AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
S.J. Kathawalla, J.—The Testamentary Petition No. 495 of 1993 was filed by Ajay Manharlal Shah for grant of Letters of Administration with the Will attached. The Will is alleged to have been left behind by Smt. Lalitaben Manharlal Shah who expired on 19th February 1993. The Will is dated 25th April 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the said Will) and was executed at Ahmedabad. The Plaintiff/Petitioner has stated in the Petition that the said Will/writing is in Gujarati language in the handwriting of the deceased. The executor named in the Will was Mr. Manharlal Bhaichand Shah who expired on 24th June, 1992. Save and except the Plaintiff/Petitioner and the Defendant there are no next of kin left by the deceased. A true copy of the said Will in Gujarati along with its official translation in English are annexed as Exhibits A and B to the Petition. Along with the Petition the Plaintiff/Petitioner filed an Affidavit dated 23rd June 1993 of Shri Parimal Kantilal Shah one of the attesting witnesses to the said Will.
In the said Petition No. 495/1993, the Defendant who is admittedly the elder son of the deceased and brother of the Plaintiff/Petitioner filed a Caveat dated 14th October, 1993. In the Caveat dated 14th October, 1993 filed by the Defendant, the Defendant contended that the said Will dated 25th April 1986 propounded by the Plaintiff/Petitioner is not the last Will of the deceased. The last Will of the deceased is dated 15th February 1993 and is in possession of Mr. Himanshu Kantilal Shah who is one of the executors named therein. The said Will has been revoked by the Last Will dated 15th February 1993. Without prejudice to the said contention, the Defendant submitted that the said Will is not duly executed as required by law. The deceased had not signed the said Will dated 25th April 1986 in presence of the so-called two attesting witnesses and the application of the Plaintiff/Petitioner is false in this regard. It is also contended that a complete settlement was arrived at between the Defendant and Plaintiff/Petitioner regarding division of properties left by the deceased, in a meeting held at Ahmedabad on 22nd February 1993 when the Plaintiff/Petitioner did not say anything about the said Will. The Plaintiff/Petitioner for the first time alleged by his Advocate''s letter dated 30th March, 1993 that there was a Will of the deceased without giving any particulars. A copy of the said Will was provided to the Defendant only under cover of the Plaintiff/Petitioner''s Advocate''s letter dated 3rd 30th April, 1993 which was posted on May, 1993. The Defendant craved leave to file a further Affidavit in support of the Caveat after taking search of the proceedings and the original said Will deposited in this Court. In view of the aforesaid Caveat filed by the Defendant the Petition was converted into a Suit.
Thereafter, the Defendant filed a Suit before the City Civil Court at Ahmedabad being Suit No. 3523 of 1997 (the Ahmedabad Suit) for grant of Probate of the Will of the deceased dated 15th February 1993, which suit is dismissed by the City Civil Court at Ahmedabad by a Judgment/Decree dated 22.10.07/30.10.2007 (Exhibits P-27/P-28).
Admittedly, whilst dismissing the suit filed by the Defendant, the City Civil Court at Ahmedabad has held that the court finds much substance in the submission of the Defendant (Plaintiff herein) that the said document dated 15th February 1993 was not the last Will of the deceased and the same was a concocted and forged document. It was inter alia further held that "the defendant has successfully proved that the document dated 15th February 1993 purported to be the Will was concocted and forged and did not bear the signature of deceased Lalitaben, and could not be said to be the last Will of the deceased and the Plaintiff is not entitled to get the probate with respect to the properties shown in Schedule A annexed to the Plaint." The Defendant has filed an Appeal before the Gujarat High Court against the Judgment and Decree dated 22nd October 2007/30th October 2007 (Exhibits P-27/P-28) passed by the City Civil Court at Ahmedabad in Suit No. 3523 of 1997 which Appeal has been admitted, and is pending.
On the basis of the Affidavit filed by the Caveator in Support of the Caveat contesting validity of the said Will, this Court by its order dated 21st April 2008 has framed the following issues:
(i) Whether the Petitioner/Plaintiff proves that the Deceased has duly executed at Ahmedabad her Will dated 25th April 1986?
(ii) Whether the Caveator/Defendant proves that the Deceased has duly executed her last Will dated 15th February, 1993?
(iii) If answer to issue No. 2 is in the affirmative, whether the Will dated 25th April, 1986 is revoked by the Will dated 15th February 1993?
(iv) Whether the Caveator/Defendant proves that on 22nd February, 1993 a complete settlement was arrived at between the Petitioner/Plaintiff and Caveator/Defendant regarding the division of properties left by the Deceased?
(v) What order and decree?
The Plaintiff/Petitioner has examined himself as a witness (P.W.1). The Plaintiff /Petitioner has also examined one Mr. Parimal Kantilal Shah as witness(P.W.2). The Defendant has neither examined himself nor any other witness in the Suit.
ISSUE No. 1
As stated hereinabove, in the Plaint/Petition the Plaintiff/Petitioner has claimed that the said Will is the Last Will left behind by the deceased. The said Will/writing is in Gujarati language in her own hand and character. A true copy of the said Will along with its official translation in English are annexed and marked as Exhibits A & B to the Plaint. Under the said Will the deceased had appointed her husband Mr. Manharlal Bhaichand Shah as the sole executor but the sole executor died at Mumbai on 23rd June 1992. Perusal of the said Will shows that it is signed by the deceased and that there are two witnesses who have attested the signature of the deceased. The first attesting witness is Mr. Himanshu Kantilal Shah and the other attesting witness is Mr. Parimal Kantilal Shah whose Affidavit is filed along with the Petition.
The Plaintiff/Petitioner in his Affidavit of Examination-in-Chief dated 13th June 2003, has repeated the submissions made by him in his Petition dated 23rd June 1993 which are already set out hereinabove. The Plaintiff/Petitioner has further deposed that the deceased at the time of execution of the said Will was of sound and disposing mind, memory and understanding. He has relied on the Affidavit of Mr. Parimal Kantilal Shah attesting witness of the Will dated 25th April 1986, which is filed in this Court along with the Petition. The Plaintiff/Petitioner has further deposed in his Affidavit that Mr. Himanshu Kantilal Shah the attesting witness of the Will dated 25th April 1986 has in his evidence in the Ahmedabad Suit (Exhibit P-7) admitted to attesting the said Will dated 25th April 1986 and this is also recorded in the Judgment in the Ahmedabad Suit dated 22nd October 2007 (Exhibit P-27). The Plaintiff/Petitioner has further deposed that the only ground on which the Defendant has challenged the Will dated 25th April, 1986 is that the said Will is not the last Will of the deceased. The Plaintiff/Petitioner has deposed in his Affidavit that the Defendant after going through the Will of the Deceased dated 25th April 1986 (Exhibit - 106 in the Ahmedabad Suit) admitted that the signature on the Will appears to be the signature of the deceased. By the Judgment and Decree dated 22nd October 2007/30th October 2007 in the Ahmedabad Suit (Exhibits P-27 and P-28), the Ahmedabad Court has held that there is no Will executed by the deceased subsequent to her Will dated 25th April 1986. Hence the said Will is the last Will of the deceased. The Plaintiff /Petitioner has also denied/disputed any settlement on property distribution between himself and the Defendant on 22nd February 1993.
