JUDGMENT :- The Petitioner has filed this Petition for revocation of the probate granted in favour of Respondent No.1 on 4th September 2009 in Testamentary Petition No.577 of 2009. The probate has been granted of the last Will and testament of Madhuben Sadhusingh Agarwal executed on 12th January 2008. 2. The Petitioner claims that she is an heir and legal representative of the deceased who was not served with the citation. 3. The Petitioner has also claimed that the Will of the deceased has been fabricated and forged. The Petitioner has given various instances to show how it is forged and fabricated. Those would be gone into only after the Petitioner can establish her relationship with the deceased to show that she was the heir and legal representative of the deceased. If that is not shown, the Petitioner would have no locus to claim revocation of the probate. 4. The Petitioner has set out her relationship with the deceased to show how she is an heir and legal representative of the deceased. 5. The Petitioner claims that the deceased had two sisters, Jomiben and Mariyamben. The Petitioner claims to be the granddaughter of Jomiben. Hence, she claims to be the granddaughter of the predeceased sister of the deceased. 6. The Respondent has contested this relationship. It is for the Petitioner to first prove her lineage. 7. She has to prove that she is the daughter of one Soniben, who was the daughter of Jomiben, who was the sister of the deceased to be entitled to prosecute the Petition. 8. The Petitioner has claimed that the deceased was born a Muslim to one Ibrahim Sumra and his wife Puriben. The maiden name of the deceased was Hawaben. 9. Accordingly the Petitioner has sought to lead evidence to prove her lineage. She filed her affidavit of examination-in-chief and produced original documents. The admissibility of the documents has been considered. The only document marked as an exhibit is an election card of Mariyamben, who is the other sister of the deceased and, who has not made any claim in the Petition. 10. What is left is the oral evidence of the Petitioner and her witnesses. She has led evidence of three other witnesses to corroborate her oral evidence of her lineage. One witness is her mother-in-law who is the sister of Respondent No.1. 10. What is left is the oral evidence of the Petitioner and her witnesses. She has led evidence of three other witnesses to corroborate her oral evidence of her lineage. One witness is her mother-in-law who is the sister of Respondent No.1. We are not really concerned with that relationship except to know that it is one of the relations of the Petitioner. The other two affidavits are of the friend/neighbour of the Petitioner in her village in Gujarat. 11. This oral evidence is to be considered. 12. The evidence of the petitioner shows her relationship. She has shown that her grand-mother Jomiben had a daughter Soniben and that she is the daughter of Soniben. Hence she claims blood relation. 13. This oral evidence is not substantiated by any documentary evidence. No birth certificate of any of these parties is produced. No record of birth maintained by the village is produced. 14. She has also deposed in her affidavit of examination-in-chief that the deceased used to give her money on various occasions. She has last paid her Rs. 10,000/- at the time of her marriage. This was given through Respondent No.1. 15. Her cross examination is very revealing. In her cross examination she stated that she did not know the names of the two sisters of her grandmother (which includes the deceased). Later in the cross examination she has stated that the deceased was her maternal grandmother (which is incorrect as per her evidence in her examination-in-chief). She has stated that she has filed the Petition at the instance of her mother-in-law who said that because she was the niece of the deceased she must file the Petition. Further in the cross examination she has stated that before her marriage she did not know how she was related to the deceased. She also did not know whether there was any person called Madhuben in the family of her inlaws. Her cross examination fi.1rther shows that she also did not know the maiden name of the deceased which she learnt only from her mother-in-law, who is the sister of Respondent No.1. She confirms in her cross examination that she has no personal knowledge about the deceased (Madhuben/Hawaben). 16. Later in the cross examination she has been asked questions about the parents of the deceased about whom she has deposed in her affidavit of examination-in-chief. She confirms in her cross examination that she has no personal knowledge about the deceased (Madhuben/Hawaben). 16. Later in the cross examination she has been asked questions about the parents of the deceased about whom she has deposed in her affidavit of examination-in-chief. She has answered that the names of the parents of the deceased were Jomiben and Jivabhai (who are actually the sister and brotherinlaw of the deceased as per her affidavit of examination-in-chief). What is further exhibited in her cross examination is that she did not know when the deceased was married to Ranabhai, her first husband. She deposed that she came to know of it after her marriage. 17. Though she has claimed in her affidavit of examination-in-chief about the cordiality of relations, her cross examination shows that she has not attended both the marriages of the deceased. This is though she was her grand niece. 18. The cross examination has further revealed that she had not even attended the funeral of the deceased. She came to know about it one year after the deceased died when she came to Bombay. 19. This is despite the fact that she has deposed that she used to come a number of times to visit the deceased in Bombay, the last being in the year 2000. The deceased also used to visit the residence of her inlaws in Rajkot and had according to her examination-in-chief, visited her last in 2006. 