Usha Das Gupta v. Subal Dutt — 1982 DIGILAW 16 (CAL)

JUDGMENT The judgment of the Court was as follows :–– Paresh Dasgupta, a Hindu governed by the Dayabhaga and a bachelor, died at Calcutta on the 11th April, 1981, leaving him surviving his sister, Usha Dasgupta, the petitioner. 2. At the time of his death the deceased, it is alleged, owned and possessed, inter alia :–– (a) a business in distribution and exploitation of cinematographic films carried on in the name 'Voice and Vision' at No. 3B, Madan Street, Calcutta; (b) tenancy right in a flat at No.3, Bow Street, Calcutta; (c) a flat in Tardow Main Road, Bombay. 3. The petitioner, it is alleged, appointed a Manager of the said business on the 14th April, 1981, and by the 7th May, 1981, an inventory thereof was prepared. 4. One Dr. Kalyan Sankar Poddar of No. 164, Manicktolla Main Road, Calcutta by his Advocate's letter dated the 9th May, 1981, informed the petitioner that a sealed envelope left by the deceased with him would be opened in the chamber of his Advocate on the 15th May, 1981 and the petitioner was requested to be present. On that date the said envelope was opened in the presence, inter alia, of the Manager of the said business and the Advocate of the petitioner when a document dated the 28th April, 1976 purporting to be a Will executed by the deceased was discovered. Subal Datta, the respondent herein, was named in the said document the Administrator of the estate of the deceased. 5. The petitioner initiated proceeding under section 144(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code in the Court of the Twelfth Executive and Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta, on the 15th May, 1981, against respondent and obtained an interim order directing the latter not to obstruct the petitioner in her ingress to and egress from the said business. 6. The present application under sections 192, 193, 194, 195 and 196 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 was made thereafter on a notice of motion dated the 9th June, 1981. In this application the petitioner prays for the following orders :–– (a) Declaration that the petitioner is solely entitled to possession and enjoyment of the properties and assets of the deceased; (b) Possession of the said properties and assets; (c) A mandatory injunction directing the respondent to make over possession of the flat at No.3. In this application the petitioner prays for the following orders :–– (a) Declaration that the petitioner is solely entitled to possession and enjoyment of the properties and assets of the deceased; (b) Possession of the said properties and assets; (c) A mandatory injunction directing the respondent to make over possession of the flat at No.3. Bow Street, Calcutta and all other properties, assets and effects of the deceased; (d) Appointment of a Curator overall such assets and properties; (e) Direction on the Curator to make an inventory of such assets and properties and to take possession thereof; (f) Direction on the Curator to collect and realize all moneys due to the estate and keep the same invested; (g) Direction on the Curator, if necessary, to run the said business; (h) Injunction restraining the respondent from dealing with, disposing of, alienating or encumbering the assets of the deceased; (i) Injunction restraining the respondent from interfering with the said business; (j) Injunction restraining the respondent from obstructing the petitioner from having access to the books, documents and papers of the said business and from interfering with the right of the petitioner of having ingress to and egress from the premises of the said business or the premises at No.3, Bow Street. 7. The petitioner claims to be the sole heir and legal representative of the deceased and alleges that the deceased died intestate. 8. It is alleged that the respondent, an employee in the said business under the deceased, with a salary of Rs. 350/- per month had been allowed to reside at No.3, Bow Street, Calcutta with his family. 9. Since the death of the deceased, the respondent, it is alleged, wrongfully prevented the petitioner to enter the said flat at No.3, Bow Street or to take possession of the assets and properties of the deceased lying there and had been obstructing the petitioner from carrying on the said business. The respondent, it is alleged, had entered into contracts for distribution of films of the said business, was misappropriating the funds and assets of the business, using and utilizing the assets of the deceased at No.3, Bow Street, Calcutta and had started disposing of the same. 10. It is alleged that the document alleged to be the Will of the deceased was on a stamped Hundi paper and allegedly attested by the said Kalyan Sankar Poddar and one K. R. Patel. 10. It is alleged that the document alleged to be the Will of the deceased was on a stamped Hundi paper and allegedly attested by the said Kalyan Sankar Poddar and one K. R. Patel. The said document, it is alleged, was manufactured and/or forged. During his life-time the deceased, it is alleged, used to keep such documents signed in blank for the purpose of the said business. 11. The petitioner alleges that the respondent has taken possession of the estate of the deceased wrongfully and forcibly without any lawful title. 