The Plaintiff/Petitioner during his examination-in-chief on 19th September 2008, sought to tender the said Will which was objected to by the Learned Advocate appearing for the Defendant on the ground that the said Will is not proved as required u/s 68 of the Indian Evidence Act. In response the Plaintiff/Petitioner submitted that the said Will has been admitted by Mr. Himanshu K. Shah one of the attesting witness of the said Will in his cross-examination in the Ahmedabad Suit. The objection was upheld, by this Court as follows:
P.C.:
The objection is upheld. The cross- examination does not prove the will. For instance the witness has stated that nobody was present when he signed the Will. It will therefore be necessary to comply with the provisions of Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act in order to prove the Will. The alleged Will dated 25.4.1986 is marked "X-1" for identification.
The Plaintiff/Petitioner was cross- examined by the Learned Advocate for the Defendant at great length.
Shri Parimal Kantilal Shah (P.W.2) has in his Affidavit of examination-in-chief dated 30th March, 2009 repeated and reiterated almost the entire contents of his Affidavit dated 23rd June 1993 filed along with the Plaint/Petition. In his examination-in-chief recorded before this Court on 30th March, 2009 P.W.2 has confirmed the correctness of his Affidavits dated 23rd June 1993 (first Affidavit) and his Affidavit of evidence dated 30th March, 2009 (second Affidavit). The attention of P.W.2 was drawn to the original of the said Will. After going through the same P.W.2 has deposed that the same is in the handwriting of the deceased who was his father''s sister. The signature on Page 7 is that of the deceased. After the signature of the deceased P.W.2 and his brother have signed the said document/Will in their capacity as witnesses. The first signature is of his brother Shri Himanshu K. Shah who under his signature has written the date 25th April 1986 in his own handwriting. After the signature of Himanshu is the signature of P.W.2 himself, and the date 25-4-1986 put therein is in his own handwriting. The deceased has also put her signature at the bottom of every page of the said document/Will.
Thereafter P.W.2 has further deposed that on 25th April, 1986 he and his brother Himanshu K. Shah had visited the residence of the deceased in the morning. P.W.2 and his brother Himanshu had attended the residence of the deceased since on the earlier day, the deceased had informed P.W.2 and his brother Himanshu that they should attend her residence in the morning of the next day to witness her Will. The said will was already prepared by the deceased in her own handwriting which handwriting of the deceased P.W.2 identified. P.W.2 further deposed that the deceased had also informed them that she had prepared the Will in her own handwriting. P.W.2 further deposed that the deceased put her signature in his presence and in the presence of his brother on all the 7 pages of the said document/will and after she completed putting her signatures on all the 7 pages his brother Himanshu put his dated signature at Page 7 of the said document and immediately thereafter P.W.2 put his dated signature below the signature of his brother. P.W.2 deposed that the deceased, therefore, signed the said document/will in the presence of P.W.2 and his brother and they both had put their signatures in the presence of the deceased and in the presence of each other. The original document/will of the deceased was thereafter taken on record and marked as Exhibit P34.
P.W.2 was cross examined at great length. P.W.2 has inter alia denied/disputed the suggestion put to him in his cross- examination by stating (1)that "it is incorrect to say that when my brother Himanshu signed the Will the deceased and/or myself were not present"; (2) that "it is incorrect to say that all that I have stated in my evidence pertaining to the execution of the Will is not true"; (3) that "it is incorrect to say that my statement that I can identify the handwriting of the deceased Lalitaben is false"; (4) that "it is incorrect to say that the deceased Lalitaben had already put her signature on every page of the document/will before myself and my brother attended her residence. Deceased Lalitaben had put her signature on each and every page of the Will in presence of myself and my brother".
The Plaintiff/Petitioner who is appearing in person has submitted before this Court that the following are the admitted facts:
(i). The deceased was the mother of the Plaintiff/Petitioner and the Defendant;
(ii). the Plaintiff/Petitioner was a resident of Mumbai;
(iii). the deceased expired on 19th February 1993 at Ahmedabad;
(iv). that in the year 1986 both the brothers of the deceased were the residents of Ahmedabad;
(v). that Parimal Kantilal Shah (P.W.2) and Himanshu Kantilal Shah are the sons of one of the brothers of the deceased;
(vi). the premises ''Arunodaya'' (namely the residence of the deceased at Ahmedabad) is adjoining the premises where both the brothers of the deceased resided along with their families;
(vii). that in the year 1986 the sister of the deceased also resided a few kilometers away from ''Arunodaya'' and the residence of the brothers of the deceased;
The Plaintiff/Petitioner has submitted that the said Will (Exhibit P-34)is in the handwriting of the deceased and that the same is her last Will. The only contention raised in the Caveat by the Defendant was that the Will dated 25th April, 1986 is not the last Will of the deceased and that the last Will of the deceased is dated 15th February, 1993. The only other contention raised by the Defendant without prejudice to the aforesaid contention was "that the alleged Will dated 25-4-1986 is not duly executed as required in law...that the deceased had not signed the alleged will dated 25-4-1986 in presence of the so-called two attesting witnesses thereto...that the Application of the Petitioner is false in this connection." The Plaintiff/Petitioner has therefore submitted that in the Ahmedabad Suit the Hon''ble Court has given its finding that the Will dated 15-2-1993 propounded by the Defendant is forged and fabricated. Though an Appeal is filed therefrom and admitted by the Gujarat High Court the Judgment/Decree in the Ahmedabad Suit is not stayed. The question therefore of the said Will dated 15-2-1993 being the last Will of the deceased as alleged by the Defendant in his Caveat does not arise. The Plaintiff/Petitioner has further submitted that the aforestated without prejudice contention of the Defendant, recorded in his Affidavit in Support of the Caveat goes to show that according to the Defendant the said Will was not duly executed as required in law, only on the limited ground that the deceased had not signed the Will dated 25-4-1986 in the presence of the two attesting witnesses. It is further submitted by the Plaintiff/Petitioner that though the defendant in his Affidavit in Support of the Caveat craved leave to file a further Affidavit after the search of the proceedings and inspection of the original Will, no further Affidavit came to be filed thereafter. Therefore, at no point of time the Defendant has in the present proceedings alleged/contended that the Will of the deceased is not in her own handwriting or that the signature/s on the Will dated 25th April 1986 is/are not the signature/s of the deceased or that the said Will is fabricated and not genuine. The Defendant not having led any evidence in the present proceedings, in the course of his arguments before this Court cannot be heard to say that the said Will of the deceased is not in her own handwriting or that the said Will does not bear her signature/s or that the said Will is not genuine or is fabricated or there are suspicious circumstances prevailing as regards the said Will. It is further submitted that it is also not the case of the Defendant, in his Affidavit in Support of the Caveat, that the deceased was not physically or mentally in a fit state /condition in the year 1986.
