TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2005 (3) TMI 817
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to establish their right to maintain the caveats. In their affidavits in opposition in answer to the aforesaid charge four persons have separately stated as follows : G.P. Birla stated in his affidavit that in 1981 both the deceased lady and her husband namely M. P. Birla pursuant to agreement had executed mutual Wills, both dated 10th May, 1981. On 13th July, 1982 by consent they revoked the said mutual Wills but agreed once again, each other, as to disposition of their respective estates on their death in favour of the public charities as ultimate beneficiary and those Wills made pursuant to such agreement would be irrevocable and would remain unaltered. He says he is one of the surviving co-executors of the Will of the Lady. By this Will the Lady directed the executors to take possession of her entire estate and make over, donate or settle the same for the purpose of charity at their absolute discretion. That apart he has claimed that he is the paternal first cousin of late M. P. and if the genealogical table is looked into then it will appear that this deponent has possible chance of succeeding to the estate of the Lady in case of death intestacy. He is also co-owner ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... shares directly or indirectly in such companies where the deceased oversaw its operation" after the demise of her husband. 3. The Caveator Yashovardhan Birla in his affidavit in opposition has stated his caveatable interest amongst other as follows : The Lady and his caveator at the time of her death were co-trustees in a charitable trust known as R. D. Birla Kalyan Nidhi Trust. The Lady and M. P. had voting rights in the Bombay Hospital Trust on account of donation made by them to the said hospitals and as per Rules and Regulations of the said Bombay Trust such voting right vests in the male descendant of the deceased. He (this caveator) being eldest surviving male descendant of the Lady, is entitled to such voting right and this voting right cannot be taken away by a testamentary disposition. The Lady and this caveator are members of the Birla family. The Birla family at all material times carried on and still carries on several businesses through different companies, in some of these companies there is interweaving of shareholding in such a manner that they are part of a complex pattern and evidence the involvement of members of the Birla family in such companies an....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Corporation Ltd. and Birla Brothers Pvt. Ltd. The properties sought to be bequeathed by or under the alleged last Will and testament purport to include properties under the possession of the deceased which comprise of either ancestral properties of Late Madhab Prasad Birla or were acquired out of funds generated by the larger Hindu Undivided Family governed by Mitakshara School of Law which had not been partitioned and/or comprised of joint family properties. 5. Mr. A.K. Mitra learned senior counsel appearing with Mr. Pratap Chatterjee learned senior counsel, Mr. Malay Kumar Ghose learned Advocate, Mr. Abhrajit Mitra and Mr. Amitesh Banerjee appearing in support of the summons submits that the caveat lodged by four persons namely K.K. Birla, Y.B. Birla, G.P. Birla and B.K. Birla are liable to be dislodged as none of them has any interest in the estate left behind by the Lady. 6. On 3rd July 2004 the Lady died and she was pre-deceased by her husband on 30th July 1990. The couple left no issue. As such under Section 15(1)(b) and (2) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 her deceased husband's sisters namely Laxmi Devi Newar and Radha Devi Mohota would have inherited the stated ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... Even a right may be established on mere possibility but this possibility should rest on existing facts. He has placed reliance on the following decisions in support of this portion of his argument. AIR1940Cal296 , AIR 1946 Cal 40 : 1997 (3) LW 541. 9. It is not difficult to ascertain real interest in the estate of a Hindu who dies after Hindu Succession Act 1956. Old law of reversionary right is no longer germane. Under Hindu Succession Act the interest vested in the intestate heirs on the death of the testator and vested in them cannot be defeated. 10. He submits that the alleged caveatable interest based on the alleged mutual Wills of the Lady and her pre-de-ceased husband dated 13th July 1982 is no right to contest grant of later Will. 11. He contends that the judgments cited by the Birla caveators have clearly decided that the mutual Wills do not prevent grant of probate of subsequent will. The survivor of two persons who were stated to have made mutual Wills is not prevented from making subsequent Will. He does not admit going by the provisions of the alleged Wills there is any mutuality. In order to establish mutual Wills the following conditions are to be establis....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ointment of the fourth executor is necessary in the interest of the estate. He has in this context placed reliance on decisions of English Court reported in 1899 (1) Ch 775 . 