Judgment :- (1) THE present probate proceedings were filed before the City Civil court at Calcutta and have been transferred pursuant to an order of this court. The deceased belonged to one of the original Marwari families which set up business in the city and made it the commercial hub of the country that it once was. (2) THE propounders have set up a Will which is disputed in all aspects by the only Class-I heir of the deceased - his widow. Despite the apparent opposition to the grant by the widow, the propounders do not make any direct allegation against the widow; they say that the widow was in the clutches of a nephew of the deceased and continues to be under the influence of the widow of the nephew who has since died. They have questioned the veracity of the affidavits filed in the, name of deceased gopal Das Bagrees widow Gaura Devi. (3) G. A. NO. 1098 of 2005 is the propounders application to be appointed administrators pendente lite and other orders for administration of the estate G. A. No. 1635 of 2006 is the propounders application for withdrawing monies in bank accounts of the alleged testator to conduct proceedings for realisation of money due to the estate. G. A. No. 3205 of 2007 is the propounders application for rejection of the affidavit in support of the caveat filed by the widow and for rejection of all pleadings filed in the name of Gaura Devi. (4) UPON it appearing that it was the principal grievance of the propounders that it was only the widows name which was being used for others to keep the propounders at bay and enjoy the estate, Gaura Devi was directed to appear to be examined. Gaura Devi has been examined and extensively cross-examined on behalf of the propounders as to the contents of the pleadings filed on her behalf or in her name. The lady is old and physically infirm and in course of her examination slipped in and out of the State of acceptable level of alertness. Her response to some of the questions was appropriate and informative, yet to other simple questions her answers were irrelevant and she appeared to be incoherent. (5) GOPAL Das Bagree died issueless on May 31, 2003. Her response to some of the questions was appropriate and informative, yet to other simple questions her answers were irrelevant and she appeared to be incoherent. (5) GOPAL Das Bagree died issueless on May 31, 2003. It is the propounders case that they were not aware of the Will that they have subsequently sought to set up, at any time immediately after, the death of the alleged testator. The propounders say that despite Gopal Das having died a rich man, his widow had no means to support herself and had to stoop to seeking financial aid for her medical expenses and upkeep. Gaura devi had to be admitted to hospital in October, 2003 and there she remained till she was discharged on November 26, 2003. The propounders claim that Gopal Das nephew Brijlal Bagree and his wife Alka took charge of Gaura Devi upon her discharge from the Gujarati Hospital and whatever acts and deeds have been done in the name of Gaura Devi thereafter have been by Brijlal and Alka for their personal interest by using Gaura devi as the front. (6) IN less than a month after Gaura Devis return from the hospital, she is shown to have adopted Brijlal and Alkas son Nikhil Nischal. It transpires that Gaura Devi has also prepared a Will. (7) THE propounders say that they came to know of the Will in June, 2004 and filed an application for grant of probate before the City Civil Court within a few days of their coming to know of the alleged Will. The probate proceedings stood transferred to this Court by an order made in December, 2004. The propounders say that though relatives of the propounders are the named beneficiaries under the alleged Will that they set up, such beneficiaries have relinquished their right to receive any part of the estate and the propounders seek to use the estate for setting up charitable trusts in the name of the alleged testator. The propounders seek to demonstrate that they have no personal interest in the matter and it is only they who have taken steps to protect the interest of the estate, inter alia, by launching suits against debtors to the estate just prior to limitation setting in and with leave to put in deficit Court fees at a future date. The propounders seek to demonstrate that they have no personal interest in the matter and it is only they who have taken steps to protect the interest of the estate, inter alia, by launching suits against debtors to the estate just prior to limitation setting in and with leave to put in deficit Court fees at a future date. They refer to an appeal relating to the control of Bagree Market and their effort to scuttle a compromise, being arrived at in the name of Gaura Devi as heir of Gopal das that would have been detrimental to the interest of the estate. (8) IN course of hearing of the present petitions, one Hatimal Nahata who along with Mohanlal Bagree has set up another Will, has been heard. Mohanlal Bagree has also been heard. Shesh Karan Singhi, who ran a business partnership with Gopal Das, has