JUDGMENT - DESHPANDE D.G., J.:---The petitioner had filed this petition for grant of probate in respect of the last Will and testament of Smt Padmavati Anantrai Mehta alias Smt. Padmavati A. Mehta alias Smt. P.A. Mehta. The defendants filed caveat challenging the said petition and, therefore, the petition was converted into suit. The caveators filed written statement. Both the parties led evidence in support of their contentions. The petitioner/plaintiff examined one of the three attesting witnesses and the defendants examined Dr. Sunil Shah as their witness. Thereafter I heard the arguments of both the parties. 2. The deceased-testator Padmavati was about 80 years of age when she executed the Will on 29th March, 1994. She died three months thereafter i.e. on 21st June, 1994. The plaintiff is the executor of the Will and not beneficiary. The plaintiff is distantly in relation to the deceased so also the defendants. There were three attesting witnesses to the Will viz. Dr. Sunil Shah; Dulerai Prataprai Parekh and Advocate K.D. Shukla. The caveators challenged the Will on the following grounds in their affidavit in support of their caveat. The Will is fraud and fake; the deceased was not keeping good health during the last days of her life; she was semi conscious and she survived till the time of her death on oxygen in that condition; and on the day of Will she was semi conscious and was not able to hear and understand anything; she knew writing and could have affixed her thumb impression because she had executed one other Will, copy of which was annexed with the affidavit. However, the Advocate for the defendants clarified that because the Will was signed by one person it was not produced nor any attempt was made to produce the Will. The other grounds are also raised by the defendants viz. they were taking the care of the deceased and looking after her household activities and bearing the medical and other expenses. Ms. Kumud C. Mehta, the wife of the defendant was looking after her and none of the attesting witnesses have affirmed any affidavit. On these grounds the defendants have challenged the Will. 3. However, it is pertinent to note that none of the defendants have examined themselves in support of their contentions or to prove any of the aforesaid facts within their personal knowledge, viz. On these grounds the defendants have challenged the Will. 3. However, it is pertinent to note that none of the defendants have examined themselves in support of their contentions or to prove any of the aforesaid facts within their personal knowledge, viz. physical and mental condition of the executrix or that she was under semi conscious and was on oxygen or they were looking after her or wife of the defendant was looking after her or they were bearing the medical and other expenses. The defendants have examined Dr. Sunil Shah as one of the attesting witnesses to disprove the case of the plaintiff. 4. The plaintiff examined one Duleral Parekh for proving the due and valid attestation. In his evidence he has given all the necessary particulars required by law for proving the Will. He has stated that he was knowing the deceased-testator for more than 50 years. She was his neighbour. Two years prior to her death, she was not keeping good health but she was in sound state or mind. She was employed one servant who used to look after her and attend to her needs. Thereafter he has stated in para 2 of his evidence that Padmavati called him as she wanted him to be the attesting witness with regard to the Will that she wanted to execute. He went to her house at about 10.00 a.m. on that day. Dr. Sunil Shah and her Advocate Mr. Shukla were present. Dr. Shah was her family physician and he used to visit Padmaben every morning for giving injection. Padmaben told this witness that he should sign as an attesting witness. Then her Advocate read over the Will to her and explained the same to her in Gujarathi. Then all the three of them viz. Dr. Shah, witness Dulerai and Advocate Shukla signed the Will. Padmavatiben put her thumb impression on the Will which was admitted by the witness. The witness has also stated that below his signature he wrote his name and address. He identified his own signature, that of Advocate Shukla and also had writing and signature. The writing below the thumb impression was of Advocate Shukla. The witness also stated that Padmaben was able to sign and she used to sign as Padmaben Mehta but she was not able to sign freely. He identified his own signature, that of Advocate Shukla and also had writing and signature. The writing below the thumb impression was of Advocate Shukla. The witness also stated that Padmaben was able to sign and she used to sign as Padmaben Mehta but she was not able to sign freely. She used to write her name slowly and as she had suffered a fracture, she could not sign the Will but put her thumb impression. 