14. The testator names the executor in his will. Whether any of the persons named as executor will ultimately get appointed an executor depends on two contingent factors: (i) The named persons surviving the testator, because Will does not become operative until the death of testator; (ii) The named person is willing to act and accepts the office of the Executor. Therefore, he argues making of Executor in a will does not materialize into an appointment as Executor until and unless the testator dies and the Executor outlives him and accepts the office of Executor. Caveators are seeking to change the language of the will. The alleged will does not say that any of the four persons ceasing to exist. There is material difference between 'ceasing to exist' and 'ceasing to hold the office of executor'. 15. His next contention is that co-ownership of any person with the deceased Lady is not caveatable interest. In support of his contention he has referred to a decision reported in AIR1977Cal496 . ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hile issuing citation. This has been clearly settled by an ancient decision of this Court by a judgment of Sir. Asutosh Mukherjee rendered in the case of Birndabon Chandra v. Sureshwar Chandra Saha reported in (1909) 10 Cal 263. He has demonstrated diverse kinds of caveatable interest citing the following decisions : ILR (1881) 6 Cal 460 Nobeen Chandra v. Bhobo Sundori (Mortgagees and Creditors were held to be persons having caveatable interest) (1909) 10 Cal LJ 263 (Brindaban Chandra v. Sureshwar Saha (reversionary heirs of a Hindu is having interest in estate of the deceased) AIR1931Cal470 (Gourisankar v. Satyaboti Debi) (person though not relative, claiming through a common ancestor) 2002 (1) Cal LT 260 Binoy Ranjan Banerjee v. Sadhanranjan Banerjee. 17. He contends that it emerges from the above decisions one principle that if a person on the known facts stands to have a possible claim or stake on the devolution of the estate of the deceased in the event of a probate to his/her will not being granted, such person would have a caveatable interest. Therefore, he contends not only heirs on intestacy, as per schedule of the Hindu Succession Ac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Halsbury's Laws of England -- 4th Edn. Vol. 50 para 208 @ Page 96 : (ii) 97 CJS Wills Section 1367 @ Page 307, 309. 315, 319. (iii) Birmimgham v. Renfrew 57 CLR 666. (iv) Re. Dale Proctor v. Dale (1993) 4 All ER 129. (v) Kuppu Swami v. Perumal AIR1964Mad291 . (vi) Ms. Meera Dewan v. Sharam AIR2002Delhi321 . (vii) Dilharshankar Bhecheech v. Controller of Estate Duty [1986]158ITR238(SC) . (viii) Vasant Narayan Khakharia v. Probhavati 1999 (2) Mah LJ 889. 20. The status of an executor whether appointed by the testatrix or testator himself or by way of nomination remains same and the same is not changed by the mode of appointment. 21. He contends that an executor can be nominated by other executors or even by a third party if the intention of the testator/ testatrix is clear or can be implied or gathered from the tenor of the Will. In support of his contention he has referred to the following authorities :-- (1929) 1 Hag 1 ECC 548, 62 Re. Report Page 673, Anne Hill Ryder (1861) 2 SW & Tr 127) 64 Revised Reports AIR1934All804 . 22. He urges that a person can acquire caveatable interest by way of assignment or p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the entire estate of the Lady would have vested unto him along with other executors/trustees, but for the last purported Will. 28. His further contention is that in view of existence of the earlier mutual Will the later document cannot be a valid one as the testatrix could not execute any document of testamentary nature in breach of the agreement with her husband M.P. Birla in terms of the mutual Will. By the document of 1999 his client's right, title and interest in the estate has been seriously affected. His client has already applied for probate of the earlier rival Will and also has filed a suit for specific performance against the Lady on the strength of the mutual Wills. In support of his contention in addition to what has been relied on by Mr. Jaitley and other learned Counsel supporting the caveats he has relied on the decision of the Bombay High Court reported in AIR 1930 Bom 29 and other decisions reported in 2002 (1) Cal LT 260, AIR1970Cal433 , AIR1934All840 & AIR 1990 SC 157 (sic). 29. Mr. P. K. Roy learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Yasha Bardhan Birla aptly supporting the argument advanced by Mr. Jaitley and Mr. Mukherjee, submits that in term....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....long with her late husband M.P. Birla, dated 13th July 1982 and that the said deceased Lady could not have settled the properties in favour of anybody other than the person or persons mentioned in the mutual Will, then the so-called second Will of 18th April 1999 Will not stand. Thus his client as an executor of that Will, will be entitled to settle the estate in a manner mentioned in the mutual Will dated 13th July 1982. In the alternative he says that leaving aside the claim of mutual Will in case of intestate succession his client has possibility of getting interest in the estate left behind by the deceased. He has placed the genealogical table how his client has got fare chance of succeeding in the property. G. P. Birla is the first paternal cousin of M. P. Birla who was the husband of the deceased Lady. The Lady died issueless, therefore, following the rule of succession as provided in Section 15 of Hindu Succession Act, 1956, read with schedule thereto the property will go firstly to the two sisters of M. P. Birla. But under the rule of succession G.P. Birla's chance to get share in the estate is fare. He explained how is it possible by saying none is available in class 1....