Isabella Mariam

The Calcutta High Court, Single Bench of Justice Krishna Rao, adjudicated a probate matter concerning the estate of Dilip Kumar Addy, where the core issue was the validity of a caveat filed by the caveatrix through her power of attorney. The Court considered whether she was entitled to additional time to file an affidavit in support of the caveat and ultimately allowed the extension, securing her right to contest the probate proceedings.

The dispute revolved around the probate application filed by Smt. Eepsita Addy, widow of the deceased testator, seeking to establish the validity of the Last Will and Testament dated December 27, 2012. The caveatrix, Smt. Ela Addy, the mother of the deceased, challenged the probate by filing a caveat through her power of attorney, Shri Biswajit Addy.

Also Read: No offence U/s 138 NI Act on dishonour of cheque alone-Offence kicks in on default of payment within 15 days of demand notice

A critical point of contention arose concerning the procedural compliance of the caveatrix. As per the Original Side Rules of the Calcutta High Court, a caveat must be supported by an affidavit filed within eight days. However, the caveatrix had failed to meet this deadline and later sought an extension of time, citing errors in the citation's delivery and misrepresentation of her name in court documents.

The executrix opposed the caveatrix’s plea for extension, arguing that procedural compliance was mandatory. She contended that the caveatrix had not received the special citation due to her own inaction and delay. The executrix further asserted that the caveatrix’s actions were influenced by her power of attorney and not exercised independently. To substantiate her argument, the executrix relied on precedents, including Ramjas Foundation v. Union of India and Mahesh Atalrai Keswani v. Suresh Atalrai Keswani, which emphasized strict adherence to procedural requirements in probate proceedings.

The caveatrix countered these claims by presenting evidence that the special citation was misaddressed and returned unclaimed. She further submitted that the name used in the citation, “Ila Addy” instead of “Ela Addy,” contributed to the delay. The caveatrix argued that she had a legitimate interest in the probate matter as the testator’s mother and should be allowed to contest the Will.

The court examined the procedural requirements under the Original Side Rules and the circumstances surrounding the caveatrix’s delay. It acknowledged that, under normal circumstances, the affidavit in support of a caveat must be filed within eight days. However, the court also recognized its discretionary power to extend this period when justified.

Referring to In the Goods of Nanda Lal Sett, the court noted that a caveator must disclose their interest in the estate and provide substantive objections to the probate application. The judgment also referred to In the Goods of Ganapati Sarkar v. Umarani Bose, which established that even in cases of delay, courts could permit a caveator to contest a Will if justified.

The judgment stated: "In an application for discharge, the first and most important question that a caveator is required to prove is that he has an interest in the estate of the deceased. If the caveator fails to give prima facie evidence of interest in the estate of the deceased, his caveat must be discharged in law."

On the executrix’s claim that the caveatrix was unduly influenced by her power of attorney, the court held that such an assertion must be tested through cross-examination during trial. The judgment recorded: "The executrix will get an opportunity to cross-examine the caveatrix or her constituted attorney wherein she can prove that the caveat and affidavit in support of the caveat were not filed independently by the caveatrix."

Also Read: ‘Unjust, Unfair, and Irrational’: Karnataka High Court Orders KIADB to Refund Rs.2.71 Crore with 12% Interest to Power Firm — Says ‘No One Can Profit from Their Own Wrong

The court concluded that the caveatrix had a legitimate interest in the estate as the testator’s mother and should be granted an opportunity to substantiate her claim. It allowed her ten additional days to file the affidavit in support of the caveat, stating: "Considering the above, this Court allows the caveatrix to file an affidavit in support of the caveat within 10 days from date. It is made clear that if the caveatrix fails to file the affidavit in support of the caveat within 10 days, the caveat filed by the caveatrix will automatically be discharged."

Advocates Representing the Parties

For the Petitioner/Executrix: Mrs. Manju Agarwal, Senior Advocate, Mr. Rohit Banerjee, Ms. Hritashree Biswas, Ms. Anju Manot

For the Caveatrix: Mr. Suman Kumar Dutt, Senior Advocate, Mr. Arkaprava Sen, Ms. Monica Jaiswal, Mr. Sayantan Kar

Case Title: In the Goods of Dilip Kumar Addy (Deceased)

Case Number: PLA No. 84 of 2023, IA No. GA 1 of 2024 with IA No. GA 3 of 2025

Bench: Justice Krishna Rao

[Read/Download order]