The Plaintiff/Petitioner has submitted that in the letter of the Defendant addressed to the Advocate for the Plaintiff/Petitioner dated 14th May, 1993 (Exhibit P16/D-19), the Defendant had alleged that the said Will does not appear to be genuine and purported to be signed seven years before her death at Ahmedabad. These allegations were vehemently denied by the Advocate for the Plaintiff/Petitioner by his letter dated 19th May, 1993 (Exhibit D-20). Thereafter in the Affidavit in Support of the Caveat dated 25th October, 1993 the Defendant chose not to make even a whisper qua the genuineness of the said Will or any suspicious circumstances pertaining to the said Will and only alleged that the deceased had not signed the alleged Will in the presence of the so- called two attesting witnesses. The Plaintiff/Petitioner has further submitted that in a question asked by him to the Defendant during his cross-examination in the Ahmedabad Suit (Exhibit P-6) on 18th April 2006 whether the said original Will is in the handwriting of the deceased, the Defendant answered that he is unable to answer the question because he has not personally inspected the Will and the Will is inspected only by his Advocate. Again in a direct question asked to the Defendant (at Page 175) whether he can identify the signature of the deceased in the Will dated 25th April 1986 (Exhibit 106 in the Ahmedabad Suit), the Defendant answered that the same appears to be the signature of the deceased. In a question asked to the Defendant during his cross examination in the Ahmedabad Suit on 12th February 2007 (Exhibit P-6 at Pg.163) the Defendant has stated that the deceased made a Will in the year 1986 which was revoked by her Will of 1992. Both the Wills were made by the deceased at Ahmedabad. At Page 170, in a question put to the Defendant as to where he was when the deceased made a handwritten will dated 25-4-1986, the Defendant has replied that he was in Mumbai. The Plaintiff/Petitioner has submitted that the Defendant has at no time thereafter filed any Additional Affidavit in support of the Caveat, disputing the handwriting and/or signature/s of the deceased in the Will dated 25th April 1986. It is submitted that the Defendant now cannot dispute the said handwriting or the signature/s of the deceased or the genuineness of the Will.
The Plaintiff/Petitioner has submitted that in the present proceedings he has relied on the evidence of Mr. Himanshu K. Shah which was recorded in the Ahmedabad Suit, for the purpose of proving the said Will because in the said evidence Mr. Himanshu K. Shah has admitted the execution of the said Will. However, when the Plaintiff/Petitioner tendered the said Will before this Court (Coram : S. J. Vazifdar, J) on 19th September 2008 the same was objected to on behalf of the Defendant on the ground that the Will has not been proved as required by Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, more so, since the said Himanshu had stated in his evidence that nobody was present when he had signed the Will of the deceased. This Court had therefore ordered that it will be necessary for the Plaintiff/Petitioner to comply with the provision of Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act in order to prove the Will. The Plaintiff/Petitioner has thereafter led the evidence of one of the attesting witnesses (as required u/s 68 of the Indian Evidence Act) in order to prove the due execution of the Will dated 25th April 1986.
The Plaintiff/Petitioner has submitted that the attesting witness Mr. Parimal Kantilal Shah (P.W.2) has stated in his Affidavits as well as in his evidence recorded before this Court that the said Will was prepared by the deceased in her own handwriting and he can identify the same. The deceased had also informed him and his brother Himanshu that she had prepared the Will in her handwriting. The deceased had put her signature in his presence and in the presence of his brother Himanshu on all the 7 pages of the said Will. After she completed putting her signature on all the 7 pages, his brother put his signature at Page 7 of the document and immediately thereafter he (P.W.2) signed the document/Will below the signature of his brother. The deceased had therefore signed the said document/Will in his presence i.e. P.W.2 and in the presence of his brother and they then both had put their dated signatures in the presence of the deceased and each other. According to the Plaintiff /Petitioner even after cross- examination the credibility of P.W.2 is not shaken. It is therefore submitted by the Plaintiff/Petitioner that the evidence given by P.W.2 is trustworthy and cannot be discarded, and that he has successfully proved that the said Will of the deceased (Exhibit P34) is executed in accordance with law.
The Plaintiff/Petitioner has also relied on the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of Shashi Kumar Banerjee and Others Vs. Subodh Kumar Banerjee since deceased and after him his legal representatives and Others, wherein it is held that when the Will is in the handwriting of the testator and when in the Will itself the testator states that he has signed the Will then very little evidence is required to prove due execution and attestation of the Will. The Plaintiff /Petitioner has drawn this Court''s attention to the portion of the said Will wherein the deceased has in her own handwriting categorically stated that she has made the Will in her absolute conscious state of mind without any kind of threat or fear or without being under the influence of any intoxicant. She has further stated that she has affixed her signature to her Will in the presence of two witnesses and the said two witnesses have affixed their signature in her presence. The Plaintiff/Petitioner has therefore submitted that the Will of the deceased is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Shashi Kumar Banerjee and Ors. (Supra). The Plaintiff/ Petitioner has also cited several other decisions which are to the same effect.
The Plaintiff/Petitioner has also relied on the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Ramabhai Padmakar Patil (dead) through L.R''s and Ors. v. Rukmanibai Vishnu Vekhande and Ors. 2004(1) Mh.L.J 47 wherein the Hon''ble Supreme Court has held that in view of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act and the proviso of Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act the requirement of law would be fully satisfied if only one of the attesting witnesses is examined to prove the Will.
The Plaintiff/Petitioner relying on the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Munir Ahmad and others Vs. State of Rajasthan, submitted that the Defendant could have lead his evidence but has chosen not to do so. The Defendant has not lead oral evidence of any individual in support of his case. In the case of a living person evidence in judicial proceedings may be tendered by calling the witness to the witness stand and cannot be substituted by an Affidavit unless the law permits it.
The Plaintiff/Petitioner relying on the decision of the Hon''ble Supreme Court in Sarwan Singh v. State of Punjab 2003 Cri. L.J.21 submitted that it is a rule of essential justice that whenever the opponent has declined to avail of the opportunity to put his case in cross- examination it must follow that the evidence tendered on that issue must be accepted. The Plaintiff/Petitioner has also relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in Ishwardeo Narain Singh Vs. Sm. Kamta Devi and Others, wherein the Hon''ble Supreme Court has held that the court of probate is only concerned with the question as to whether the document put forward as the Last Will and testament of a deceased person was duly executed and attested in accordance with law and whether at the time of such execution, the deceased had a sound and disposing mind. The question whether a particular bequest is good or bad is not within the purview of the probate court.
As correctly pointed out by the Plaintiff/Petitioner, the Defendant had in his letter dated 14th May, 1993 (Exhibit P-16/ D-19) alleged that the said Will does not appear to be genuine and is purported to be signed by the deceased seven years before her death. The said allegation of the Defendant was denied by the Plaintiff/Petitioner''s Advocate vide letter dated 19th May, 1993 (Exhibit D-20). However, in the subsequent Affidavit dated 25-10-1993 filed by the Defendant in his Affidavit in Support of the Caveat, the Defendant did not make any allegation qua the genuineness of the said Will. The Defendant also did not make any allegation pertaining to the physical/mental condition of the deceased at the time of the execution of the said Will. The Defendant in his Affidavit in Support of the Caveat also did not dispute the fact that the said Will was in the handwriting of the deceased or signed by the deceased. Even on 18th April 2006, as submitted by the Plaintiff/Petitioner, the Defendant in his cross-examination in the Ahmedabad Suit admitted that the signature of the deceased on the said Will (Exhibit 106 in Ahmedabad proceedings) appears to be that of the deceased. The Defendant has further admitted that he is unable to answer whether the handwriting in the Will is of the deceased because inspection of the original Will was taken only by his Advocate and the Defendant has personally not taken inspection of the original Will. Therefore even in the year 2006 the Defendant has not denied that the handwriting in which the said Will is written is not that of the deceased. In fact in the cross-examination of the Defendant by the Plaintiff on 12th February 2007 in the Ahmedabad Suit(Exhibit P-6 at Page 163) the Defendant has stated that the deceased had made a Will in the year 1986 which was revoked by her Will of 1992. Both the Wills were made by the deceased at Ahmedabad. At Page 170 in a question put to the Defendant as to where he was when the deceased made a handwritten Will of 25-4-1986, the Defendant has replied that he was at Mumbai. The Defendant has also chosen not to lead any evidence whatsoever in the present proceedings. Under the circumstances, I am convinced that the said Will is in the handwriting of the deceased and the signatures in the Will on all the seven pages are also that of the deceased, and further that the deceased was physically and mentally in a fit state at the time of execution of the said Will. Though on behalf of the Defendant, arguments alleging certain suspicious circumstances, as subsequently set out herein are advanced, none of those circumstances can be said to establish the fact that the said Will is not in the handwriting of the deceased or that the signatures on the Will are not that of the deceased or that the deceased was physically and/or mentally not fit to execute the Will. I am of the view that the firm and steady handwriting in the Will and its contents also establishes beyond any doubt that the deceased has written down her Will with complete clarity of mind knowing full well what she desires to do with the estate after her demise.