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rstly, with caveatable interest in the context of death intestacy succession. This interest like other interest in my opinion has to come within the purview of the expression, as mentioned in Section 283 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, read with Section 263 of the said Act. So, I deem it fit to set out the aforesaid two sections. Section 263 : Revocation or annulment for just cause. The grant of probate or letters of administration may be revoked or annulled for just cause, Explanation, just cause shall be deemed to exist where -- (a) the proceedings to obtain the grant were defective in substance; or (b) the grant was obtained fraudulently by making a false suggestion, or by concealing from the Court something materials to the case; or (c) the grant was obtained by means of an untrue allegation of a fact essential in point of law to justify the grant, though such allegation was made in ignorance or inadvertently; or (d) the grant has become useless and inoperative through circumstances; or (e) the person to whom the grant was made has wilfully and without reasonable cause omitted to exhibit an inventory or account in accord....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... with the copy of the Will annexed, as the case may be. 39. The words mentioned in Section 283 Sub-section (1)(c) of the said Act, 'all persons claiming to have any interest' are to be understood in slightly liberal sense. In my considered opinion, for issuance of citation, nature of claim or interest of the person concerned is not to be examined, on the anvil of genuineness or legitimacy. Anyone's mere claim is sufficient to receive citation, for example, a person in occupation of a property being the subject matter of the estate in the Will irrespective of legitimacy of his right, can claim interest and such claim is good enough to receive citation. But the Court has to examine the nature and substance of the interest, if the person concerned cited, decides to oppose the grant. On examination, if Court finds that interest or claim is of substance and further, the same is such that is likely to be defeated by, the grant, then his or her or its objection is considered. The Courts of our country have decided in various cases, the types of interest to term locus' and the same will appear from the discussion made by me of large number of decisions cited at the bar, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....laid down by English Court in the cases, Kipping v. Ash, Baskcomb v. Harrison, Crispin v. Doglioni and Dixon v. Allison reported in 1845 (1) Rob 270, (1849) 2 Rob 118. 1860 (2) SW Tr 17 respectively, has held in principle, that the grant of probate operates as a judgment in rem and such grant should be made after full opportunity to enter appearance has been afforded to all the persons who are likely to be affected by the grant. The above English cases laid down in gist that any interest however, slight and even, it seems, the bare possibility of interest is sufficient to entitle a party to oppose the testamentary paper. 42. The purchaser who purchased a part of the estate of the deceased subsequent to his death, was held to be person interested to oppose the grant by this Court in the case of Mokshadyini Dassi v. Karnadhar Mondal reported in ILR (1892) 19 Cal 1108. 43. It is noted in the case of Draupadi Dasya v. Raj Kumari Dasya AIR 1919 Cal 1012 the Division Bench of this Court held the legatee of prior rival Will is having locus standi to contest or to revoke the grant of probate of a later Will, irrespective of grant of probate of the prior Will. 44. Yet in the judgme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t, His Lordship found therein the meaning and effect of the above words is the same to hold and it was indeed held, that all that is necessary to entitle a person to enter 4 caveat is the claim of interest in the estate of the deceased. The word 'interest' in the estate do not necessarily convey the idea that the interest should be claimed through testator. In the process the learned Judge held a person claiming paramount title over the testatrix had no caveatable interest to contest the grant. 48. In the case of Smt. Sima Rani Mohanti v. Puspa Rani Pal AIR1978Cal140 the Division Bench of this Court repeated earlier proposition that any interest however, slight and even the bare possibility of interest is sufficient to entitle a person to make an application for revocation of grant. It does not appear however, that Their Lordships had occasion to consider earlier cases of Nabin Chadra AIR1932Cal734 , Dinobandhu v. Brojo Kishore Saha AIR1940Cal296 which held it is not mere theoretical interest, it must be a real one. In this case legatee of prior rival Will was held to have sufficient interest to establish locus standi to apply for revocation of grant. 49. In Orissa ca....