JUDGMENT I.P. Mukerji, J.: INTRODUCTION 1. Mrs. Bhagwati Talwar lived mostly in Kolkata. Her residence was at 8 Dover Park, Kolkata-19. She also resided, sometimes in New Delhi where her home was at 6, Kautilya Marg, Chanakyapuri. 2. She had two sons, Sudesh Chander and Jagdish Chander and two daughters, both married, Mrs. Neena Sarin and Mrs. Kuku Narang. 3. Mrs. Kuku Narang died prematurely, on 12th May, 1979. 4. For whatever reason, Mrs. Neena Sarin and her family resided in Mrs. Talwar's residence in New Delhi for a long time, since September 1977. Mrs. Neena Sarin lived there with her husband Uday and their two daughters, Seema and Reema. Both these daughters are educated and professional women. 5. Mrs. Bhagwati Talwar is said to have made her last Will and Testament on 3rd January, 1995. The document shows attestation by two witnesses, Mr. B.D. Khaitan of 38. Ballygunge Park, Kolkata-19 and Mrs. Sarla Gulati of 36 D, Beniapukur Road, Kolkata-14. 6. The relevant part of the bequest was that the Delhi property was given to her two sons Jagdish Chander and Sudesh Chander and her daughter Mrs. Neena Sarin absolutely in equal shares. But the bequest had a condition. In case Mrs. Neena Sarin died before the testatrix, the property would go to her two sons equally. In case any of the sons died his share would go to his heirs. The testatrix appointed her son Sudesh Chander as the executor of the alleged will. 7. Very unfortunately Mrs. Neena Sarin, did not survive the testatrix. She died on 16th May, 2003. 8. The testatrix died on 29th November, 2006. 9. The executor obtained probate of the Will, from this Court, in common form, on 18th December, 2007, the formal document being issued on 10th January, 2008. The probate was granted amongst other things on the basis of consent affidavits sworn by Seema and Reema Sarin. Now, Seema and Reema Sarin come up before this Court, challenging the grant of probate, urging that the will be proved by the executor, in solemn form. MORE DETAILS 10. Now, the facts leading up to the grant of probate and its challenge in this Court have to be examined. 11. On 6th September, 2007, Mr. Sudesh Talwar wrote to Ms. Seema Sarin that an affidavit (draft) was enclosed with the letter in connection with "Mummy's probate". MORE DETAILS 10. Now, the facts leading up to the grant of probate and its challenge in this Court have to be examined. 11. On 6th September, 2007, Mr. Sudesh Talwar wrote to Ms. Seema Sarin that an affidavit (draft) was enclosed with the letter in connection with "Mummy's probate". She had to get the affidavit "notorised in Delhi" and return it as soon as possible. It was also mentioned that she could retain an enclosed copy thereof. As this letter is of great importance, in my opinion, I read it in full : " 6th September, 2007 Seema Sarin 6, Kautilya Marg Chanakyapuri New Delhi-110 021 Dear Seema, Enclose herewith an affidavit which I need you to sign (full signature i.e. Seema Sarin) and fill in the date (in the places marked with pencil). Please get this affidavit notarized in Delhi and send it back to me as soon as possible. I require this for Mummy's probate. (I need the green paper' one back and the white paper one is a photocopy for you to keep.) Lots of love, Yours affectionately, Shudu Mama" 12. The draft consent affidavit appended to the letter, according to its contents, was being filed in a proceeding marked as PLA 324 of 2007 in this High Court in its Testamentary and Intestate jurisdiction. In the cause title part of the affidavit it was spelt out that it was a testamentary matter relating to Bhagwati Talwar. The draft affidavit disclosed that apart from Mrs. Seema Sarin. Bhagwati Talwar had left behind Jagdish and Sudesh Talwar, her sons, Ms. Navina Punj and Mr. Devinder Raj Narang, daughter and son respectively of the deceased daughter of Bhagwati Talwar, Kuku Narang and Ms. Reema Sarin, as her natural heirs. Furthermore, Bhagwati Talwar had left behind her last Will and Testament dated 3rd January, 1995. Ms. Reema Sarin had no objection to the grant of probate of this Will granted to Mr. Sudesh Talwar, the executor. An identical draft affidavit was also prepared for the signing of Ms. Reema Sarin. 13. Ms. Seema Sarin affirmed this affidavit before a Notary in Delhi on 17th September, 2007. Ms. Reema Sarin affirmed the affidavit on 18th September, 2007 before a Hyderabad Notary. 