The Learned Advocate appearing for the Defendant has submitted that the execution of the Will has not been proved by the Plaintiff/Petitioner and there are suspicious circumstances which have not been explained. He has submitted that assuming that the said P.W.2 was present at the time of execution of the Will, evidence is given of the Plaintiff/Petitioner''s version as to what could have happened when the Will was executed. P.W.2 has not given his own version about the execution of the Will. In support of his contention, the Learned Advocate for the Defendant has relied on the cross-examination of P.W.2 dated 30th March, 2009, wherein the witness has stated that he has not received any summons to attend the court and give evidence. He was informed by the Plaintiff/Petitioner to attend the court and give evidence. P.W.2 has stated in Paragraph 8 that the Plaintiff/Petitioner guided him for preparation of the said Affidavit. He has also admitted that the corrections were carried out in the Affidavit as suggested by the Plaintiff. He has also stated that when the draft was prepared he did not go through any other documents/papers. Even as regards the first Affidavit dated 23rd June 1993 annexed to the Petition, P.W.2 has stated that before signing the same he had not gone through any document/paper. The Learned Advocate for the Defendant submits that the memory of P.W.2 cannot be relied upon because as can be seen from Pages 10, 12 and 16 of the cross- examination of P.W.2, he does not remember, the year in which he got married; Which out of the three daughters of his uncle, who resided on the ground floor of their house, were married and had left the house in the year 1986; Whether the deceased Lalitaben had met any members of his uncle''s family when she came to his house on 24th April 1986; Where his father had been in the evening of 24th April 1986; Which of his family members were present in his house when Lalitaben visited his house on 24th April 1986; The date and year when his father expired. It is submitted that since the memory of P.W.2 cannot be relied upon, his statement in Paragraph 13 Page 11 of his cross-examination dated 30th March, 2009 stating that he was informed by the deceased Lalitaben to attend her residence on 25th April 1986 is doubtful. Therefore, his presence on 25th April 1986 at the residence of the deceased is also doubtful. It is further submitted on behalf of the Defendant that the above contention is also supported by his evasive answers at Page 14 of the said cross- examination wherein he (P.W.2) states that the deceased must have come to Ahmedabad perhaps one week prior to 24th April 1986 and that he cannot say exactly on which date she came to Ahmedabad. Again at Page 14 though P.W.2 has deposed that " during her earlier visits to Ahmedabad the said Lalitaben would stay on some occasions in her own house and at some occasions with us or our uncle or aunt", in the evidence of his brother Himanshu, relied upon by the Plaintiff /Petitioner, the said Himanshu has stated that the deceased was staying at their residence when in Ahmedabad.
I shall now deal with the above submissions advanced on behalf of the Defendant. In most of the matters including testamentary matters, the witness attends the court for recording of his evidence at the instance of the party who is desirous of examining the said witness, without any summons being issued to the witness. This certainly would not mean that what is deposed by the witness before the court is not his own version but the version of the party who has called the said witness for recording his evidence. There is nothing wrong even if the Plaintiff/Petitioner or his lawyer has guided P.W.2 in preparing the said Affidavit. P.W.2 is a lay person. He is certainly entitled to seek advice and to know how an Affidavit in lieu of evidence is required to be prepared and what is required to be stated therein. In almost all matters a party informs an Advocate what the facts in the case are, and it is only thereafter that the Advocate drafts the Affidavit on the basis of the facts told to him. Even in a matter where the Deponent of an Affidavit is not a party to the proceedings but his Affidavit is required to be made in support of the case of the Plaintiff or the Defendant, it is the Advocate for the Plaintiff or the Defendant who prepares such an Affidavit as per the inputs given to him by the Deponent. This certainly would not mean that the Advocate who prepares his client''s Affidavit or an Affidavit of a Deponent supporting his clients case, is setting out his own version into the Affidavit and not that of the deponent. In the instant case the Plaintiff/Petitioner who is the propounder of the Will is handling/arguing his own matter and has relied on the evidence of P.W.2. If P.W.2 has been guided by the Plaintiff/Petitioner as regards preparation of the Affidavit it certainly cannot be concluded that the contents of the Affidavit contains the version of the Plaintiff/Petitioner and not that of P.W.2. In fact P.W.2 has categorically stated in his cross-examination that the Affidavit was not prepared and sent to him by the Plaintiff/Petitioner. In a specific question put to P.W.2 during his cross- examination viz. "what was the role played by the Plaintiff and what was your role qua for preparation of the affidavit of examination in chief i.e. the second affidavit?", P.W.2 has given a clear and categorical answer "the Plaintiff told me as to what should be the contents of my affidavit i.e. who signed the Will and how, etc. Thereafter I prepared the affidavit." The subsequent two questions and answers have to be read in the context of the aforesaid question and answer and cannot be read in exclusion. Nothing also turns on the admission of P.W.2 that corrections were carried out in the Affidavit as suggested by the Plaintiff/Petitioner, since no question was put to P.W.2 in his cross-examination as to what were the corrections carried out in the Affidavit of the examination in chief at the instance of the Plaintiff/Petitioner, as for instance the corrections may just be spelling errors. Nothing can be guessed in the absence of a specific question put to P.W.2 to that effect. Again, the facts pertaining to the attestation of the said Will set out by P.W.2 in his second Affidavit dated 30th March, 2009, is almost a repetition of what P.W.2 has stated in his first Affidavit dated 23rd June, 1993. Referring to the contents of the first Affidavit P.W.2 was asked in his cross-examination "the Plaintiff asked you to sign the Affidavit and you signed the same", to which P.W.2 has clearly and categorically replied "I went through the same and after verifying its contents as true and correct, I signed the same." This answer amply illustrates the subjective satisfaction of the witness himself, as to the correctness of the contents before he signed the said document. Moreover, in the light of the above answer it was necessary for the Defendant to establish, if at all, the falsity of the said answer and further show through cross-examination why the said witness (P.W.2) would wrongly favour the Plaintiff/Petitioner. Apart from the two Affidavits P.W.2 has before this Court on 30th March, 2009 given his version as regards the attestation of the Will of the deceased, which is recorded by this Court. The Defendant therefore cannot be heard to say that the Plaintiff/Petitioner has failed to prove the execution of the Will of the deceased or that the evidence given by P.W.2 is the Plaintiff/Petitioner''s version and not the own version of P.W.2.