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....her families living no heirs of their own save and except Aloke Kumar Basu (caveator). 53. It is to be noted that His Lordship has used the expression of 'real interest' in stead of 'interest'. 54. In the case reported in 1996 (1) CHN 205 the same learned single Judge in paragraph 26 had held amongst others that locus standi for challenging the Will cannot be founded upon such shifting stand. Interest in the estate of the deceased must be shown to be present within bundle of rights already available to the lodger of the caveat in such manners that is not defeasible in all ordinary and normal circumstances". In the case under reference the caveator wanted to contest the grant on the plea that he did not get 2,44000 shares owned by the deceased in a Limited Company. So the caveat-was discharged having found no interest in the estate. 55. From all the aforesaid decisions it is very clear that to maintain a caveat existence of real interest on even bare possibility of real interest in the estate of the deceased is the precondition. In my view term 'possibility of real interest' is not synonymous with the term 'conjectural interest' nor can it be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... have been able to demonstrate their real interest or possible real interest in the estate of the deceased Lady. I think unless the genealogical table (at page 35 of this judgment) is set wills to see the relationship of the Lady with the caveators their real interest or possible interest cannot be ascertained. 59. It would appear from the old cases decided prior to Hindu Succession Act 1956 came into operation that the interest of the reversionary heirs was real if not a vested one, only difficulty was the reversionary heir had no alienable right during lifetime of limited owner. In that context the reversionary heirs of women having limited ownership were held to have real interest or possible real interest. 60. According to me after commencement of the Hindu Succession Act 1956 there is no concept in expressed terms reversionary interest of any heir of a female save and except as mentioned in the Act itself. Provision of Section 6 read with Section 14 of this Act make it clear that even in Mitakshara Coparcenary family a female heir succeeding property of male, on his death after commencement of this Act acquires indefeasibly absolute and vested right. These two sections n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....her instrument or the decree, order or award prescribe a restricted estate in such property. 61. Therefore, real interest or possible real interest now has to be adjudged in the context of the provision of the aforesaid Hindu Succession Act, 1956 not otherwise. Here the Lady died without leaving any class 1 heirs of schedule either of her own or of her husband. The property, whether self acquired or acquired from her husband therefore, has to go to the heirs of her husband, who fall in class (ii) being the two sisters of her husband who have already lodged caveats, are the natural and normal successor in interest in case of death intestacy, of the estate left behind by said deceased, to the exclusion of others. 62. Assuming it is a case of death intestacy the property had already devolved upon the said two ladies Laxmi Devi & Radha Devi and in their absence or after them the property will certainly not go back to the heirs of their father and brother. The property will inevitably go to their respective husbands and their sons and daughter. This line of succession available on this existing fact for these two ladies at present have husbands, sons, daughters, grand sons, and ev....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... co-' trustee on his death. Office of the trustee is not ordinarily heritable, unless otherwise provided in the trust instrument, rather it devolves by survivorship or in case of death, new trustee is appointed depending upon provision of trust deed in this regard. No document has been furnished to suggest that office of the trustee is a heritable one, either by way of succession or by way of devolution by survivorship. The right of preemption is not caveatable interest. Right of pre-emption crystallizes, when co-sharer/ co-owner transfers on consideration his share to stranger. In my view it does not apply in case of testamentary disposition. Executor or the legatee is not a transferee to be resisted with assertion of right of preemption, rather they come into the shoes of the testator or testatrix. So, whatever obligation or covenant is attached to the property, the same may be enforced against the representative of the deceased. 67. Now coming to the question of interest qua executors in terms of the Will of the said deceased Lady dated 13th July 1982, four persons have to be dealt with separately as their status and position are not identical. G. P. Birla is undisputedly....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....en appointed in the vacancy allegedly arose on death of M. P. Birla in terms of the Will of the said deceased Lady, on the plea that he ceases to be executor. 