12. By an ad interim order passed in this application a learned Advocate of this Court was appointed as the Curator and was directed to make an inventory of the assets and properties of the deceased and to take possession of the same. 13. An affidavit affirmed by the respondent on the 4th July, 1981 has been filed in opposition to the petition. It is alleged in the said affidavit that the respondent had joined the said business at a young age in 1960 and that the deceased developed great love and affection for him and his wife and child. It is alleged that the respondent started living at No.3, Bow Street since the inception of the tenancy. After his marriage in January, 1971, the respondent continued to live with his wife at the said flat. It is alleged that the deceased had left No.3. Gouribari Street, Calcutta his original residence in or about June, 1971 and thereafter resided with the respondent and his family at No.3, Bow Street, Calcutta in joint mess till his death. 14. It is alleged that in or about November, 1972 the wife of the respondent started a business in the name 'Maya Chitram' as its sole proprietor at No. 3B, Madan Street, Calcutta with the permission of the deceased. 15. It is alleged that the relationship of the deceased with the petitioner was strained and that the petitioner rarely visited the deceased at the flat at 3, Bow Street. 16. It is alleged that the respondent did not know of the Will of the deceased till the 15th May, 1981. The said Will it is contended is genuine. 17. It is admitted that after the death of the deceased the respondent was in possession of the assets and properties of the deceased. 16. It is alleged that the respondent did not know of the Will of the deceased till the 15th May, 1981. The said Will it is contended is genuine. 17. It is admitted that after the death of the deceased the respondent was in possession of the assets and properties of the deceased. Towards the end of April, 1981, the petitioner it is alleged, demanded that the office be closed and all goods made over to her. Thereafter, at the instance of the Secretary of the Motion Picture Association, an inventory of the assets of the business was made. 18. It is alleged that after the said Will was published the petitioner instituted criminal proceedings and with the help of anti-social persons attempted to take possession of the said business forcibly but failed. The respondent lodged a complaint at the Bowbazar Police Station. 19. The respondent contends that as the appointed Executor and one of the legatees, he is the legal representative of the deceased and has lawful title over the estate. The Books of Account of the said business being in the possession of the Curator he has been unable to apply for probate of the Will. 20. Kalyan Sankar Poddar has affirmed an affidavit on the 2nd July, 1981, in support of the respondent. It is, inter alia, alleged in this affidavit that the deceased in sound mind executed the said Will on the 28th April, 1976 in the presence of attesting witnesses. 21. It is alleged that since 1976 the deceased from time to time used to keep with the deponent sealed envelopes which used to be taken back after a time. Towards the end of February, 1981 the deceased, it is alleged, handed over one such sealed envelope to the deponent which was not taken back. The said envelope was opened after the death of the deceased on the instructions of the deponent who made a written statement on the same day about the said envelope. 22. Kamal Dasgupta, the constituted Attorney of the petitioner, has affirmed an affidavit on the 18th July, 1981 which has been filed in reply to the affidavit of the respondent. It is, inter alia, alleged in this affidavit that even after the appointment of the Curator a sum of Rs. 714.45 was found missing from the office sealed by the Curator. 23. It is, inter alia, alleged in this affidavit that even after the appointment of the Curator a sum of Rs. 714.45 was found missing from the office sealed by the Curator. 23. It is alleged that the respondent has removed all goods, articles, books, papers and documents of the business 'Maya Chitram' from the premises of the said business. 24. At the hearing, learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent could claim possession of the estate of the deceased only upon establishing that he had a lawful title thereto. The title claimed by the respondent was based on the alleged Will. No probate having been obtained of the same, the respondent had no right to claim or to remain in possession of the estate. Learned Counsel did not dispute, that the title of an Executor would relate back to the death of the deceased but he submitted that under section 213 of the Indian Succession Act the Executor could not establish any right or title to the estate of the deceased in a Court of law without obtaining probate of the Will. Once the title of an Executor was challenged in Court he could not proceed further with an unprobated Will. 25. Learned Counsel next submitted that the respondent had never been nor was in possession of the said business and that after the death of the deceased the petitioner had appointed a Manager over the said business. As such there was no question of the petitioner dispossessing the respondent. 