It is true that P.W.2 has stated in his cross-examination that before signing the affidavits he had not gone through any documents/papers. However, it cannot be said that the memory of P.W.2 cannot be relied upon because he does not remember the year in which he got married, or the date and year when his father expired. It is possible that an individual may not be good in remembering dates/years, but that would not mean that such person would not remember any facts/incidents which have taken place and whatever he states as per his recollection has to be discarded. This can be seen from the cross-examination of P.W.2 himself who has stated; that the address set out by him in his first and second affidavits is the same; that he is residing at the said address since the last 45 to 48 years; that his residence was named Cindrella after he started business in cosmetics with his wife i.e. in the name of ''Cindrella Herbals Cosmetics''; that the said business was started approximately in the year 1994-1995; that his residence was named Cindrella approximately 10 years back; and that since the day he started the business of cosmetics with his wife he has been using the name ''Cindrella Herbal Cosmetics''. Even as regards his marriage and the death of his father P.W.2 has stated that he was married around 27 years back and that his father died approximately 3 years back. P.W.2 is aware that he has witnessed execution of the said Will on 25th April 1986, which date he has written on the Will in his own handwriting under his own signature, and also that the deceased had on day before such execution i.e. on 24th April 1986 requested him and his brother to attend the said execution. No cognizance can be taken of the grievance made on behalf of the Defendant that P.W.2 is unable to remember, which out of the three daughters of his uncle who resided on the ground floor of their house, were married and had left the house 23 years back i.e. in the year 1986 OR whether the deceased had met any members of his uncle''s family on the ground floor when 23 years back she came to the house of P.W.2 on the 1st floor OR where his father had been in the evening of 24th April 1986 i.e. 23 years back. OR which of the family members were present in his house when the deceased visited his house 23 years back i.e. on 24th April 1986. In fact P.W.2 has been honest when he states that he cannot give these answers and has not tried to give any wrong answers. Moreover, the above stated are not matters which are of any consequence for a person to especially remember. Further this Court has noted, that P.W.2 has throughout answered only those questions which he could recollect and not even attempted to answer others by mere guess work. In view of the aforesaid I see no substance in the submission advanced on behalf of the Defendant that the statements of P.W.2 in his cross-examination that he was informed by the deceased on 24th April 1986 to attend her residence on 25th April 1986 and his presence on 25th April 1986 at the residence of the deceased, are doubtful. Since P.W.2 has stated in his evidence that he cannot say exactly on which date the deceased came to Ahmedabad, it cannot be said that P.W.2 has given any evasive answer. Again, only because his brother Himanshu has in his evidence in the Ahmedabad Suit stated that the deceased was staying at their residence when at Ahmedabad, the deposition of P.W.2 in this Suit to the effect that the deceased would stay on some occasions in her own house and on some occasions with her brothers or sister cannot be disbelieved. Again it may be repeated that the Defendant has not lead any evidence of the said Himanshu or any other witness in the present proceedings. In fact there is no further cross- examination of P.W.2 after the aforesaid answer pertaining to the stay of the deceased at Ahmedabad was given by P.W.2. In fact the Defendant has not even put to P.W.2 during his cross-examination that his deposition pertaining to the stay of the deceased at Ahmedabad was not true.
The Learned Advocate for the Defendant has drawn the attention of this Court to Page 2 Paragraph 4 of the Affidavit of P.W.2 dated 30th March, 2009 wherein it is stated -"the signature namely ''L M Shah'' set at the foot of the Will as well as every page are of the testator executing the same and is in the proper handwriting of the deceased...." and has submitted that in the Affidavit in lieu of evidence of P.W.2 it is not stated by P.W.2 that the deceased had put her signature on every page of the Will/document in his presence and/or in the presence of his brother Himanshu. P.W.2 has only stated in the Affidavit dated 30.3.2009 that the signature on every page is of the deceased and in her own handwriting. However, P.W.2 when confronted in his cross-examination as to why it was not set out in the Affidavit of evidence that the deceased had put her signature on every page of the document/ Will in his presence, has stated as recorded on Page 20 of his cross- examination dated 30th March, 2009, that it was not set out, as he had left it to the Plaintiff to include/incorporate the extent of the particulars pertaining to the execution of the Will.
It is true that in the Affidavit of the examination in chief of P.W.2 it is not stated that the deceased had put her signature on every page of the Will in the presence of P.W.2 and his brother. However, in both the Affidavits of P.W.2 i.e. the 1st Affidavit dated 23rd June 1993 2nd and the Affidavit dated 30th March, 2009 (Affidavit of Evidence)P.W.2 has stated "the signature viz. ''L.M. Shah'' set at the foot of the Will as well as on every page are of the Testator executing the same and is in the proper handwriting of the deceased...." Again in the examination in chief recorded by the Court on 30th March, 2009, P.W.2 has categorically stated that "the deceased put her signature in my presence and in the presence of my brother on all the 7 pages of the said document/will." P.W.2 has also categorically answered in his cross-examination that he had left it to the Plaintiff/Petitioner to include/incorporate the extent of the particulars pertaining to the execution of the Will. In view of the above, I do not doubt the correctness of the statement of P.W.2 in his examination-in-chief recorded before this Court on 30th March, 2009 that the deceased had put her signature on all the 7 pages of the document/will in the presence of P.W.2 and his brother.
The Learned Advocate for the Defendant has also pointed out from Page 19 of the cross- examination of P.W.2 dated 30th March, 2009, that P.W.2 has admitted that after the deceased expired there was a meeting amongst the members of the family for division of family property on 22nd February 1993, where he was present and the Plaintiff and his brother were also present. However, he did not mention in the said meeting about the Will of the deceased dated 25th April 1986. Thus it was contended that, if P.W.2 had attended the execution of the said Will dated 25th April 1986, then he or his parents would immediately mention in the meeting held on 22nd February 1993 that the question of discussing the division of property does not arise in view of the Will dated 25th April 1986.
It is true that P.W.2 has admitted that a meeting was held on 22nd February 1993 for division of "family property" where he and the Plaintiff/Petitioner as well as the Defendant were also present and that he did not mention about the Will of the deceased dated 25th April 1986. However, this Court has noted that admittedly the father of the Plaintiff/Petitioner and Defendant had expired hardly 8 months before the death of the deceased. The Defendant in his Affidavit in Support of the Caveat has alleged that the meeting held on 22nd February 1993 pertained to the property of the deceased. However, the question put to P.W.2 pertained to the "family property". In any event P.W.2 may be having his own reasons for not mentioning the Will of the deceased at the said meeting concerning the "family property". The Defendant whilst cross- examining P.W.2 chose not to put a question to P.W.2 as to why he did not mention the said Will in that meeting held on 22-2-1993. Having not asked the said question to P.W.2 in his cross examination and not given him an opportunity to explain the same, the Defendant now cannot contend that since P.W.2 did not mention the Will in the meeting held on 22nd February 1993 an inference has to be drawn that P.W.2 had not attended the execution of the said Will dated 25th April 1986.
