JUDGMENT This case concerns the last Will and Testament of Suraj Narain Daga of 47/1, Sir Hariram Goenka Street, Calcutta– 700 007 (now Kolkata). It was executed on 2nd November, 1992. He was 78 years old at the time of its execution. He had four sons namely, Laxmi Narain, Sree Narain, Prem Narain and Satya Narain. Prem Narain was given away in adoption. 2. Promod Kumar Daga was his grandson through his son Sree Narain. In the above instrument, he appointed Laxmi Narain and Promod Kumar as joint executors. They were to act jointly. If Promod Kumar did not act, then Sree Narain would act as the executor. 3. The testator Suraj Narain died on 2nd September, 1995. It appears that although the executors were required to act jointly, one of them Laxmi Narain filed an application for grant of probate of the above Will, which was marked as PLA 177 of 1996. According to Mr. Dipankar Dhar, learned Advocate appearing for the applicant Pradeep Kumar Daga, the son of Laxmi Narain, Promod Kumar had refused to act as an executor and in those circumstances, Laxmi Narain as the other joint executor had filed the application for grant of probate. In that proceeding a citation was issued by this Court to Promod Kumar received by him and giving him notice of the institution of the above application for grant of probate and asking him if he was interested to come and see the proceedings. This citation was served on Promod Kumar on 6th December, 2005. An advocate acting on his behalf, by a letter dated 10th December, 2005 informed Mr. Dhar that he had filed a Vakalatnama on behalf of Mr. Promod Daga. 4. Now, Satya Narain, the third son of the testator had filed a caveat in this Court opposing the grant of probate of the above will before filing of the application for grant of probate. After filing the application Sree Narain Daga, the second son of the testator also lodged a caveat. This Court by its order dated 25th January, 2007 had discharged the caveats. 5. On 11th August, 2010, Laxmi Narain and Promod Kumar jointly filed an application being G.A. 2601 of 2010 in this Court for grant of probate to them as joint executors. 6. This Court by its order dated 25th January, 2007 had discharged the caveats. 5. On 11th August, 2010, Laxmi Narain and Promod Kumar jointly filed an application being G.A. 2601 of 2010 in this Court for grant of probate to them as joint executors. 6. It was recorded in an order dated 20th December, 2010 that the applicants had agreed to jointly administer the estate, having resolved "the differences that exist between them". The application was disposed of by the above order. 7. Now, on 23rd April, 2011, Laxmi Narain died. On 5th July, 2011, Promod Kumar filed an application (G.A. 1991 of 2011) to record his death and for grant of probate of the Will, in his favour. On 27th July, 2012, Pradeep Kumar Daga, the son of Laxmi Narain Daga filed an application (G.A. 2040 of 2012) for grant of letters of administration. 8. These two applications were highly contested and heard by me for some length of time. 9. Mr. Dipankar Dhar, learned Advocate for the applicant Pradeep Kumar made very pointed legal submissions. He said that Promod Kumar had shown no interest to file the application for grant of probate. In those circumstances, the other joint executor had filed it. Thereupon, the above citation was served on Promod Kumar giving him notice of the probate proceedings taken out by Laxmi Narain. A lawyer filed a Vakalatnama, thereby entering appearance for him. Therefore, Pramod Kumar took part in the proceedings as an heir or person interested in the estate and not as an executor. For those circumstances, he could be said to have relinquished his rights as an executor. For those reasons Section 232 (b) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 came into play. I read Section 232. It is in the following terms : "232. Grant of administration of universal or residuary legatees. – When – (a) the deceased has made a Will, but has not appointed an executor, or (b) the deceased has appointed an executor who is legally incapable or refuses to act, or who has died before the testator or before he has proved the Will, or (c) the executor dies after having proved the Will, but before he has administered all the estate of the deceased. a universal or a residuary legatee may be admitted to prove the Will, and letters of administration with the Will annexed may be granted to him of the whole estate, or of so much thereof as may be unadministered." 10. According to him Section 232 as was applicable as the appointed executor Promod Kumar Daga refused to act. Therefore, his client, the applicant, Pradeep Kumar Daga being a residuary legatee had the right to claim administration of the estate. There is no contest to the assertion that Pradeep Kumar is a residuary legatee. 