also been heard. (9) THERE are several disputes that arise as to the extent of the estate. The propounders and Gaura Devi (or the voice in the name of Gaura devi) are agreed that an administrator pendente lite be appointed to take charge of the estate/they are also agreed as to how divers assets and funds be dealt with pending the disposal of the various proceedings, save the money left in a bank account by Gopal Das as karta of a Hindu undivided family which Gaura Devi claims to be her exclusive and the propounders disagree. The extent of the estate cannot yet be ascertained as Hatimal, Mohanlal and Shesh Karan have denied that they hold properties or money that belong to the alleged testator and is now to form part of the estate. Shesh Karan, however, has said that the amount that remains credited to the alleged testator in the books of the partnership firm by the name of Gopal Das Bagree, may be taken over by the estate as may any other deposit lying in the name of the deceased. But the propounders and Gaura Devi allege that Shesh Karan has fudged the partnership accounts to show much reduced figures than what ought to have been shown to the credit of the deceased. But the propounders and Gaura Devi allege that Shesh Karan has fudged the partnership accounts to show much reduced figures than what ought to have been shown to the credit of the deceased. (10) THE propounders and Gaura Devi claim that Hatimal and mohanlal hold cars and jewellery that belonged to Gopal Das and should be directed to make over the same to the estate or to those entitled or to be appointed to administer the estate. Hatimal and Mohanlal have denied that they retain anything that belongs to the estate. (11) ON behalf of Hatimal the judgments reported at 13 Cal LJ 34 and 13 Cal LJ 47 have been placed for the proposition that in proceedings relating to grant of probate, the Court cannot go into the disputed question of what forms or does not form part of the estate. Shesh Karan has also urged similarly and says that in both Wills that have been set up he has been permitted to continue the partnership business, but the present propounders and Gaura Devi want him dislodged. Shesh Karan also cites the partnership deed to which Gopal Das was a party and submits that he is entitled to carry on the business in the name of Gopal Das Bagree as the deed had reserved such right unto him. (12) ORDINARILY, if it comes to light that what is claimed to be part of the estate of a deceased is in the hands of others and such others dispute the estates claim over it, the Court in seisin of the probate proceedings would not adjudicate upon such dispute but would leave it to be decided in a properly constituted action. There is no doubt that the propounders and Gaura Devi make a prima facie case against Hatimal, Mohanlal and shesh Karao, but the determination has to be left to be conclusively ascertained in other proceedings. (13) THE value of the estate, on any conservative estimate, runs into several crores or tens of crores of rupees but remains embroiled in divers disputes in course of pending proceedings or as a consequence of denial by persons who appear to be liable to the estate. (14) THE propounders and Gaura Devi agree that an administrator pendente lite may be appointed and they further agree as to the following assets of the estate :- 1. (14) THE propounders and Gaura Devi agree that an administrator pendente lite may be appointed and they further agree as to the following assets of the estate :- 1. Land and building at Antpur, Hooghly; both sets of parties say that such property should be sold after being valued and the sale proceeds held by the estate. There will, accordingly, be a direction on the administrator pendente lite to have the land, building and whatever else may be available thereat to be valued and to invite offers therefor upon notice to all the appearing parties. The sale will be subject to confirmation by Court. 2. House at Bikaner, Rajasthan bearing holding No. 277, bagree Mohalla : all appearing parties say that pursuant to a final decree in partition and Administration Suit No. 1736 of 1959 the deceased was entitled to such property and mutation has not been effected. The appearing parties say that such property may be sold to the highestobidder and the sum of about Rs. 9 lakh being held by the joint receivers in P. A. No. 1736 of 1959 be claimed by the estate as the proposed transferee will be liable to pay the stamp duty. The administrator will take steps to sell such Bikaner property, again subject to confirmation by Court, and claim the amount reserved on account of stamp duty from the joint receivers in P. A. No. 1736 of 1959. 3. Office at 2nd Floor, Lyons Range, Calcutta: the propounders and Gaura Devi suggest that the administrator take physical possession of the office. Shesh Karan carries on business at such place and claims to be entitled to retain possession in terms of the rival Wills and otherwise. The administrator will take appropriate steps for the removal of Shesh Karan and/or any other in occupation of such premises in a properly constituted action. 