26. On the alleged Will, learned Counsel submitted that the document was typed out on a stamped Hundi paper which was purchased on the same date on which witnesses allegedly attested the execution thereof. There was no reason to use a Hundi paper when the Will could have been executed on a plain paper. Learned Counsel also drew my attention to the fact that between the typed portion of the document and the signature of the deceased there was a large gap and that the document has been signed by the deceased as the proprietor of the firm. 27. It was further submitted that the production of the alleged Will was highly suspicious. Learned Counsel also drew my attention to the fact that between the typed portion of the document and the signature of the deceased there was a large gap and that the document has been signed by the deceased as the proprietor of the firm. 27. It was further submitted that the production of the alleged Will was highly suspicious. In the statement of Kalyan Sankar Poddar made on the 15th May, 1981, there was no whisper that he was an attesting witness to the alleged Will or that he had any prior knowledge of the document. There was no reason why the deceased made over the alleged Will to an attesting witness in a sealed envelope without disclosing that a Will was being handed over. Within two days from the completion of the inventory of the said business the notice for opening of the sealed envelope was issued. 28. Learned Counsel submitted that even if the deceased had love and affection for the respondent it did not follow that the deceased would execute a will in his favour. 29. Learned Counsel referred to the minutes of the Curator dated the 20th June and the 6th July, 1981, to show that the balance of cash in the petty cash book of the business had not been made over by the respondent to the Curator. 30. In support of his contentions learned Counsel for the petitioner cited the following decisions :–– (a) Rani Prayag Kumar Devi & Ors v. Siva Prasad Singh, reported in AIR 1926 Cal 1. This decision was cited for the following observation of a Division Bench of this Court :– "Under section 137 of the Probate Act of 1865 the Will could not be used for establishing any rights as Executor or legatee." (b) Lila v. Mahange & Ors., reported in AIR 1931 All 632. In this case a Full Bench of the Allahabad High Court upheld an order of the District Judge under section 195 of the Succession Act where no finding had been recorded under sections 193 and 195. It was observed by the Full Bench that–– "An omission to do so would not make the order illegal, because the section does not in express terms require that he should record such findings." (c) Ranjit Kumar Bose v. Subodh Chandra Basu Mallik & Ors., reported in AIR 1937 Cal 252. It was observed by the Full Bench that–– "An omission to do so would not make the order illegal, because the section does not in express terms require that he should record such findings." (c) Ranjit Kumar Bose v. Subodh Chandra Basu Mallik & Ors., reported in AIR 1937 Cal 252. This judgment of a Division Bench of this Court was cited for the following observation :–– ".... a Will uncovered by a probate or letters of administration cannot prove that anybody named therein has title to the estate of the testator". (d) Durga Pada Bera v. Atul Chandra Bera, reported in 1938(1) ILR Calcutta 75. This decision was cited for the following observation :–– ''There can be no question that under section 213 of the Indian Succession Act, it is necessary to obtain probate or letters of administration with copy of the Will annexed in order to establish rights under the Will". (e) Hemnolini Judeh v. Isolyne Sarojbashini Bose, reported in AIR 1962 SC 1471 . This decision of the Supreme Court was cited for the following observations :–– "Section 213 creates a bar to the establishment of any right under will by an Executor....................................unless probate or letters of administration of the Will have been obtained, whether that right is claimed by the person as a plaintiff or defendant.................. "Whoever wishes to establish that right, whether it be a legatee or an Executor himself or somebody else who might find it necessary in order to establish his right, to establish the right of some legatee or Executor from whom he might have derived title, he cannot do so unless the Will under which the right as a legatee or Executor is claimed has resulted in the grant of a probate or letters of administration." 31. Learned Counsel for the respondent submitted in answer that a claim of a right by succession under section 192 of the Succession Act included both intestate as also testamentary succession. Under section 193 of the said Act the Court had to examine the applicant on oath and to make further enquiry as thought necessary. A preliminary examination on oath was mandatory though any further enquiry was discretionary. Without such examination on oath the Court had no jurisdiction to proceed under Part VII of the Succession Act. 32. Under section 193 of the said Act the Court had to examine the applicant on oath and to make further enquiry as thought necessary. A preliminary examination on oath was mandatory though any further enquiry was discretionary. Without such examination on oath the Court had no jurisdiction to proceed under Part VII of the Succession Act. 32. It was submitted that in order to proceed summarily under the Succession Act the Court had to ascertain first if there were sufficient grounds for believing that the applicant was really entitled to the estate; that the opposite party had no lawful title thereto nor entitled to continue in possession thereof and that the applicant was likely to be materially prejudiced if left to the ordinarily remedy of a suit. Only after the Court was satisfied in respect of the aforesaid, the question of summoning the opposite party would arise. The final stage was the summary determination of the right to possess the estate whereafter possession was to be delivered to the successful party. Pending such determination, it was submitted, a Curator could be appointed though such an appointment was made normally after an enquiry under section 193 of the Succession Act. A Curator could not continue after the determination of the proceeding. In such summary proceedings the onus was on the applicant to prove a negative, namely that the opposite party had no lawful title. 