11. Mr. Jishnu Chowdhury, appearing for Promod Kumar cited Section 230 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. This section is reproduced below : "230. Form and effect of renunciation of executorship. – The renunciation may be made orally in the presence of the Judge, or by a writing signed by the person renouncing, and when made shall preclude him from ever thereafter applying for probate of the Will appointing him executor." 12. He submitted that the alleged renunciation of executorship by Promod Kumar was made neither in the presence of a Judge nor by any writing. Therefore, there was no renunciation. 13. Furthermore, he submitted that Laxmi Narain and Promod Kumar agreed to administer the said jointly as would be evident from the above order of this Court dated 20th December, 2010. Therefore, upon the death of Laxmi Narain his heir had acted contrary to the agreement reached between Laxmi Narain and Promod Kumar. 14. As the surviving joint executor he is entitled to probate of the Will. 15. Up to a particular stage I was with Mr. Dipankar Dhar. Although Promod Kumar Daga had not formally renewed the executorship in the form envisaged in Section 230 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, his conduct in not applying for probate and by filing a Vakalatnama to witness the proceedings as an ordinary heir or a person having an interest in the estate, showed that he had no interest in executorship. It is at this point of time when Section 231 of the Indian Succession Act, 1931 could comes into play, in my opinion. It is in the following terms : "231. Procedure where executor renounces or fails to accept within time limited. It is at this point of time when Section 231 of the Indian Succession Act, 1931 could comes into play, in my opinion. It is in the following terms : "231. Procedure where executor renounces or fails to accept within time limited. – If an executor renounces or fails to accept an executorship within the time limited for the acceptance or refusal thereof, the Will may be proved and letters of administration, with a copy of the Will annexed, may be granted to the person who would be entitled to administration in case of intestacy." 16. An executor could be deemed to have refused executorship. In those circumstances the letter of administration could be granted to any person who would be entitled to administer the estate in case of intestacy. 17. But this state of affairs could not be maintained by Laxmi Narain. He filed an application jointly with Pramod for grant of probate. He entered into an agreement with Promod Kumar Daga for jointly administering the estate. This was recorded in the order of this Court dated 20th December, 2012. Renunciation may be an irreversible act but refusal to accept executorship or act is not so on my opinion. Since, Promod Kumar did not renounce executorship in the presence of the Judge or by writing, he could not be said to have renounced the executorship, but could be said to have refused to accept the executorship (Section 231) or refused to act after acceptance, (Section 232). Therefore, any heir on intestacy had acquired a right to apply for Letters of Administration under Section 231 or any residuary legatee under Section 232. But once joint executors had entered into a compromise recorded by the Court, it cannot be said that one of the joint executors had refused executorship or was refusing to act. Any initial refusal was made good and reversed by the act of the Joint executors and approved by the Court. Therefore, after the death of Laxmi Narain, Pradeep Kumar had acquired no rights. 18. However, I fall back upon Clause 6 of the will. It says that if Promod Kumar Daga is unwilling to act then in his place Sree Narain Daga is to act as the executor. Therefore, after the death of Laxmi Narain, Pradeep Kumar had acquired no rights. 18. However, I fall back upon Clause 6 of the will. It says that if Promod Kumar Daga is unwilling to act then in his place Sree Narain Daga is to act as the executor. Considering that there is no consistent willingness on the part of Pramod Kumar, following the mandate in the will I direct Sree Narain Daga to act as the executor and to obtain probate of the above will by continuing the existing application for grant of probate and to administer the estate as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of one year from the date of grant of probate. 19. It is also necessary in the circumstances that a Special Officer is appointed by this Court to oversee the acts of Sree Narain Daga. In those circumstances I appoint Mr. M.L. Chatterjee, Advocate of 6, Old Post Office Street and Mr. Manish Chandra Ray, Advocate of the Bar Library Club as Joint Special Officers to oversee and supervise the acts of the executor and see to it that administration of the above estate is completed by 31st December, 2013. The Joint Special Officers will each will be paid remuneration @ 400 Gms. per month by the executor from the estate's funds. Both the applications are disposed of. 20. Liberty to apply. Urgent certified photocopy of this judgment/order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.