The Learned Advocate for the Defendant has pointed out from Pages 19, 20 and 21 of the cross-examination of P.W.2 that P.W.2 has stated that on 24th April 1986 the deceased had not mentioned any specific time at which P.W.2 or his brother should attend her residence in the morning. He does not remember the exact time at which he and his brother visited the residence of Lalitaben in the morning of 25th April 1986. No discussion took place between the deceased, P.W.2 and his brother prior to the execution of the Will dated 25th April 1986. In a question put to P.W.2 in his cross-examination to tell the court as to what happened in the morning of 25th April 1986 when he and his brother visited the residence of the deceased to execute the document/Will, P.W.2 avoided answering by saying that the same is set out in Paragraph 3 of his examination-in-chief. It was therefore submitted on behalf of the Defendant that the entire evidence of P.W.2 demonstrates that P.W.2 had not attended the execution of the document at all.
Admittedly the house of the deceased at Ahmedabad was adjoining or in very close proximity to the house of P.W.2 and his brother. It is possible that the deceased may not have mentioned any specific time at which P.W.2 or his brother should attend her residence in the morning. It is equally possible that P.W.2 may not be remembering the exact time at which he and his brother visited the residence of the deceased in the morning of 25th April 1986 and that no "discussion" took place between the deceased, P.W.2 and his brother prior to the execution of the Will dated 25th April 1986. In my view during his entire cross-examination P.W. 2 has not attempted to avoid answering any question put to him by the Learned Advocate appearing for the Defendant. On 30th March, 2009 the cross examination of P.W.2 who had come from Ahmedabad continued for almost the whole day. In a question therefore put to P.W.2 asking him as to what happened in the morning of 25th April 1986 when he and his brother visited the residence of the deceased to execute the document/will, P.W.2 stated that the same is set out in Paragraph 3 of his examination-in-chief. The answer of P.W.2 cannot be faulted and the submission made on behalf of Defendant No. 2 that the entire evidence of P.W.2 demonstrates that P.W.2 had not attended the execution of the document at all is untenable and cannot be accepted.
The Learned Advocate appearing for the Defendant has also drawn attention of this Court to Page 6 of the Will and pointed out that after Paragraph 10 on Page 6 some space has been left out and the subsequent paragraphs are not numbered. It is submitted that though P.W.2 was specifically asked in his cross-examination on 30th March, 2009 (at Page 21) whether he had asked the deceased as to why some space has been left out on Page 6 of the Will, P.W.2 has answered that the question of asking anything to the deceased did not arise since she had put her signature on Page 6 immediately after completing the paragraph. The above grievance on the part of the Defendant is completely baseless and the answer given by P.W.2 cannot be faulted in any manner. The Will prepared by the deceased in her own handwriting shows that the deceased was a very methodical person. She has numbered the paragraphs in her Will until she has completed the bequests. It is obvious that the deceased has not numbered the contents at Page 7 because the same is only a declaration made by her viz. that she has made the Will in her conscious state of mind without any kind of threat or fear, etc. On scrutiny of the said Page, it is seen that after completing the bequests in Paragraph 10 at Page 6, since some space had remained and the same would not be enough for her to put her declaration she has signed after the last word on Page 6 taking obvious precaution that no one should misuse the blank portion on that page. This is found to be done by the deceased even after completing Paragraph 4 at Page 4 of the Will. In view thereof the submission of the Defendant pertaining to the space left at Page 6 of the Will and the paragraph not being numbered from Page 7 onwards does not take the Defendant any further in his attempt to discredit the evidence of P.W.2.
The Learned Advocate for the Defendant has submitted that the Plaintiff has himself relied on the cross-examination of the other attesting witness of the Will dated 25th April 1986 i.e. Himanshu Shah. In his cross examination before the City Civil Court at Ahmedabad, Himanshu Shah has stated that no one was present when he signed the Will dated 25th April 1986. It is therefore submitted on behalf of the Defendant, that the Plaintiff has produced evidence of both the witnesses as far as the Will dated 25th April 1986 is concerned and has failed to prove the due execution of the Will dated 25th April 1986.
The Plaintiff/Petitioner has submitted that Himanshu Shah one of the attesting witness of the said Will was admittedly one of the witnesses of the Defendant in the Ahmedabad Suit where the Defendant tried to propound a Will of the deceased dated 15th February, 1993 and which Will as held by the Hon''ble City Civil Court at Ahmedabad was forged, fabricated and not genuine. The Plaintiff/Petitioner has submitted that he relied on the cross-examination of Himanshu Shah only for the limited purpose of proving that the said Himanshu Shah has admitted therein that he had attested the said Will dated 25th April 1986 of the deceased as a witness. The Plaintiff/Petitioner has correctly submitted that the answer given in cross-examination by Himanshu Shah that no one was present when he signed the said Will is proved to be false by the very same cross-examination of Himanshu Shah when in a question put to Himanshu Shah by the Plaintiff viz. "whether he had read the will at the time of putting his signature on the same." Himanshu Shah has answered - "Lalitaben had not allowed me to read the will she only made me sign the will." Clearly meaning thereby that atleast the deceased was present when Himanshu Shah signed the Will. The Plaintiff/Petitioner is also correct that when he tried to prove the said Will before this Court, on the basis of the admission of Himanshu Shah in his cross- examination in the Ahmedabad Suit viz. that he has signed the said Will dated 25th April 1986, the same was objected to by the Learned Advocate for the Defendant on the ground that the Will was not proved as required by Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, more so because the said Himanshu Shah had stated that nobody was present when he signed the said Will. The said objection advanced on behalf of the Defendant was upheld by this Court by inter alia directing that the Plaintiff/Petitioner in order to prove the Will will have to comply with the provision of Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act. Since upon objection taken by the Defendant the Plaintiff/Petitioner was not allowed to rely on the evidence of the said Himanshu Shah, the Plaintiff/Petitioner thereafter led the evidence of Shri Parimal Kantilal Shah the other attesting witness to the said Will dated 25th April 1986 who as set out hereinabove has inter alia deposed that the said Will was signed by the deceased in the presence of both the attesting witnesses and that the said attesting witnesses put their signatures on the said Will in the presence of the deceased and in the presence of each other. The Plaintiff /Petitioner has therefore complied with the requirement of Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act. The submission therefore advanced by the Defendant, to the effect that the Plaintiff /Petitioner has produced evidence of both the witnesses as far as the attestation of the Will dated 25th April, 1986 is concerned cannot be accepted and the submission therefore of the Defendant that Plaintiff/Petitioner has failed to prove that the due execution of the Will dated 25th April 1986 stands rejected.
The Learned Advocate appearing for the Defendant has submitted that there are certain suspicious circumstances which gives rise to doubts pertaining to the genuineness of the said Will. The first suspicious circumstance is the manner in which the said Will came to light. The same has been produced by the propounder and the main beneficiary viz. the Plaintiff/Petitioner. It is pointed out that the Plaintiff/Petitioner has admitted that the question whether his mother had left a Will had come to his mind after her demise. After the Plaintiff/Petitioner came to Mumbai, on 23rd February 1993 the key of the locker/drawer in the cupboard of the deceased was searched and found. The Plaintiff/Petitioner did not come across the Will during his search on 23rd February, 1993. The Plaintiff/Petitioner admittedly had gone through the papers in the cupboard intermittently. The Plaintiff /Petitioner had searched the cupboard on couple of occasions between 23rd February 1993 to 30th March, 1993. On 30th March, 1993 when he was once again going through the contents of the said drawer/locker he came across the said Will. When asked how he suddenly came across the Will in the drawer/locker in the cupboard of the deceased on 30th March, 1993, he has stated that there was nothing sudden about the same. Admittedly when he found the said Will it was not in any cover. Though the Defendant by his letter dated 10th March, 1993 (Exhibit D-2) had recorded that their parents had expired without leaving any Will and that they should settle their parents estate on amicable terms and that he has already offered the Plaintiff/Petitioner the most fair offer of settlement at Ahmedabad on 22nd February, 1993, the Plaintiff/Petitioner sent no reply to the said letter upto 30th March, 1993. The answer given by the Plaintiff/Petitioner as to why the said letter was not replied to is that the Plaintiff/Petitioner did not find it necessary.