14. On 16th October, 2007 the above application for grant of probate was affirmed in this High Court. It was accompanied inter alia by the above consent affidavits. Reema Sarin. 13. Ms. Seema Sarin affirmed this affidavit before a Notary in Delhi on 17th September, 2007. Ms. Reema Sarin affirmed the affidavit on 18th September, 2007 before a Hyderabad Notary. 14. On 16th October, 2007 the above application for grant of probate was affirmed in this High Court. It was accompanied inter alia by the above consent affidavits. The other natural heirs also swore similar consent affidavits. One of the attesting witnesses Mrs. Sarla Gulati filed an affidavit testifying due execution of the Will. Mrs. Sarla Gulati now lives in Mumbai and the affidavit was attested by a Notary of that City. I would like to mention that the other attesting witness Mr. B.D. Khaitan died on 27th May, 1996. 15. On 18th December, 2007 this Court granted probate of this Will. 16. On 10th January, 2008, the original Probate was issued by this High Court. 17. Nothing significant happened for more than two years. 18. By an undated letter which appears to be of 6th May, 2010 from the reference made to it by another letter, the two uncles of the applicants wrote to them as well as their father Mr. Uday Sarin to vacate the property in Delhi. On 13th May, 2010 a certified copy of the probate was sent by Mr. Sudesh Chander Talwar to the applicants and their father. It appears from this letter that the latter wanted this document. 19. On 11th June, 2010, the applicants jointly wrote to their uncles alleging fraud, for the first time. They said that they were not aware of any Will of their grandmother and alleged that the Will dated 3rd January, 1995 was a forgery. The Delhi property was always managed by their father. They declared themselves to be the legal heirs of Bhagwati Talwar, in possession of that property. Their letter was replied to by the advocates for Sudesh and Jagdish Talwar, M/s. Khaitan and Company on 21th June, 2010, denying everything and asking them to vacate the property. After about two months came the reply of the applicants. They wrote back that they never had any idea that their uncles were seeking probate of a Will with regard to the Delhi property. They were told that the Will was about movables of which probate was sought. Believing the uncles, they signed the documents sent by Mr. Sudesh Talwar. 20. They wrote back that they never had any idea that their uncles were seeking probate of a Will with regard to the Delhi property. They were told that the Will was about movables of which probate was sought. Believing the uncles, they signed the documents sent by Mr. Sudesh Talwar. 20. On 14th September, 2010, the uncles of the applicants filed a suit in the Delhi High Court against them and their father for a decree for possession of the Delhi property. On 15th September, 2010, an ex parte order of injunction was passed by that Court restraining the applicants and their father from creating any interest in the property. 21. On 17th November, 2010, this application was filed for revocation of the grant of probate. 22. Two more facts need to be told. 23. It was alleged that Neena Sarin was gifted, at the time of her marriage, a property at Delhi which was premises No. R- 53, Greater Kailash Part- I, New Delhi 110048. This was subsequently sold. The necessary pleadings are in paragraphs 3 (r), (s) and (t) of the affidavit-in-opposition of the executor Mr. Sudesh Chander Talwar, which are inserted below: "3. r) Both Kuku Narang and Neena Sarin had been sufficiently provided for by my father late Shive Charan Laul Talwar both at the time of their wedding as well as subsequent thereto. Neena Sarin was the owner of the premises No. R-53, Greater Kailash, Part- I, New Delhi 110048. s) It is pertinent to note that during the life time of Neena Sarin the property at Greater Kailash, New Delhi was let out by Sarins while they stayed in the house at Chanakyapuri as guests. t) The said property which had been gifted to Neena Sarin has been subsequently disposed of by the applicants and Uday Sarin soon after her demise." Dealing with this paragraph the applicants stated in paragraph 22 of their reply that the property had been purchased by the father of Neena Sarin for her prior to her marriage. This is what the applicants said in paragraph 22 of their reply: "22. With reference to paragraph No. 3(r) of the said affidavit, we deny and dispute each and every contention and/or allegation, save and except, what