70. Mr. Mitra has rightly stated that cession of office presupposes event of assumption. Unless there is assumption of office question of cessation does not arise. M. P. Birla predeceased the deceased Lady. Therefore, her husband had no occasion to assume the office of executor as the Will becomes operative on the death of the testator/testatrix, so this office got life on death of testatrix. If this appointment is accepted to be valid, then it is to be held that in effect the Lady appointed a dead person as one of the executors. The power of appointment can be exercised by the surviving executors when there arises vacancy due to cessation of being duly appointed executor. In my opinion appointment of executor during lifetime of testator is always inchoate, it becomes absolute on death for it is possible for testator to revoke such appointment at any time: or automatic revocation on death of the executor before death of testator/testatrix. Three surviving executors are only competent per-sons to apply for probate and they ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....29 (Proctor v. Dale) it has been accepted as statement of law that mutual benefit of two testators is not precondition to constitute mutuality in Wills. However, in view of the Supreme Court pronouncement as above, the ratio of the English case as quoted above is not accepted by this Court. In the case of Dilharshankar C. Bhachech v. Controller of Estate Duty [1986]158ITR238(SC) considering all the cases decided earlier, of English, American and Australian Courts as well as our Supreme Court quoted above it has been held by the Apex Court in paragraph 54 (AIR) 55 (SCC) as follows : ...Before the death of the first executants the agreement remained contractual one in consideration of mutual promises. It could have been at that stage revoked by mutual agreement or even by unilateral breach, giving rise at the most to an action for damages. But after death of the first one without revoking his or her own Will makes the joint Will irrevocable by the survivor. But there must be an agreement that the Wills would not be revoked after the death of one of the executants or disposition will not be made contrary to the will after the death of one of the executants or disposition Will....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Wills, or may be proved outside the Wills, but it is not established by the mere fact that the Wills are in identical terms. If no such agreement is shown, each party remains free to revoke his Will, if there are separate Wills, or to revoke the joint Will, so far as it disposes of his property, and the fact that one party has died without revoking the disposition of his property does not prevent the survivor from revoking the disposition which he has made notwithstanding that he has received benefits out of the estate of the deceased party. Even when there is such an agreement and one party has died after departing from it by revoking or altering the Will, the survivor haying notice of the breach cannot claim to have the latter Will set aside, since the notice gives him the chance of altering the Will as regards his own property; and the death of the deceased party is itself sufficient notice for this purpose. If, however, the deceased revoked or altered his Will, the survivor is bound by it, and although probate will be granted of a latter Will made by him in breach of the agreement, since a Court of probate is concerned with the last Will, the personal representatives of the sur....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....will be displaced by grant of probate of the later Will. The meaning and expression of the 'interest' is not so restricted or narrow to hold that the same would be of a legatee and/or beneficiary of the Will as has been urged by Mr. Mitra. It is noticed at least in three cases viz. ILR (1894) 17 Mad 373, AIR 1919 Cal 1912 & AIR1978Cal140 , that interest of legatee in the prior rival Will held to be caveatable to contest grant of probate of later Will. Here Mr. Jaitley, Mr. Mukherjee, Mr. Roy, Mr. Sen want me to hold that this agreement of irrevocability is another facet of caveatable interest I would have been relieved if I could accept the above proposition for it would have been easier to deal with the testamentary suit in relation to the later instrument of the deceased Lady. Unfortunately the law in this respect is stated to be otherwise as by virtue of the provision of Section 62 of Indian Succession Act 1925. The Will is always revocable or alterable. I have not been able to lay my hands on any decision of our country on this issue. I have been immensely assisted by the learned Counsel to see and examine the laws of England, America and Australia on this subject. I fi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... stands, and will be enforced by equity if it be valid contract and such enforcement is necessary for the prevention of fraud". In 57 American Jurisprudence page 485 Clause 716, we find the following : A probate Court whose jurisdiction is limited to the determination of the issue whether the instrument propounded is the last Will of the decent (deceased?) lacks power to enforce an agreement between the two testators to make wills which are mutual and reciprocal in their provisions. Likewise the rule is that a Will, which has been revoked, cannot be probated even though revocation was in violation of contract for the execution of separate Wills containing reciprocal bequest. Likewise the rule is that a Will which has been revoked cannot be probated even though the revocation was in violation of a contract for the execution of separate Wills containing reciprocal bequests. 