20. What is most startling is that the Petitioner does not know what the Petition is filed for. The cross examination has revealed that the Petition is for recovery of money. Her mother-in-law informed her so. The money had• to be recovered from the deceased. She does not know that the Petition was for challenging the grant of probate issued to Respondent No. 1. The case that the Petition was filed at the instance of her mother-in-law is accepted by her. The contents of the Petition have not been explained to her. 21. The mother-in-law of the Petitioner has also been examined. Her evidence shows that she is the sister of Respondent No.1. She has given the relationship of the Petitioner with the deceased without any supporting documentary evidence. She has stated about the marriage of her son with the Petitioner. She has claimed to refer to the Nikahnama. She deposed that her brother, Respondent No.1 had signed the Nikahnama. Her evidence shows that she is the sister of Respondent No.1. She has given the relationship of the Petitioner with the deceased without any supporting documentary evidence. She has stated about the marriage of her son with the Petitioner. She has claimed to refer to the Nikahnama. She deposed that her brother, Respondent No.1 had signed the Nikahnama. She has not produced the Nikahnama. 22. She has also set out the life of the deceased. The deceased was born Hawaben, a Muslim. She was married to one Ranabhai Sumra. She did not have any issues from the marriage. She later married Sadhusingh Agarwal in Mumbai. She did not have any issues from that marriage also. 23. She has deposed that Madhuben used to visit her and her family in Rajkot, Gujarat and stay with them. The deceased last visited her when her husband expired on 15th January 2006. 24. Upon her relationship she has been cross examined. Her cross examination shows that she has not attended the first marriage of the deceased. She learnt about the marriage of the deceased from the sister of the deceased at the time of her own marriage (It is not known why anyone would inform the new bride of such innocuous relationship). 25. The further cross examination has shown that she did not even attend the second marriage of the deceased. She was inforn1ed about the second marriage by the deceased herself three years after the deceased's own marriage. 26. She has deposed that the deceased used to frequently visit Rajkot and visit her family and friends. The deceased always used to live with her when she visited her. In her cross examination she has deposed that she also visited the deceased in Bombay many times, the last being in 2000. The deceased also visited her many times, the last being in the year 2006 at the time of her son's marriage. However, she did not know about the death of the deceased. Hence she did not attend the funeral of the deceased. 27. Hence though she was cordial with the deceased and the deceased lived with her she neither attended the marriage of the deceased nor the funeral of the deceased. 28. However, she did not know about the death of the deceased. Hence she did not attend the funeral of the deceased. 27. Hence though she was cordial with the deceased and the deceased lived with her she neither attended the marriage of the deceased nor the funeral of the deceased. 28. The reading of the oral evidence of the Petitioner and her mother-in-law, at whose instance the Petitioner filed the Petition, for recovery of money, shows the relationship made out in the examination-in-chief, which was not known in the usual course of the relationship of the Petitioner. The Petitioner derived her knowledge about the relationship orally from her mother-in-law. The evidence of the Petitioner about her relationship with the deceased is entirely hearsay and wholly inadmissible on that ground. 29. The evidence of the Petitioner as well as her mother-in-law about the cordial relations is destroyed by their own cross examination showing that they neither attended the marriages of the deceased nor her funeral though they were friendly and on visiting terms between Rajkot and Mumbai. 30. The evidence shows the relationship not made out. The evidence shows the case of cordiality disproved. 31. To propup the evidence of the Petitioner and her mother-in-law, the Petitioner has examined two of the persons who have deposed that they were the friend and neighbour of the deceased and hence knew her relationship with her successors. One of the witnesses has claimed a distant relationship with the deceased with which we are not concerned. She has stated that the deceased was the father-in-law's brother's daughter. She has also given the same relationship as given by the Petitioner and one witness without any substantiation. She has mentioned about the two marriages of the deceased and the recollection that the deceased had no children. 32. She has also deposed that the deceased used to visit Rajkot to meet her family and friends when she used to meet the deceased as she was her neighbour. 33. Her cross examination has shown that she did not know when the second marriage of the deceased took place though she knew that the deceased changed her name after her second marriage. 34. The other witness Sairaben is much the same except that she has stated that she knew the deceased as a school friend because the deceased was elder to her by two months. 34. The other witness Sairaben is much the same except that she has stated that she knew the deceased as a school friend because the deceased was elder to her by two months. The witness had studied only up to standard I. So she was in touch with the deceased for but one year in the school. She has mentioned about the marriages of the deceased and the fact that she has no children. She has also mentioned about the visits of the deceased to Rajkot and the relationship of the Petitioner with the deceased. Her evidence, as of the other witnesses, is as innocuous. She was however, invited to the marriage of the deceased. She came to know of the separation of the deceased from her first husband two months after her marriage from other people. She also knew about the other marriage of the deceased, but apparently she was not invited, as she learnt about it two to three years after the marriage in the house of the mother-in-law of the Petitioner. She, therefore, had lost touch with the deceased, but remembered her early years and the relationship with all her family members. 