5. The evidence of this witness was criticised by the Advocate for the defendants on the ground that, as admitted by the witness, Padmaben had a fracture of the hip and it could not have affect her capability to write and put her signature and, therefore, obtaining her thump impression is a suspicious circumstances. Further the witness in cross-examination has stated that after she put her thumb impression she signed the Will in his presence. But the witness could not point out the signature of Padmavatiben on the Will. 6. It was, therefore, contended by the Counsel for the defendants that this admission of the witness falsifies his entire evidence and it shows that he was not present at that time. Advocate for the defendants further contended that actually it was for the plaintiff to examine Dr. Sunil Shah and Advocate Shukla but the plaintiff did not examine these two witnesses and, therefore, the defendants had to examine Dr. Shah. He, therefore, contended that the Will cannot be held to be proved and no probate can be granted to the plaintiff. 7. I am not in agreement with the submissions made by the Advocate for the defendants. There are no reasons to disbelieve the evidence of Dulerai Parekh nor there is anything to show that the Will is sham and bogus and it is fraudulently obtained or that it was not properly executed and attested as required by law. The age of Padmavati at the time of Will was 80 years. Because of fracture of the hip she was not keeping good health. And therefore, considering her age and health putting thump impression cannot be considered to be wrong, illegal or improper. That the witness has not suppressed the fact, that Padmavati was able to sign as Padmaben Mehta, but she was not able to sign freely. She used to sign slowly and with defect, therefore, her thump impression was obtained. And therefore, considering her age and health putting thump impression cannot be considered to be wrong, illegal or improper. That the witness has not suppressed the fact, that Padmavati was able to sign as Padmaben Mehta, but she was not able to sign freely. She used to sign slowly and with defect, therefore, her thump impression was obtained. Further in the cross-examination credibility of this witness has not been attacked on any of the grounds nor any motives have been attributed to him. The cross-examination is very short and it has not resulted in discrediting the witness at all. The evidence is natural with no exaggeration. From the aforesaid two submissions that fracture of the hip could not have affected the writing capability and that Padmaben put her signature on Will cannot be considered sufficient to disregard the testimony particularly in the absence of any evidence from the defendants in any form whatsoever because the defendants did not examine themselves at all. The defendants have not adduced any evidence about the mental condition of Padmavatiben. Physical sufferings cannot, in the absence of any evidence in that regard, be held to be sufficient to affect the mental capacity and understanding faculty of anyone. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence regarding any of the objections to the Will in the caveat, the evidence of Dulerai Parekh has to be accepted. 8. In order to rebut the evidence of Dulerai and prove their contentions, the defendants have examined Dr. Sunil Shah. In his affidavit of evidence Dr. Sunil Shah has stated that he was the family physician of Padmavati from 1993 onwards and he was treating her for old age ailment. Further he has stated that on 29th March, 1994, his prior appointment was taken by the petitioner Trilochan Kapadia and was asked to come to the house of testator with his rubber stamp. Accordingly he visited the house of Padmavati Mehta with his rubber stamp when Mr. Dulerai Parekh was also present. Thereafter Dr. Shah in his evidence stated that the said document i.e. the Will was handed over to him for signature and he was told by the plaintiff that the document was last Will and testament of the deceased and, on believing them, he signed the Will as the attesting witness. Dr. Dulerai Parekh was also present. Thereafter Dr. Shah in his evidence stated that the said document i.e. the Will was handed over to him for signature and he was told by the plaintiff that the document was last Will and testament of the deceased and, on believing them, he signed the Will as the attesting witness. Dr. Shah further stated that the deceased never told him that it was her Will as she was in semi conscious condition. 9. At the outset it has to be stated that this witness Dr. Shah is a lier of first degree and not only his evidence is contrary to the document but from the admissions given by him in the cross-examination and from the questions which were put to him by me in the questions to the Court his conduct reveals that he has joined hands with the defendants to frustrate the claim of the plaintiff with some ulterior motive. His evidence shows that he has no regard for his professional conduct and ethics and, he can go to any extent to support anybodys claim for the motives best known to him. 10. In his cross-examination witness Dr. Shah stated and admitted that he did not make any inquiry as to why he was called with his rubber stamp. He did not speak with Padmavati Mehta on that day i.e. on 29th March, 1994. He did not examine her at all on that day nor did