79. In Willam v. Pollard 101 COLO, 262 72 P, 2nd D, 476-479, we followed the above rule. In that case a similar situation: was involved. We stated : The enforcement of rights under mutual reciprocal Will is grounded entirely upon equitable theories. Where there has been a violation of....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ir, George Lee in delivering judgment said "But I was of the opinion, if the first Will could operate as marriage articles or deed she must go to the Court of Chancery to have it enforced there; that the question before me was only upon the factum of the two Wills; that, considered as Wills, latter being fully proved, did clearly revoke the former and I could not determine that the deceased had by the act of the 6th October 1747 disabled from himself from making any subsequent Will. See also, Hughes v. Turner 4 Hugg Ecc, 30, 52, Bremchley v. Lynn 2 Rob, Ecc 30, Hobson v. Blackburn Addams, Ecc 274. We must assume that the Will of 1849 was recorded by the subsequent Will. If so, appellant was not entitled to delay for the purpose of offering that Will for probate, even he could show any excuse for not presenting it before, because if the former Will was revoked by valid Will, it was not entitled to be admitted to probate. The rights of the appellant, if any would however, be fully protected either by way of a contract or trust; and the ruling was right. 82. The aforesaid judicial pronouncement makes it abundantly clear that it is later Will that has to be probated and in my opinio....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f Section 213 and Section 214, of the Indian Succession Act 1925 needs to be noted to think how far it is a bar. The said Section prohibits enforcement of any right emanating from the Will itself. In order to enforce the mutual Will one has to enforce the agreement of irrevocability, when the agreement is sought to be enforced unprobated Wills Can be admitted as an evidence in this suit for collateral purpose (see AIR1942Cal401 . 84. The judgment cited by the learned Counsel for the Caveators of Australia High Court and our (Courts do pot help in these probate proceedings all, for all those cases were decided in relation to the Civil proceedings in getting relief in connection with or arising put of the provisions of the mutual wills. 85. It will appear from the facts in the cases cited that to the Civil suits agreement of mutuality was sought to be established and in that context the decision was rendered enforcing the mutual agreement between the two testators. I have already observed that the caveators have already filed Civil suit against Lodha for enforcement of the: agreement for not revoking one of the mutual Wills by the surviving testator. Those Judgments, in my view....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of 1999 though it is contended by Mr. Roy that the estate of Madhav Prasad Birla has devolved on and merged with the estate of Priyamvada Devi Birla and it is very difficult to segregate such an interest I think this is not an impossible task to segregate the properties of both the testators. Therefore, I hold that Yasha Bardhan Birla has no interest in the estate of Priyamvada Devi Birla, since deceased. A suit has already been filed for enforcement of mutual Wills and in that suit if it is proved that aforesaid-two Wills are mutual then Lodha as the executor of the last Will, will be bound by this mutual Will. Thus, the caveat lodged by Yasha Bardhan Birla is accordingly discharged. 89. In view of the discharge of the caveat of the aforesaid three persons viz. Krishna Kumar Birla, Yasha Bardhan Birla and Basanta Kumar Birla and further allowing the caveat to be retained by Ganga Prosad Birla I direct the department concerned to treat the affidavit in support of caveat filed by Ganga Prasad Birla as another written statement. I accordingly add Ganga Prasad Birla as party defendant along with other two defendants. Let the amendment, of the probate petition be carried out within ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e list for hearing eight weeks hence. 93. Mr. Sarkar appearing for all the caveators upon instruction prays for stay of operation of this judgment and order for a period of four weeks from date. Mr. Chatterjee appearing for Lodha opposes the prayer for stay. 94. Having considered the respective contentions of the learned Counsel I grant stay of operation of this judgment and order for a period of four weeks from date since I feel that there are substantial questions of law involved in this matter and chance should be given to the parties to agitate them before the higher forum. 95. Xerox certified copy of this judgment and order shall be made available to the parties as expeditiously as possible. ============= Document 1 LATE RAJA BALDEO DAS BIRLA (d. 01-04-56) (Late Rani Chhogi Devi) Late J.K. Birla (d. June, 1967) (Late Johari Devi) Late R.D. Birla (d. 21-04-1973) Late Gulab Devi (Late Sarda Devi - D. 14- 04-1972) Late G.D. Birla (d. (Late Radha Late B.M. Birla- (d. 11.01.1982) (Late 11-06-19563) Rukmani Devi) Devi) (Late Mahadevi) (Late Durga Devi) Shri G.P. Birla (DOB : 2-8-1992) (Late Smt. Bimla De....