33. Learned Counsel next submitted that, in the instant case, a document has been produced which is claimed to be the Will of the deceased the existence of which was known to the petitioner. The respondent has been nominated the Executor in the document and the beneficiaries thereunder are the respondent, his wife, his minor daughter and the petitioner. Admittedly probate of the Will has not yet been granted. The petitioner only apprehends that this Will is a forgery. 34. It was submitted that on the sole ground that no probate has been obtained of the Will, the petitioner was not entitled to assert that the respondent had no title to the estate. 35. The settled law was that an Executor derived his title from the Will and even before a Will was proved an Executor, it was submitted, was entitled, to take possession of the entire estate. 35. The settled law was that an Executor derived his title from the Will and even before a Will was proved an Executor, it was submitted, was entitled, to take possession of the entire estate. The provisions of the Succession Act empowered the Executor to dispose of the property of the deceased, to incur expenditure for proper care and management of the estate and to collect all debts of the deceased. The title of the Executor vested in him from the date of the death of the testator. When probate was granted the Will stood established from the death of the testator and all intermediate acts of the Executor were rendered valid thereby under section 227 of the Succession Act. It was implied from the scheme of the Act that before any probate was granted the Executor could deal with the estate lawfully. 36. Learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that the decisions cited on behalf of the applicant were cases where the Executor was required or sought to establish his title in a Court of law and the question of representation in a suit was involved. The said decisions, he submitted, had no application in the instant case where the respondent was not required to establish his title and the onus was entirely on the applicant. 37. He submitted further that if the contentions of the applicant were accepted it would mean that an heir in intestacy was bound to succeed in an application under section 193 in every case and the Court would have no option but to make over possession of the estate to him and till probate of the Will was obtained no one but the intestate heir would be entitled to the possession of the estate. The powers conferred on an Executor by the Succession Act to act in respect of the estate prior to probate would become nugatory. 38. Learned Counsel next submitted that under section 193 of the Act the Court was required to determine the dispute summarily. If the Executor was called upon to establish his title with a probated Will then the determination would not be a summary one but would be a final determination after adjudication. 39. It was next submitted that under section 206 of the Succession Act the Court had to give effect to the legal directions of the deceased in respect of his estate. 39. It was next submitted that under section 206 of the Succession Act the Court had to give effect to the legal directions of the deceased in respect of his estate. A Will of the deceased though not probated must be held to contain such legal directions and the Court ought and was required to give effect to the same. He submitted that a Will had been defined under section 2(h) of the Succession Act as a legal declaration and in section 3(64) of the General Clauses Act a Will was defined to include every writing making a voluntary posthumous disposition of the property. The directions contained in a Will, would thus come within the ambit of section 206 of the Succession Act and no question of probate would be involved. 40. Learned Counsel for the respondent next submitted that in order to succeed in this application the petitioner had also to establish, which she had failed to do, that she was likely to be materially prejudiced if left to the ordinary remedy of a suit. 41. It was also submitted that the application was mala fide for the reasons as follows :–– (a) The petitioner initiated criminal proceeding on the very day the Will was disclosed. (b) The petitioner sought to appoint a Curator with the sole object of stopping the business and no attempt was made to run the business through the Curator. (c) The petitioner wrongfully caused the Curator to take possession of all household articles of the respondent and the assets of the business 'Maya Chitram' which admittedly did not form part of the estate of the deceased. (d) The petitioner, through the Curator, caused the films of the business to be stored in the Godown of a competitor who was financing the petitioner in this litigation. In support of his contentions learned Counsel for the respondent cited the following decisions :–– (a) Papamma v. The Collector of Godavari, reported in ILR 12 Madras 341. Here a Division Bench of the Madras High Court construed sections 3 and 4 of the Succession (Property Protection) Act, 1841 which prescribed a summary proceeding similar to that provided under the present Succession Act. The Division Bench held that the party applying was bound and had to be called upon to show that the party in possession had no lawful title. The Division Bench held that the party applying was bound and had