he treat her. He attested the document after somebody lifted the hand of Padmavati Mehta and put her thump impression on the Will. To further question in cross-examination Dr. Shah has admitted that he did not think it improper to sign the Will as attesting witness in such a situation. Further Dr. Shah had courage to admit that the fact that the thumb impression of Padmavati Mehta was put in his presence has not been stated by him in his affidavit because he was not knowing the contents of his affidavit. The affidavit was prepared by his Advocate and he has signed it. Dr. Shah, further, stated that he did not check Padmavati Mehta at all on that day and then admitted that he could not determine the state of consciousness without examining her physically and special response to different stimula like sound, light, etc. The affidavit was prepared by his Advocate and he has signed it. Dr. Shah, further, stated that he did not check Padmavati Mehta at all on that day and then admitted that he could not determine the state of consciousness without examining her physically and special response to different stimula like sound, light, etc. The following question put to the witness by the Court as the questions to the Court and he admitted that he knows the importance of a Will and also knows the importance of signing the Will as attesting witness and, according to him, the attestation of the witness is to confirm that the testator put his or her signatures or thump impression in the presence of witness. Then he admitted that he saw Padmavati Mehta from the distance of two to three feet. He did not check Padmavati Mehta nor did he examine her nor did he put any question to Padmavati Mehta. And lastly as a climax proving his falsify he admitted that he did not verify whether Padmavati Mehta was died or alive on that day at that time. From this evidence of witness Dr. Sunil Shah it is clear that he can go to any extent, he has no regards for truth nor any sanctity for his professional ethics and conduct. 12. Advocate for the defendants, further tried to defend Dr. Shah by contending that he was in fact, the witness of the plaintiff and, the plaintiff could have examined him. Because of the plaintiffs failure the defendants were required to examine Dr. Shah. It was further contended that Dr. Shah might have negligent in discharging his duty, but there is no reason to discredit or disbelieve his evidence. I am not at all in agreement with this submission. 13. Dr. Shah is a lier of first degree at least in this case and he has shown that he has no regard for truth, he has no regard to his noble profession and ethics; he can go to any extent and sign the document without verifying whether the person who put his or her thump impression is dead or alive. No reliance can be placed upon this evidence. Therefore, the entire case of the defendants is liable to be rejected out right. 14. However, that would not be sufficient in the circumstances of the case. No reliance can be placed upon this evidence. Therefore, the entire case of the defendants is liable to be rejected out right. 14. However, that would not be sufficient in the circumstances of the case. Nor entering into the witness box; not adducing any evidence in support of the caveat and examining witness like Dr. Shah, all are clear indications of the defendants being false, frivolous and vexatious. Therefore, while allowing the probate to the plaintiff, heavy costs are required to be saddled upon the defendants and, recommendations are required to be made to the Indian Medical Association to debar Dr. Sunil K. Shah from practicing as doctor because his behaviour is totally irresponsible against the code of conduct of the doctors and it is also for giving false evidence in Court to support the frivolous claim of the defendants. After I put the aforesaid questions to Dr. Shah, I had warned him that I would be taking necessary action. I, therefore, pass the following order :- ORDER 1. The claim of the plaintiff is allowed. Probate to be issued to the plaintiff in respect of the last Will and testament of Smt. Padmavati Anantrai Mehta alias Smt. Padmavati A. Mehta alias Smt. P.A. Mehta of Bombay alias Smt. Padmavati A. Mehta alias Smt. P.A. Mehta. 2. The defendants will bear their costs and to pay the costs of the plaintiff and, in addition, they will also pay Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten Thousand only) as compensatory costs for raising false, vexatious defence. 3. The Indian Medical Association to take steps within two months of receiving this order debarring Dr. Sunil K. Shah from practicing and giving publicity to that extent. 4. Prothonotary to communicate this order to the Indian Medical Association, Delhi and Bombay Medical Association in that regard. 5. After the order was pronounced, the Counsel for the defendants prayed for stay of operation of this order. Looking to the facts of the case and award of the compensatory costs for raising false and vexatious defence, prayer for stay is rejected. 6. Parties to act upon ordinary copy of this order duly authenticated by the Court Associate. Probate allowed. -----