Research › Search › Judgment

Bombay High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1644 (BOM)

Panna Atmaram Bhansali v. Tinoo M. Bhansali

2012-08-31

ROSHAN DALVI

body2012
Judgment : 1. The plaintiff is one of the daughters of the deceased one Shakuntala Mansen 2. It is the plaintiff’s case that the will has been executed by her mother in the presence of 2 attesting witnesses, her solicitor and the solicitor’s clerk when she was in a sound and disposing state of mind. 3. The defendant is the brother of the plaintiff. It has been the defendant’s contention that the will was not validly executed at the volition of his mother and that the plaintiff has by certain misrepresentation and influence got the will executed. 4. Based upon these pleadings the following issues have been framed which are answered as follows: Damodardas Bhansali. The deceased executed her last will and testament on 28.04.1977 which is sought to be probated. The plaintiff is one of the 4 executors/executrices appointed under the will of the deceased. ISSUES 1 Whether the writing and document being Exhibit “A” to the petition is the last will and testament of the deceased testatrix Shakuntala Mansen Bhansali as alleged in paragraph 3 of the petition. No 2 Whether the plaintiff proves that the deceased testatrix executed the said writing being Exhibit A to the petition of her free will and volition and in sound state of mind, health and body and/or fully knowing the consequences of her acts as alleged in paragraph 3 of the petition. No 3 Whether the said writing dated 28th April, 1977 was procured by the plaintiff by coercion or undue influence by taking undue advantage of old age and indifferent health of the said testatrix by the petitioner as alleged in paragraph 4 of the affidavit of therespondent in support of the caveat dated 28th September, 1993. Not required to be answered. 4 Whether the petitioner has disentitled herself to the grant of the probate of the said writing dated 28th April, 1977 being Exhibit A to the petition for suppressing the assets and properties belonging to the deceased testatrix as alleged in paragraph 7A of the said affidavit of the respondent. Not required to be answered. 5 Whether the petitioner is not entitled to maintain the above petition for reasons mentioned in paragraph 4 of the affidavit of the defendant dated 10th March, 1986. Not required to be answered. 5 Whether the petitioner is not entitled to maintain the above petition for reasons mentioned in paragraph 4 of the affidavit of the defendant dated 10th March, 1986. Not proved 6 Whether the petitioner is entitled to the grant of probate of the said writing dated 28th April, 1977 being Exhibit A to the petition. No 7 What relief the petitioner is entitled to and generally. None As per final order. 5. The plaintiff has examined only one of the attesting witnesses. The defendant has examined himself, the Assistant Superintendent of Civil Court, Pune to produce certain documents, a witness from the society where the deceased had a flat, a Rent Collector and a witness from the Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Board. ISSUE NOS.1 & 2 : 6. The seminal requirement is for the plaintiff to prove due execution of the will as per Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act and Sections 68 & 69 of the Indian Evidence Act. The plaintiff has sought to examine the first attesting witness who was the attorney of this Court and who was the attorney of the deceased. The other attesting witness is stated to have expired. His death certificate has not been produced. The first attesting witness had deposed before the Court. He was partly cross-examined. Thereafter the parties had sought to settle their dispute. Consent terms were signed and executed. The defendant agreed to the grant of the probate upon certain terms. The plaintiff failed to act upon the consent terms as also to act as the executor named under the will. The defendant, therefore, sought to have the consent terms revoked and to proceed with the suit. In the meantime the first attesting witness expired. His further cross-examination could not be recorded. Only a part of the cross-examination which has been held does not even refer to the due execution of the will. Hence the evidence of the witness relating to the execution of the will has not been a part of the cross-examination. The evidence of the witness remains at that. It cannot be considered for determination the issue with regard to the validity of the will. 7. My attention has been drawn to the judgment in the case of DiwanSingh & Ors. Vs. Emperor AIR 1933 Lahore 561 and Maharaja of Kolhapur Vs. S. Sundaram Ayyar & Ors. The evidence of the witness remains at that. It cannot be considered for determination the issue with regard to the validity of the will. 7. My attention has been drawn to the judgment in the case of DiwanSingh & Ors. Vs. Emperor AIR 1933 Lahore 561 and Maharaja of Kolhapur Vs. S. Sundaram Ayyar & Ors. AIR 1925 Madras 497 which relates to the consideration of unfinished testimony. It holds that the part of the evidence recorded by the witness cannot be rejected entirely. However the judgment observes that if the cross-examination has not advanced such as to be substantially complete, it would have to be rejected. Had the cross-examination dealt with the material aspect relating to the actual execution and attestation of the will, the testimony of first attesting witness would have been accepted. The cross-examination has not shown that aspect being considered and hence the testimony would have to be rejected. Hence it is immaterial to even go through the intricacy of how the deceased executed the will shown in the examination-in-chief of the witness. 8. The other attesting witness had to be examined. He is stated to have expired. There is no documentary evidence produced on record to show that he has expired. His death certificate is not produced. Only the first attesting witness had deposed in his evidence that the second attesting witness had expired. Even if that is accepted, the plaintiff must prove the will by leading evidence of any other person who may be present at the time of the execution of the will or a person who would identify and prove the attestation of the will. Though the first attesting witness was an attorney and senior partner of a solicitors' firm, none from the solicitors' firm who could have deposed about his handwriting and signature has been examined. The valid execution of the will of the deceased is, therefore, not proved. 9. Consequently Issue Nos.1 & 2 are answered in the negative. ISSUE NO. 3: 10. The evidence of the witnesses of the defendant would not be material to consider in view of the fact that the valid execution of the will itself is not proved. Hence issue No.3 is not required to be answered. ISSUE NO. 4: 11. 9. Consequently Issue Nos.1 & 2 are answered in the negative. ISSUE NO. 3: 10. The evidence of the witnesses of the defendant would not be material to consider in view of the fact that the valid execution of the will itself is not proved. Hence issue No.3 is not required to be answered. ISSUE NO. 4: 11. This Court, in its Testamentary and Intestate Jurisdiction, is not required to go into the title of the deceased to the various assets and properties which can be gone into only by a Civil Court. Hence issue No.4 is also not required to be answered. ISSUE NOS. 5, 6 & 7: 12. The probate of the will of the deceased Shakuntala Mansen Damodardas Bhansali is refused. The Testamentary Suit and Testamentary Petition are dismissed. ORDER: 1. The last will and testament of the deceased Shakuntala Mansen Damodardas Bhansali has not been validly proved. 2. The suit as well as testamentary petition are dismissed. 3. Drawn up decree of dismissal is dispensed with. 4. In view of the dismissal of the testamentary suit for want of proof of the valid execution of the will, the Notice of Motion No. 128 of 2012 does not survive and is dismissed as such.