In a question put to the Plaintiff/Petitioner as to why the contents of the said Will were not set out or an attested copy of the said Will not enclosed with the letter dated 30th March, 1993 and why even the date of said Will was not stated in the said letter dated 30th March, 1993, the Plaintiff/Petitioner has answered that it was not feasible to narrate the contents of the said Will which was running into 7 pages. The date may not be mentioned due to inadvertence and his Advocate may not have deemed fit to forward a Photostat copy of the said Will. The Learned Advocate for the Defendant has submitted that despite letter written by the Defendant to the Advocate for the Plaintiff/Petitioner (Exhibits D-4 and D-6) calling upon the Plaintiff/Petitioner to forward a copy of the said Will, the same was forwarded by the Advocate only under cover of his letter dated 30th April 1993 which letter was posted on 3rd May 1993. The Learned Advocate for the Defendant has taken this Court through the letters at Exhibits D-5, D-7, D-8 and D-9 and has submitted that the said letters were written by the Advocate for the Plaintiff/Petitioner without providing the Defendant with any particulars of the said Will, only with a view to threaten the Defendant and force him into accepting the alleged Will which was in the alleged possession of the Plaintiff/Petitioner. In the light of the above, it is submitted that the said Will was prepared by the Plaintiff/Petitioner between the period 10th March, 1993 and 3rd May, 1993 i.e. before dispatching a copy of the said Will to the Defendant.
It is an admitted fact that the Plaintiff/Petitioner at the time of the demise of his mother was at Muscat and he had come for her cremation from Muscat. It is admitted by the Plaintiff/Petitioner that on 23rd February 1993 they had searched for the keys of the bank locker in the cupboard of the deceased and which were found in the cupboard. He has submitted that though the question as to whether the deceased had left a Will had come to his mind after her demise, he had not traced the said Will during his search on 23rd February 1993. Though on a couple of occasions between 23rd February 1993 and 30th March 1993 he had searched the cupboard generally and had intermittently gone through the papers in the cupboard he had not traced the said Will. He came across the said Will in the cupboard of the deceased only on 30th March 1993. The explanation of the Plaintiff/Petitioner is a plausible explanation more so since he has categorically stated in Paragraph 4 of his cross-examination dated 12th February 2009 that "there were quite a few papers in the cupboard because my mother was a medical social worker in Wadia Hospital, a law student and wife of a practicing lawyer." In view thereof there is nothing suspicious about the fact that he could lay his hands on the said Will only on 30th March, 1993 i.e. about five weeks after he first had access to the cupboard/drawer/locker of the deceased. I do not find anything suspicious about the fact that the Will was not kept in a cover as there is no requirement of law or otherwise that a Will has to be so kept, in a sealed condition or otherwise. The Plaintiff/Petitioner admits that the Defendant had written to him a letter dated 10th March, 1993 (D-2). However, he correctly submits that by the said letter the Defendant has only reiterated his offer dated 22nd February 1993. He therefore did not feel it necessary to reply to the same. In view thereof there is nothing suspicious about the fact that the Plaintiff/Petitioner has not replied to the letter dated 10th March, 1993 at an earlier point of time. He also cannot be faulted for not informing the Defendant that he was looking out for the said Will of the deceased as alleged by the Defendant.
Apart from the explanation given by the Plaintiff/Petitioner that the contents of the said Will were not set out in the letter dated 30th March, 1993 because it was not feasible to narrate the contents running into 7 pages; the date of the Will may not have been mentioned due to inadvertence; his Advocate may not have deemed it fit to forward a copy of the said Will; and that the letter dated 30th March, 1993 was only for the purpose of replying to the letter of the Defendant dated 10th March, 1993, the Plaintiff/Petitioner has in a question put to him in his cross-examination as to whether he did not deem fit to inform the Defendant about the Will, to which he has categorically stated "I had left it to my Advocate to reply to the Defendant after giving him instruction in the matter. He may have done whatever he deemed fit." In fact the Plaintiff/Petitioner has in Paragraph 14 of his cross-examination dated 19th March, 2009 also responded to a question put to him by stating "I had enquired from my Advocate, why a copy of the Will dated 25th April 1986 was not sent to the Defendant upto 3rd May, 1993. He informed me that he waited for the Defendant''s response to some of his letters which he has and that in any event a copy of the Will is required to be served on him along with the appropriate proceedings to be taken out for obtaining Probate of the said Will dated 25th April 1986." Thus the Plaintiff/Petitioner like most litigants, has relied upon the advice of his Advocate in this regard. The delay caused if any, due to a particular view taken by an Advocate cannot be termed as a suspicious circumstance for not accepting the genuineness of the Will in the absence of any substantial evidence leading towards such conclusion. In fact even the Defendant, in the present proceedings, has no where alleged that the said Will is not a genuine document. Though the Defendant had initially raised a plea in his letter dated 14th May, 1993, that the said Will does not appear to be genuine, which allegation was denied by a reply letter dated 19th May, 1993 by the Advocate for the Plaintiff/Petitioner, the Defendant did not raise any such plea in his Affidavit in Support of the Caveat dated 25th October, 1993.
It is true that the Plaintiff/Petitioner has stated in his cross- examination that he was informed by the servant of the deceased that the Defendant had come to the residence of the deceased in the evening of 19th February 1993 and taken away certain belongings from the cupboard of the deceased but he has not filed any police complaint since he could not exactly ascertain what was missing from the cupboard of the deceased. However, after going through the contents of the letters at Exhibits D-5, D7, D-8 and D-9 I am of the view that the Advocate for the Plaintiff/Petitioner has only asked the Defendant to confirm certain facts stated therein to enable the Plaintiff /Petitioner to incorporate particulars pertaining to the estate of the deceased in the Petition for Probate of the said Will. From the contents of the said letters I am of the view that it cannot be said that the said letters were written with a view to threaten the Defendant into accepting the alleged Will of the deceased dated 25th April, 1986 as alleged on behalf of the Defendant. Under the circumstances the submission therefore advanced on behalf of the Defendant that the said Will was prepared by the Plaintiff/Petitioner only after 10th March, 1993 and before 3rd May, 1993 is completely untenable and is rejected.
Equally untenable is the second suspicious circumstance alleged to be arising in the present matter according to the Defendant. It is submitted on behalf of the Defendant, that this Court should consider whether the deceased could at all make the said Will in the year 1986. It is submitted that the deceased had only two children i.e. the Plaintiff/Petitioner and the Defendant. The husband of the deceased was a practicing lawyer who expired in the year 1992 and who had not made his own Will. The health of the deceased who was only 56 years in the year 1986 was good and there was no reason as to why she should have made a Will. It is submitted that the husband of the deceased would have certainly advised his wife not to make a Will, more so, when the Plaintiff/Petitioner has himself admitted that the relations between his parents were excellent throughout their marriage, and it would not be correct to say that the deceased never took advice from his father. Thus, it was submitted that there was no compelling necessity for the deceased to make her Will at that point of time.
