Testamentary Courts must prioritize giving effect to the testator’s intention over technical delays or missing witnesses.

The appellants filed an application under Section 278 of the Indian Succession Act for the grant of Letters of Administration regarding the Will of late Mr. Ralph Seymour Shove.

The Trial Court (Additional District Judge, Tenth Court at Alipore) dismissed the suit (Original Suit No. 03 of 2011) primarily because of an unexplained delay in filing the application after the testator's death.

The appellants contended that the delay occurred because the original Will could not be traced, though a registered certified copy was produced.

Since the attesting witnesses are deceased, the appellants sought to prove the Will via circumstantial evidence, including a witness with direct knowledge and bank records showing the original Will was destroyed in a locker.

Notably, the respondent, who initially objected, expressed willingness to support the Will during the hearing.

1. Whether the Trial Court erred in dismissing the application for Letters of Administration solely on the ground of delay without adjudicating on the merits or the genuineness of the Will.

2. Whether a Will can be proved through circumstantial evidence in the event that the original attesting witnesses are no longer alive.

The court primarily applied Section 278 of the Indian Succession Act concerning the grant of Letters of Administration.

It emphasized the "paramount consideration" in testamentary matters, which is to give effect to the last wishes of the testator.

The court relied on the established principle that a testamentary court is a "court of judicial conscience," where the approach should not be "fault-finding" but rather an effort to determine if the Will was genuine and execution was proper.

Where attesting witnesses are deceased, a Will may be proved by other available modes, including circumstantial evidence.

The High Court observed that the Trial Court’s judgment was "cryptic" as it failed to enter into the merits of the case.

The Court reasoned that a procedural delay in filing should not override the duty of the testamentary court to ascertain the genuineness of the testator's last desire.

The Court found that the appellants should have been permitted to adduce evidence—circumstantial or otherwise—to prove the Will’s execution, especially since the original witnesses were dead and the respondent had ceased to oppose the grant.

By dismissing the suit on a technicality of delay, the lower court failed to fulfill its role as a court of judicial conscience.

The matter was remanded to the Additional District Judge, Tenth Court at Alipore, for re-adjudication on merits, granting appellants opportunity to adduce circumstantial evidence.

Applications CAN 1 of 2025 and CAN 2 of 2025 were disposed of with liberty to renew the prayers before the testamentary court and no order as to costs was made.