35. This oral evidence led under Section 60 of the Evidence Act has to be appreciated in accordance with the law of appreciation of evidence of the opinion of witnesses with regard to the relationship of persons under Section 50 of the Evidence Act. 36. The petitioner has contended that such direct evidence of opinion and relationship becomes relevant to consider and has relied upon several judgments in that behalf. The judgment show how the relationship between the parties are essential to show the external conduct of the person. The opinion formed by a given witness in a particular situation would show the relationship between the parties or the conduct of the person. This may be not only by a party to the lis but also a third party. Counsel on behalf of the Petitioner has relied upon a number of judgments in this behalf which are considered as follows: In the case of Dolgobinda Vs. Nimai Charan AIR 1959 SC 914 what are facts in issue is considered. This would be the fact either by itself or in connection with other facts in existence; the nature or extent of any right, liability or disability which is asserted or denied would follow. Nimai Charan AIR 1959 SC 914 what are facts in issue is considered. This would be the fact either by itself or in connection with other facts in existence; the nature or extent of any right, liability or disability which is asserted or denied would follow. The Court has considered Section 50 of the Evidence Act which relates to the opinion on relationship being relevant. This would include the relationship as a member of the family or showing special means of knowledge on the subject. Such opinion would be a relevant fact. The opinion would relate to the subject of the relationship if the deponent fulfilled the condition laid down in the latter part of the section. He must, therefore, have special means of knowledge on the subject. It is held in that case that an opinion is something more than mere deposition of gossip or of hearsay: it means judgment of belief or a conviction in a given state of circumstances. The judgment also observes that such opinion becomes a relevant piece of evidence. The Court has to weigh such evidence and come to its own opinion as to the probability of the fact - "factum probandum". The judgment further shows that evidence of general reputation does not become admissible under the Section. Consequently such opinion can be led under Section 60 of the Evidence Act as oral evidence. In the case of Sitaji & Ors. Vs. Bijendra Narain Choudhary & Ors. AIR 1954 SC 601 , the entire genealogy was proved. The judgment held that the personal knowledge was not necessary in such a case. The member of the family could speak about what has been told and what he has learned about his own ancestors provided what he says is an expression of his own independent opinion derived from the deceased person and not living person and provided it is not merely repetition of the hearsay opinion of others and also provided that opinion is expressed by conduct. It is important to appreciate the sources of such information and the time when he acquired the information. That would affect the weight of the evidence. In the case of Beant Singh & Anr. Vs. Niranjan Singh AIR 2008 SC 1512 : (2008 ALL SCR 721] the relationship between a brother and sister was to be established. It is important to appreciate the sources of such information and the time when he acquired the information. That would affect the weight of the evidence. In the case of Beant Singh & Anr. Vs. Niranjan Singh AIR 2008 SC 1512 : (2008 ALL SCR 721] the relationship between a brother and sister was to be established. A cousin sister, a daughter-in-law of the father's brother and childhood friend who came to the house led evidence. Their evidence became relevant. It was within their special knowledge. The evidence shows how they were treated by the brother. The evidence also of the person who attended the marriage of the brother when he was 15 years old was led. One of the witnesses who was the resident of village and the childhood friend saw the parties from a close quarter. He could depose about the conduct of the sister visavis her brother. The Court observed that the witness had special means of knowledge on the particular subject. The Court laid down that the latter part of the condition under Section 50 of the Evidence Act must be fulfilled to express the conduct of any person. In the case of V. V. Kannan & Anr. Vs. K. Sridhar 2004 (3) CTC 199 the oral evidence of the birth of a person long years ago at his native place was accepted as relevant. It was held to be a strong piece of evidence when there was no evidence to the contrary. In the case of Khazani & Anr. Vs. Hem Chander Khari 2001(58) DRJ 444 (DB) the admission on the part of the other party with regard to the relationship of a person was accepted. 37. In view of the parameters laid down in the aforesaid judgments the evidence of none of the 4 witnesses on the Petitioner including herself lends itself to acceptance. 38. The evidence of none of the witnesses is either relevant, or substantive, or credible. They are just put up witnesses including the Petitioner. They are put up by the mother-in-law of the Petitioner who is the sister of Respondent No.1. The evidence deserves to be whol1y rejected. 39. Hence the relationship of the Petitioner with the deceased is not established. 40. The Petitioner has no locus to chal1enge the probate. The Petition is dismissed with costs. Petition dismissed.