If the aforesaid submissions advanced on behalf of the Defendant are accepted as suspicious circumstances by this Court, a substantial number of Suits where a Will is propounded by a Plaintiff/Petitioner will have to be rejected on this sole ground. There is no legal bar with regard to the age of the person making the Will so long as he or she has attained majority. Thus, the above submissions on behalf of the Defendant are made without any basis and are untenable. The same are therefore rejected.
The third suspicious circumstance according to the Defendant is that the deceased went to Ahmedabad and stayed for one week and though her relations were good with her brothers and sisters, for the purpose of attesting the said Will she did not choose them but chose her two nephews. It is submitted that this suspicious circumstance becomes more clear from the evidence of the Plaintiff/Petitioner dated 19th March, 2009 (Paragraph 15, Page 26)wherein he has stated "I do not know why my mother visited Ahmedabad in April, 1986 and made a Will at Ahmedabad. I was not even aware of the existence of the Will. It is true that both the brothers of my mother were residing in Ahmedabad in the year 1986." It is submitted that even P.W.2 has stated in his cross-examination that he does not remember any incident which would show or portray any distrust by the deceased in his father or uncle. P.W.2 is also unable to say on which date the deceased came to Ahmedabad.
The aforesaid submissions advanced on behalf of the Defendant do not support their case of any suspicious circumstance surrounding the said Will. In fact it is an act of prudence that a person who is desirous of making a Will should get the same attested by individuals who are young so that after the demise of the testator, they are available to depose as regards the execution of the Will. The deceased may not have chosen her brothers/sister to attest her said Will on the above ground of prudence or on any ground which she may have had in her mind at the time of executing the said Will. However, under no circumstance can one reach a finding that the same amounts to a suspicious circumstance. As deposed by P.W.2 in his cross-examination, he and his brother were asked to witness the said Will of the deceased and they accordingly witnessed the Will. The fact that the Plaintiff/Petitioner in his cross- examination stated that he is not aware that why his mother visited Ahmedabad in April, 1986 or made a Will at Ahmedabad or that he was not even aware of the existence of the Will etc. does not in any manner support the contention of the Defendant that there exists suspicious circumstances surrounding the said Will. Relying on the decisions of the Hon''ble Supreme Court of India in, H. Venkatachala Iyengar Vs. B.N. Thimmajamma and Others, Page 443; Kalyan Singh Vs. Smt. Chhoti and Others, ; and Shashi Kumar Banerjee and Ors. v. Subodh Kumar Banerjee (Supra), it is submitted on behalf of the Defendant that the Plaintiff/Petitioner has failed to remove the suspicious circumstances arising in respect of the said Will and therefore the Suit filed by the Plaintiff/Petitioner deserves to be dismissed. As already held by me in the earlier paragraphs the said Will of the deceased is in the handwriting of the deceased and is also signed by the deceased. As set out earlier the handwriting of the deceased are clear and firm. The contents of the said Will shows that the deceased is clear in her mind what exactly she wants to do with her estate. In fact at certain places in the said Will where the deceased has decided to bequeath a certain piece of her jewellery to a legatee named therein, in order to avoid any confusion, the deceased has, by the side, drawn an outline/shape of the said piece of jewellery. The Defendant has not alleged in his Affidavit in Support of the Caveat that the said Will is not in the handwriting of the deceased or that the signatures on the said Will are not of the deceased or the said Will is not genuine or is fabricated. Though the Defendant had craved leave to file a further Affidavit in Support of the Caveat after taking inspection of the said original Will, the Defendant has not done so. In fact the Defendant in his cross- examination by the Plaintiff in the Ahmedabad Suit has stated (Exhibit P-6 at Pg.163) that the deceased had made a Will in the year 1986 which was revoked by her Will of 1992. Both the Wills are made by the deceased at Ahmedabad. At Page 170 in a question put to the Defendant as to where he was when the deceased made a handwritten Will dated 25-4-1986, the Defendant has replied that he was at Mumbai. These answers, beyond doubt establish that the only challenge raised by the Defendant to the said Will is that it has been revoked by a subsequent Will allegedly made by the deceased. The answers reproduced above clearly establish that the Defendant has accepted the said Will as a Will made by the deceased herself, in the year 1986 at Ahmedabad. That being so, his challenge in the present Suit, that the said Will is not genuine and not duly executed is totally out of place and misconceived. The Defendant has in the present proceedings not examined himself nor any witness in support of his case. The deceased in her said Will has made her husband the sole beneficiary of all the legacies during his lifetime. She has even named him as the sole executor of the said Will. Though the deceased has bequeathed the house at Ahmedabad to the Plaintiff/Petitioner, it is not that under the said Will the Plaintiff/Petitioner is made the sole legatee of the properties of the deceased after the death of her husband. In the said Will one of the shops is bequeathed to the Plaintiff/Petitioner and one shop to the Defendant. The jewellery, etc. is divided amongst the daughters-in-law, grandchildren, etc. of the family. The deceased has expressed her desire to allow the Plaintiff/Petitioner to use the tenanted residential premises at Mumbai. The Plaintiff/Petitioner has through the evidence of P.W.2 proved/established beyond any reasonable doubt that the deceased has duly executed at Ahmedabad her Will dated 25th April 1986. I have found all the allegations of suspicious circumstances raised by the Defendant to be untrue and baseless. Under the circumstances I answer Issue No. 1 in the Affirmative.
ISSUE No. 2
So far as Issue No. 2 is concerned, the execution of the Will dated 15th February 1993 was the subject matter in the Ahmedabad Suit filed by the Defendant herein. Admittedly the said Suit is dismissed and an Appeal preferred therefrom is admitted by the Gujarat High Court, and the same is pending. The Caveator/Defendant herein has neither examined himself nor any other witness in the present proceedings. I therefore answer Issue No. 2 in the Negative. This of course will not in any way prejudice the Appeal filed by the Defendant before the Gujarat High Court.
ISSUE No. 3
So far as Issue No. 3 is concerned the same is required to be answered only if the answer to Issue No. 2 is in the affirmative. Since the answer to Issue No. 2 is in negative, Issue No. 3 need not be answered.
ISSUE No. 4
As far as Issue No. 4 is concerned the same is not relevant for the purpose of deciding the present Suit. In any event the Defendant has relied upon a letter dated 10th March, 1983 addressed by him to the Advocate for the Plaintiff/Petitioner (Exhibit D-2) seeking to settle the estate of their parents in the most amicable manner and has further recorded that the Defendant had on 22nd February, 1993 offered a very fair "offer" to the Plaintiff/Petitioner. In view thereof, the question of a complete settlement being arrived at between the Plaintiff/Petitioner and Caveator/Defendant regarding the division of properties left by the deceased does not arise. The said issue is therefore answered in the negative.
ISSUE No. 5
The suit is allowed/decreed as prayed for in terms of Paragraph 10 of the Petition/Plaint which reads thus :
That the Letters of Administration with the Will annexed of the Property and Credits of the deceased may be granted in his favour having effect throughout the Union of India.
The Defendant is directed to pay costs of this Suit to the Plaintiff/Petitioner as incurred by the Plaintiff/Petitioner.
Order accordingly.