AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1921 (2) TMI 5
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....handra Chakravarti, applied for Probate of the Will on the 13th January 1910. Chandra Kumar Chakravarti, the nephew of the testator, entered a caveat on the 1st March 1910. Probate was, however, granted on the 11th April 1910. Thereupon an appeal was preferred to this Court, with the result that the order of the Primary Court was set aside on the 18th March 1913 and the case was remanded for re trial in the presence of both parties. On the 6th August 1914 an order for Probate was again made. An appeal, preferred to this Court, was dismissed on the merits on the 2nd July 1915. During a considerable portion of the period which elapsed between the first grant of Probate on the 11th April 1910 and the final on the 6th August 1914, the estate wa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... completed their work. The District Judge did not accept this contention and observed that although after this lapse of time, they might be expected to have completed the administration, on the very showing of the petitioners, the work had not been actually completed. This view has been controverted by the appellants. Our attention has been drawn to the terms of the Will which, it has been argued, show that the estate has by this time vested in the universal legatee and that consequently there is no need for the continuance of the executors in their office. In support of this position reliance has been placed upon the decision of this Court in the cases of Taran Singh Hazari v. Ramratan Tewari 31 C. 89 and Sankar Nath Mukherji v. Biddutlata....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....or us to determine, in the absence of proper parties, whether the estate is liable to be taken out of the hands of the executors by the person or persons beneficially entitled thereto. The fact remains that, under the terms of the Will, there are duties still to be performed by the executors; consequently it cannot be maintained that the grant has become inoperative through circumstances, and the first ground urged in support of the application for revocation cannot be sustained. 3. As regards the second point, we are inclined to the view that there was some confusion in the Court below and probably the true effect of the fifth clause of the Explanation to Section 50 was not fully realized. It appears to have been assumed by the District....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ch have come to the hands of the executor or administrator and the manner in which such assets have been applied or disposed of. If the executor or administrator is not able to exhibit such an account within one year from the grant, he may obtain an extension of time from the Court. But the fact that time has been extended does not enlarge the scope of the account. The account of the estate which is required to be exhibited, whether it is exhibited within a year or thereafter, is the account contemplated by the second paragraph of Sub-section (1) of Section 98. In the present case, it is clear from the facts already stated that the Probate may be taken to have been granted on the 27th September 1915. The accounts, exhibited on the 7th July ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....elief which the petitioners would obtain, if they could sustain such objections, would be the revocation of that grant. That grant, however, stood cancelled when the appeal to this Court was allowed on the 18th March 1913. Thus, whatever liability the executors might have incurred by their interference with the estate under the grant of the 11th April 1910 the incorrectness of the accounts for that period cannot be urged as a ground for relief under Clause (5) of the Explanation to Section 50. In so far as the relevant accounts are concerned, the appellants have not been able to refer us to such specific objections as would entitle us to hold that the accounts were untrue in material respects. Consequently there is co foundation for the pra....