnesses who have certified the convict appellant as a businessman, good person, affectionate towards and having no complaints in the neighbourhood, his family members, loving his children, taking care of his wife.

The Court was however convinced that the Trial Court needs no interference as that the appellant-convict was guilty of committing murders and grievous hurt and opines that the appellant convict is liable to be punished under the charges/offences as they are proved beyond reasonable doubt. However, the death sentence of the convict was converted into life imprisonment till he breathes his last in jail without any benefit of remission. The Court felt that he should be kept in isolation, by keeping him away from other inmates and under surveillance.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Judgement Reviewed by – Fathima Sara Sulaiman

Click here to view judgement

 

 

 

 

 

 

0

Tripura High Court Affirms Gratuity Entitlement for AWWs and AWHs.

Blog ,

Case Title: Smt. Bina Rani Paul & Ors. Vs. The State of Tripura & Ors.

Case No.: W.P.(C) No.624 of 2023

Dated on: 9th May, 2024

Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. DATTA PURKAYASTHA

Facts:

The prima facie of the case involves a group of petitioners comprising Anganwadi Workers (AWWs) and Anganwadi Helpers (AWHs) from various locations in Tripura. These workers were engaged under the Intensive Child Development Services Scheme (ICDS) at different Anganwadi centers. Upon reaching the age of 60, their engagements were discontinued, and they sought gratuity and other post-retirement benefits. The petitioners submitted representations to the Director of Social Welfare & Social Education, Tripura, but their claims were rejected, citing an existing scheme that provided monthly pension or one-time financial benefits instead of gratuity. In response, the petitioners filed a writ petition seeking mandamus to provide gratuity and other post-retirement benefits, as well as to quash the memorandum rejecting their claims. Their counsel argued that Anganwadi establishments fall under the definition of ‘establishment’ in the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, and cited a SC decision and a Rajasthan HC decision supporting their entitlement to gratuity.

The state respondents opposed the petition, arguing that the SC’s decision relied upon by the petitioners was specific to the State of Gujarat and not applicable to Tripura. They also contended that Anganwadi centers in Tripura did not meet the criteria of an ‘establishment’ under the Gratuity Act, and there was no specific scheme in place for gratuity for AWWs and AWHs in Tripura. However, the U.O.I represented by the Deputy Solicitor General of India, supported the state’s position, emphasizing that the policy decisions regarding benefits for employees should be left to expert bodies and could have financial implications.

Issues framed by the Court:

  1. Whether Anganwadi Workers (AWWs) and Anganwadi Helpers (AWHs) in Tripura are entitled to gratuity and other post-retirement benefits upon reaching the age of 60, despite the existing scheme offering monthly pension or one-time financial benefits instead?
  2. Whether the definition of ‘establishment’ under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, encompasses Anganwadi centres in Tripura, thus making AWWs and AWHs eligible for gratuity under the Act?
  3. Whether the Supreme Court decision cited by the petitioners, which supported their entitlement to gratuity, is applicable to the state of Tripura, considering it was specific to the State of Gujarat?
  4. Whether the absence of a specific scheme for gratuity for AWWs and AWHs in Tripura precludes the court from mandating such benefits, especially considering potential financial implications and policy decisions?

Contentions of the Appellant:

The contentions of the appellant, primarily revolve around asserting the entitlement of Anganwadi Workers (AWWs) and Anganwadi Helpers (AWHs) in Tripura to receive gratuity and other post-retirement benefits. The appellant argues that the petitioners, upon reaching the age of 60, should receive gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, citing a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Maniben Maganbhai Bhariya vs. District Development Officer Dahod and others. This decision established the entitlement of AWWs and AWHs to gratuity upon retirement. The appellant contends that Anganwadi establishments fall under the definition of ‘establishment’ in the Act, thus making the workers eligible for gratuity. Furthermore, the appellant challenges the rejection of the petitioners’ claims for gratuity and other benefits, arguing that the existing scheme offering monthly pension or one-time financial benefits does not preclude their entitlement to gratuity. Thus, the appellant seeks a writ mandating the provision of gratuity and other post-retirement benefits to the petitioners.

Contentions of the Respondents:

The respondents, argued that the SC decision cited by the petitioners, which supports their entitlement to gratuity, was specific to Gujarat and may not apply to Tripura. Furthermore, they contend that Anganwadi centres in Tripura may not meet the criteria of an ‘establishment’ under the Gratuity Act, which is necessary for the workers to be eligible for gratuity benefits. They also point out that there is currently no specific scheme in place in Tripura for providing gratuity to Anganwadi workers upon retirement. Additionally, the respondents argue that the decision to provide certain benefits, including gratuity, should be left to expert bodies and policymakers, as implementing such benefits could have financial implications for the government. Moreover, they highlighted the importance of considering potential financial consequences and policy decisions before mandating additional benefits for employees.

Court’s Analysis and Judgement:

In its analysis and judgment, the court examined the arguments presented by both the petitioners and the respondents. The petitioners contended that Anganwadi Workers (AWWs) and Anganwadi Helpers (AWHs) in Tripura were entitled to gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, citing a Supreme Court decision and a Rajasthan High Court decision supporting their claim. They argued that Anganwadi establishments fell under the definition of ‘establishment’ in the Act. The respondents, however, opposed this claim, arguing that the Supreme Court decision relied upon by the petitioners was specific to the State of Gujarat and not applicable to Tripura. They also contended that Anganwadi centers in Tripura did not meet the criteria of an ‘establishment’ under the Gratuity Act. Additionally, they emphasized the absence of a specific scheme for gratuity for AWWs and AWHs in Tripura. After considering the arguments, the court analysed the provisions of the Gratuity Act and relevant case law. It noted that while the SC decision relied upon by the petitioners was specific to Gujarat, the principles laid down therein could be applicable to other states, including Tripura. The court also observed that the absence of a specific scheme for gratuity for AWWs and AWHs in Tripura did not preclude their entitlement to gratuity under the Act. Eventually, the court ruled in favour of the petitioners, holding that AWWs and AWHs in Tripura were entitled to gratuity under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972, upon reaching the age of 60. The court directed the respondents to provide gratuity and other post-retirement benefits to the petitioners accordingly.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Judgement Reviewed By- Shramana Sengupta

Click here to read the judgement