JUDGMENT : 1. This is an application for appointment of a curator at the instance of the executor. The testator retired as a Brigadier from the Indian Arm Force and he had natural death. The Will for which the probate has been sought apparently provides for the entire estate to go to Bharat Sevasram Sangha. The petitioner claims that the deceased did not have any class I heirs and among the class II heirs is the step-brother who has not been seen or heard off for more than twelve years and step-sister Gita Das. The petitioner filed this application for appointment of a curator on the ground that although at the time of death of the testator, his house at 164, Jodhpur Park, Kolkata was under lock and key but it has recently come to the knowledge of the petitioner that the house had been broken into and some articles had been removed there from. Gita Das appeared on 6th October, 2016 when this application was taken up for consideration and claimed to have been in possession of the house of the deceased along with her son from the time of the death of the deceased. On consideration of the rival claims on 6th October, 2016 a special officer was appointed for the purpose of immediately visiting the property at 163, Jodhpur Park to ascertain from the neighbours as to whether the house has been recently occupied by Gita Das and Abhijit Das or they had been residing at all or for long. The special officer was directed to make an inventory of all the furniture, valuable articles of the house in presence of the petitioner, at Gita Das. The objection of Gita Das and Abhijit Das as to the validity of the Will which was also recorded in the order dated 6th October, 2016. 2. It appears that Gita Das being aggrieved by the said order had preferred an appeal in which the Hon’ble Division Bench disposed of the appeal by observing that the Trial Court shall consider the maintainability of the application for appointment of curator and shall also consider whether the Will set up by the executor, prima facie is a genuine Will. Based on such finding it was left to the Trial Court to decide whether Gita Das should be reinstated at all. Based on such finding it was left to the Trial Court to decide whether Gita Das should be reinstated at all. The order of the learned Single Judge was however not interfered with by the Hon’ble Division Bench. The Coordinate Bench while considering the report filed by the special officer had observed that the said report speaks of neighbours and others referring to the step-sister having entered the property long after the death of testator. It is also recorded that the step-sister and her son are no longer in the property but the executor claimed that furniture including seven wooden beds with mattress, other valuable including paintings, crockery, antique clock and the like were wrongfully removed from the house where the testator lived prior to death and complaints to that effect were filed with the Lake Police Station. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of Gita Das submits that in the subsequent order passed by the Coordinate Bench the maintainability of the application for appointment of curator and the genuinity of the Will was not considered at all. 4. The learned Counsel representing the caveator submits that since the caveator was in possession of the property in question, there was no reason to appoint a curator. The learned Counsel has also referred to page 7 of paragraph 1 of the affidavit-in-opposition to show that a scrutiny of the holograph Will would show that the Will was executed by the testator in absence of any attesting witness. The objector does not say that the testator was not conversant with the English language or the time during which the said Will was prepared he was of unsound mind or of ill health. The objector has also not obtained any expert opinion to show that the said Will is forged or the signature of the testator on the Will is forged although the objector had the time and opportunity to obtain such opinion from a handwriting expert. It is also not being alleged by the objector that the testator had no connection with Bharat Sevasram Sangha at any point of time. The objector has contended that while the testator had put his signature in the purported Will on 25th February, 1999 at Chennai but the witness to the said Will had put his signature on 1st March, 1999. The objector has contended that while the testator had put his signature in the purported Will on 25th February, 1999 at Chennai but the witness to the said Will had put his signature on 1st March, 1999. In the affidavit-in-reply the executor has stated that the relationship between the testator and his step sister was bitter. The attesting witnesses affirmed that the deceased acknowledged the signature to the attesting witnesses and requested the said witnesses to sign the said Will and thereafter the same was signed by them. 5. On such considerations it cannot be said prima facie that the Will is not genuine. 6. The series of orders passed in this proceeding would show that for the benefit of all concerned, the said property is required to be preserved so that ultimately the beneficiary to the said property can have complete freedom to enjoy and deal with the said property. The report of the Special Officer to which reference was made in the earlier orders show that the caveatrix had entered the property long after the death of the testator. The said property is presently under the possession of the Special Officer. 7. Under such circumstances, the interim order passed on 22nd September, 2016 and 10th November, 2016 stand affirmed and shall continue till the disposal of the probate proceeding. 8. Although the record does not show that any caveat was lodged by Gita Das, however it appears that a communication has been received by her from her erstwhile Advocate on record that a caveat has been lodged on her behalf. To avoid all future controversies in this matter, leave is given to Gita Das to lodge a caveat within a week from date and file an affidavit in support of the caveat within three weeks thereafter. 9. Service of special citations by Smt. Gita Das is waived by Ms. Maheswari Sharma, Advocate. 10. The aforesaid direction is peremptory. In the event caveat is not lodged or no affidavit in support of the caveat is filed by the caveatrix, the matter shall be treated as a non-contentious cause. GA 3101 of 2016 stands disposed of. However, there shall be no order as to costs.