to be called upon to show that the party in possession had no lawful title. The Court had to be satisfied on that point on enquiry and examination of the claimant. The Court had also to examine the title of the person claiming whether the application of the claimant was bona fide, that misappropriation of assets were likely before the determination of the summary proceedings, and that continuation of the possession of the estate in the hands of the opposite party would expose the claimant out of possession to considerable risk before a Curator would be appointed. In the absence of the aforesaid, the proceedings would not be lawful. It was also observed that where directions had been given in a Will for the possession of the estate the Court was bound under section 15 of the Act of 1841 to give effect to them and not apply the Act in a manner so as to contravene the same. (b) Puthia Parajit Abdullah v. Puthia Purajit Mirthur, reported in 23 MLJ 537. In this case an order appointing a Commissioner to make an inventory without an enquiry under section 4 of the Succession Act, 1841 was held to be bad in law. (c) Mayappa Chetty v. Supranian Chetty, reported in AIR 1926 PC 202. This decision was cited for the following observations of the judicial Committee :–– "It is quite clear that an Executor derives his title and authorities from the Will of the testator and not from any grant of probate. The personal properties of the testator, including all rights of action, vests in him upon the testator's death...... Accordingly to English practice, probate may be granted of the Will of a person domiciled abroad upon proof that it is a valid Will according to the law of domicile and that there are assets within the jurisdiction. It is not necessary that is should be first proved in the Courts of the domicile." (d) (9) Venkata Subamma & Anr. v. Rumayya & Ors., reported in AIR 1932 PC 92. It is not necessary that is should be first proved in the Courts of the domicile." (d) (9) Venkata Subamma & Anr. v. Rumayya & Ors., reported in AIR 1932 PC 92. This decision was cited for the following observations of the Judicial Committee:–– "Before the grant, it is obvious that in every case where either the Will itself, or anything done under it by the Executor is challenged, proof of execution and capacity on the part of the testator, and of the appointment of the Executor, would be required...... "The provisions of the section (section 12, Probate and Administrator Act, 1881) do not, in their Lordships opinion suggest that before probate the Executor has no tide but are only intended to simplify the proof of his title...... "There can be no doubt that in England the title of an executor is derived from the Will and not from probate, though it is probate alone which authenticates his right...... "Section 12, Probate and Administration Act, is a reproduction of section 188, Succession Act of 1865 and it has always been recognized that the latter Act was largely based on English law. It is not suggested that this doctrine is for any reason inapplicable to the Wills of Hindus and their Lordships think that the material parts of sections 4 and 90 .....afford a strong indication in themselves that the Legislature intended to adopt it." (e) (10) Champa Debi v. Puran Bai, reported in AIR 1934 Lahore 930. This decision was cited for the observation of a learned Judge of the Lahore High Court that the word "succession" in section 192 of the Succession Act meant only intestate succession. (f) (11) Narasayyamma Garu & Ors. v. Andhra Bank Ltd. & Ors., reported in AIR 1960 AP 273 . The said decision was cited for the following observations of a Division Bench of the Andhra Pradesh High Court :–– "Under section 24 the entire property of the testator vests in the Executor or executrix as the case may be, from the time when the Will takes effect. Even before the obtaining of the probate on the death of the testator, the property vests in the executor as such......... "All that the grant of the probate does is not to give the executor title but only to make his title certain. 42. Even before the obtaining of the probate on the death of the testator, the property vests in the executor as such......... "All that the grant of the probate does is not to give the executor title but only to make his title certain. 42. In the instant case an ad interim order appointing a Curator was made on the application without any examination of the petitioner on oath. To that extent it must be held that the requirements of section 193 of the Succession Act were not strictly complied with. But it is not disputed by the respondent that the petitioner is the sole heiress of the deceased on intestacy and thus has a substantial claim to the estate. It is also not in dispute that the respondent is in possession of a document which is claimed to be the last Will and testament of the deceased on which the claim of the respondent to the estate is based. 43. In view of the aforesaid it cannot be held at this stage that the proceedings had under this application and the interim orders passed herein are wholly vitiated. In this application it is now to be determined in a summary manner as to which of the parties is entitled to immediate possession of the estate. 44. De facto possession of the estate after the death of the deceased is a matter of chance. The estate may be in the actual possession of the heirs of the deceased on intestacy or the estate may come into the possession of a stranger. It is also possible that the actual possession of the estate may come to the Executor in the case where an Executor had been nominated in a Will of the deceased even before any probate thereof is obtained. 