4. Books, records and documents: the administrator will take possession of all records, documents, papers and books of accounts relating to the said deceased available at 7, Lyons Range, Calcutta or wherever else they may be lying; prepare a list thereof; and. in consultation with the propounders and Gaura Devi, take steps for recovery of any asset or money due to the estate upon a being apparent from such books, records and documents. 5. in consultation with the propounders and Gaura Devi, take steps for recovery of any asset or money due to the estate upon a being apparent from such books, records and documents. 5. Shares: the administrator will obtain a statement from Stock Holding company (India) Limited of the account of Gopal Das Bagree being a/c No. CC 458 from April, 2001 and ascertain if there is any other dematerialised account in the name of the deceased or other shares held by the deceased. The administrator will take a decision, in consultation with the propounders and Gaura Devi, as to whether the shares should be sold and take steps with prior leave of Court. 6. Jewellery allegedly with Hatimal: since Hatimal denies that he retains any jewellery or other material that belonged to the deceased, the administrator will, in consultation with the propounders and Gaura Devi, institute appropriate proceedings for recovery thereof. 7. Coins and other valuables: the administrator will collect from the receiver or receivers appointed in P. A. No. 1736 of 1959 all coins and other valuables falling in the share of the deceased and said to be in a locker at bikaner and keep the same in a bank locker in Calcutta under his custody subject to further orders. 8. Bank deposits: the administrator will collect monies lying to the credit of the deceased in various banks. The administrator will ascertain from the propounders, Gaura Devi and other appearing parties as to such monies and the particulars of the accounts relating thereto. The administrator will collect the monies in the following accounts that have been identified: (a) HSBC Dalhousie Square Branch Current Account 021-203112 where a sum in excess of Rs. 22 lakh is said to remain deposited. (b) Burdwan Gramin Bank SB Account 2126 where a sum in excess of Rs. 67,000/-is said to remain deposited. (c) Fixed Deposit account with United Bank of India bearing a/c No. TD 89709 where a sum in excess of Rs. 3. 75 lakh is said to remain deposited. (d) Fixed Deposits with United Bank of India, Calcutta Stock exchange Branch, Account Nos. TD 96047, TD 101997 and td 118563 where sums of Rs. 2. 5 lakh, Rs. 3 lakh and Rs. 3 lakh, respectively, are said to remain-deposited, (e) The administrator will deposit all the monies collected in bank accounts to be opened in his name as administrator. (d) Fixed Deposits with United Bank of India, Calcutta Stock exchange Branch, Account Nos. TD 96047, TD 101997 and td 118563 where sums of Rs. 2. 5 lakh, Rs. 3 lakh and Rs. 3 lakh, respectively, are said to remain-deposited, (e) The administrator will deposit all the monies collected in bank accounts to be opened in his name as administrator. He should use his discretion as to the extent that fixed deposits should be made and to the extent money should be left in savings bank accounts for disbursement in course of administration of 1he estate. 9. Cars: the propounders and Gaura Devi claim that several cars of the deceased remained with Hatimal. The administrator, in consultation with the propounders and Gaura Devi, will take appropriate steps for recovery qf the cars, if any, from Hatimal since hatimal has denied having any cars. 10. Calcutta Stock Exchange Card: the administrator will obtain the card standing in the name of the deceased from Shesh Karan or any other person who may have it or else require the Stock Exchange to issue a duplicate card. The administrator will sell such card upon inviting offers therefor, subject to confirmation by Court, 11. Deposits with Calcutta Stock Exchange: the administrator will require the Stock Exchange to inform the administrator of all deposits lying to the credit of the deceased, obtain refund thereof and keep the same deposited in terms of the directions already given. The administrator will take the assistance of Shesh Karan to ascertain the amounts lying to the credit of the deceased with the Stock Exchange and may institute appropriate action, if deemed fit, for recovery of any amount that the Stock exchange may deny. 12. Public Provident Fund Account: the administrator will obtain information from Hatimal and from Promod Agarwal, said to be the income tax advisors of the deceased, as to the particulars of the Public Provident Fund Account maintained by the deceased and take steps for recovery of the amount and keep the same deposited in terms of the directions already given. (15) THE propounders say that a sum in excess of Rs. 59 lakh remained deposited to the credit of the deceased with United Bank of India. Gaura Devi claims that such money was held by the Hindu Undivided family of which her husband was the Karta. (15) THE propounders say that a sum in excess of Rs. 59 lakh remained deposited to the credit of the deceased with United Bank of India. Gaura Devi claims that such money was held by the Hindu Undivided family of which her husband was the Karta. The widow claims to be exclusively entitled to the entire amount and says that a sum of about rs. 46 lakh has been withdrawn by her of which a sum of about Rs. 23. 