45. Where the deceased dies intestate, a contest as to the possession of the estate between an heir in intestacy and a third person can be disposed effectively under Part VII of the Act in a summary manner. 46. Where a Will is left by the deceased or a Will is set up, the position is not so simple. An Executor of an un-probated Will may not be entitled to oust the possession even of a total stranger before probate is obtained. 46. Where a Will is left by the deceased or a Will is set up, the position is not so simple. An Executor of an un-probated Will may not be entitled to oust the possession even of a total stranger before probate is obtained. The position of an executor of an un-probated Will vis-a-vis the heir in intestacy is weaker and an Executor in such a case will not in my view be entitled to oust summarily an heir in intestacy who might be in possession of the estate. 47. In the instant case, however, it is the Executor of an un-probated Will who is in possession of the estate and the heir in intestacy seeks to oust him summarily. 48. From the scheme of Part VII of the Indian Succession Act and in view of the law laid down in the decision cited and considered earlier it appears to me that where the contest is between an heir in intestacy and an Executor of an un-probated Will over the possession of the estate the summary procedure in Part VII of the Succession Act is not the proper proceeding to determine such a dispute, in particular where the Executor and not the heir in intestacy is in possession of the estate. In such a case the onus is on the heir in intestacy to establish his title. An Executor holding an un-probated Will cannot be said to have no title whatsoever so that he may be ousted summarily from his immediate possession. The title of such an Executor in my view is inchoate which will become perfect if and when probate is obtained. In a regular proceeding an Executor of an un-probated Will always have to give way to the heir on intestacy as was decided in (12) Ghanashyamdoss Narayan v. Gulabi Bai, reported in AIR 1927 Madras 1054. Here a Full Bench of the Madras High Court observed that the plaintiff being the heir under the intestacy it must be presumed until a Will is proved that he is entitled to succeed to the properly This decision of the Madras High Court has been followed by this Court in Ranjit Kumar v. Subodh Chandra, AIR 1937 Cal 252 and (13) Jogendra Nath v. Makhamlal, reported in AIR 1942 Cal 401. 49. 49. In the instant case, in my view, the heiress in intestacy should have been left to the ordinary remedy of a suit. Had the Executor initiated proceeding for obtaining probate the heiress could have intervened under section 247 of the Succession Act and apply for an Administrator pendente lite. 50. In the instant case it has also not been established that the applicant would be materially prejudiced if left to the ordinary remedy of a suit. 51. I note that the Will relied on by the Executor in the instant case prima facie can be challenged on various grounds. It is in the interest of the parties that this Will should be established or rejected as soon as possible so that the title of the parties may be settled finally. 52. I also hold that an Executor cannot take advantage of an un-probated Will for all times to come and without taking any steps for obtaining probate or the same continue to enjoy the estate excluding other persons who ultimately may have a better title to the estate. 53. For the reasons above I dispose of this application by the following order :–– The Curator will continue for a period of six months from date within which period the Executor will be at liberty to initiate proceedings for obtaining probate of the Will. For the aforesaid purpose the Curator will make available to the Executor all necessary documents and records. In the event, the Executor files an application for obtaining probate, the applicant will be entitled to apply in said the proceedings for appointment of an administrator pendente lite. The applicant will also be at liberty if so advised to institute a regular suit for administration of the estate. If proceedings for obtaining probate of the Will are not initiated by the Executor within six months, then the Curator will make over possession of the estate to the applicant. In any event, the present Curator will stand discharged after six months. 54. The Curator during his tenure will take all steps to preserve the estate. If proceedings for obtaining probate of the Will are not initiated by the Executor within six months, then the Curator will make over possession of the estate to the applicant. In any event, the present Curator will stand discharged after six months. 54. The Curator during his tenure will take all steps to preserve the estate. He is directed to call a meeting of the parties to enable them to express their views about carrying on the business for six months and if the parties agree to do so, the Curator will run the business as agreed in case of difference of opinion between the parties the Curator will exercise his own discretion. 55. The petitioner will pay to the Curator a further sum of 60 Gms. on account of his remuneration. 56. The movables in dispute will remain in the custody of the respondent for further six months. Costs in the testamentary proceedings. All parties and the Curator to act on a signed copy of the minutes of this order on an undertaking by the applicant through her Advocate on record to draw up, complete and file the same.