20 lakh has been invested in mutual funds or market instruments which have diminished in value following the recent downslide in the market. (16) IN course of the proceedings subpoena was issued to the Urifted bank to produce papers relating to the account. Some papers have been produced but despite the banks representation that other papers would be produced, no other documents have emanated from the bank. The matter is of little relevance in the present context. (17) AS to whether the money in the HUF account belongs exclusively to Gaura Devi or is part of the estate has to be determined at a later stage. For the moment the administrator will take control of any money lying deposited with United Bank in respect of such deposit and all amounts invested by or on behalf of Gaura Devi in mutual funds or other market instruments. The administrator, in consultation with the propounders and gaura Devi, will decide as to whether the investments should be encashed and, if so, when they should be encashed. (18) THERE are several suits and other proceedings pending where the estate ought to be represented. The administrator will obtain details of the various proceedings from the propounders and Gaura Devi and the other appearing parties and take steps to protect the interest of the estate in such proceedings. The administrator will incur such expenditure, as the administrator may deem fit, from out of the funds of the estate held by him, for such purpose. In particular, the administrator will protect the interest of the estate in respect of Bagree Estate Private Limited, which is the owner of Bagree Market and the interest of the estate in Bhikam Chand market. The administrator will not withdraw the appeal preferred by Gopal das Bagree in relation to Bhikam Chand Market where Gaura Devi has been substituted in place of the deceased. The administrator will not withdraw the appeal preferred by Gopal das Bagree in relation to Bhikam Chand Market where Gaura Devi has been substituted in place of the deceased. (19) GAURA Devi will furnish details of all proceedings relating to the estate to the administrator. Gaura Devi will not take independent steps in any proceedings where she has been substituted in place of her deceased husband without the express previous consent in writing of the administrator. It will be open to the administrator to represent the estate in such proceedings in place and stead of Gaura Devi and Gaura Devi will not be entitled to raise any objection with regard thereto. (20) THE propounders have agreed that notwithstanding it being evident that substantial cash is available with Gaura Devi, monthly expenses of Gaura Devi may be discharged from the funds available to the estate. Subject to Gaura Devi and those seeking to represent her cooperating with the administrator and complying with the directions above, Gaura Devi will be paid a monthly sum of Rs. 30,000/-, subject to funds being available with the administrator, for her personal maintenance, upkeep and medical expenses. Alka Bagree who resides with Gaura Devi will furnish details of medical and other expenses of Gaura Devi upon the administrator requiring her to provide such information. (21) MR. Samrat Sen, Advocate, is appointed administrator at an initial remuneration of 3000 GMs to be paid out of the funds available to the estate and in his hands and a subsequent monthly remuneration beginning august, 2008 of 1500 GMs which should also come out of the funds of the estate available in his hands. The administrator will be at liberty to take such assistance as the administrator deems fit for best administration of the estate and to assess the extent of the estate. The administrator will be entitled to engage Advocates for the purpose of representing the estate. The administrator will use his best discretion in all matters and will be at liberty to seek appropriate directions from Court. (22) THE administrator will maintain and file periodic accounts and furnish copies thereof to the propounders and to Gaura Devi. (23) G. A. No. 1098 of 2005 is disposed of as above. The administrator will use his best discretion in all matters and will be at liberty to seek appropriate directions from Court. (22) THE administrator will maintain and file periodic accounts and furnish copies thereof to the propounders and to Gaura Devi. (23) G. A. No. 1098 of 2005 is disposed of as above. G. A. No. 1635 of 2006 is disposed of by directing the administrator to take appropriate steps to protect the interest of the estate and incur such expenses as he may deem fit for the purpose. G. A. No. 3205 of 2007 is disposed of by postponing the adjudication of the matters therein till the trial. There will be no order as to costs.