are the matters of record and save, those are specifically admitted herein by us. This is what the applicants said in paragraph 22 of their reply: "22. With reference to paragraph No. 3(r) of the said affidavit, we deny and dispute each and every contention and/or allegation, save and except, what are the matters of record and save, those are specifically admitted herein by us. It is strongly denied that Neena Sarin has been sufficiently provided by her father Late Shive Charan Lal Talwar at the time of her wedding as well as subsequently therto. We say that the premises No. R/53, Greater Kailash Phase-I, New Delhi was purchased by her father in the name of Neena Sarin prior to her marriage, but not at the time of marriage or thereafter." After filing of this application, the applicants brought forward a supplementary affidavit of Ms. Navina Kunj, the daughter of the other predeceased daughter of the testatrix, Kuku Narang, disputing the Will. The supplementary affidavit was affirmed on 20th December, 2011. GROUNDS OF CHALLENGE: 24. The first ground on which the applicants attack the probate is fraud. The uncles practised fraud on them. They believed that their uncle Mr. Sudesh Chander Talwar was seeking probate of the Will of their grandmother with regard to the movables only. The Will was not sent with the letter of 6th September, 2007. Only a draft consent affidavit was sent to them for signature. In this belief they signed the affidavit before the Notary. They did not, for a moment believe that the Will of their grandmother related to the Delhi property. 25. They, along with their parents, were in occupation of this property since 1977. Their father always managed the property. They believed that the property belonged to them and would never be dealt with otherwise by their grandmother. 26. The will produced by the executor and probated by this Court was a product of fraud. It is a forged document. The signature of the alleged testatrix on the Will is not that of their grandmother. They referred the signatures in the Will to a handwriting expert to obtain a report as to its genuineness. It was referred to an organisaiton called Truth Lab, which was part of another organisation Truth Foundation. This organisaiton made a report on 3rd June, 2010. The signature of the alleged testatrix on the Will is not that of their grandmother. They referred the signatures in the Will to a handwriting expert to obtain a report as to its genuineness. It was referred to an organisaiton called Truth Lab, which was part of another organisation Truth Foundation. This organisaiton made a report on 3rd June, 2010. Ten admitted signatures of Bhagwati Talwar in 1960 and 1986 were forwarded to this organisaiton together with four disputed signatures which were described as "questioned signatures" allegedly made on the Will in 1995. According to this agency there was considerable discrepancy between the disputed and admitted signatures. 27. I will refer to the decisions cited on behalf of the applicants later. 28. On the other hand, Mr. Abhrajit Mitra, learned Advocate for the respondent submitted that the applicants were educated and professional women. When the draft consent affidavit was sent to them, they were in a position to understand their contents and implication. They were fully aware of the last Will and Testament of their grandmother Bhagwati Talwar. With their eyes open they had signed the consent affidavits. Now, after three years of signing the consent affidavits and more that 2½ years of obtaining probate, they could not turn around and say in this application that they did not intend to give consent to the grant of probate. They were fully aware of what they were signing and should be bound by their act. 29. Moreover, another property as mentioned above was given to Neena Sarin which has since been disposed of. Since that property was given to the daughter the disputed property at Delhi was devised substantially to the sons of the testatrix. 30. The will was attested by two very respectable persons. One of them Mrs. Gulati, who now lives in Bombay, has attested the Will as well as filed an affidavit, testifying that the will was duly executed by Bhagwati Talwar. Bhagwati Talwar's signature on the will is genuine. 31. The probate which was granted in common form, should not be reopened. 32. The applicants along with their father had claimed title and possession of the property by adverse possession in the Delhi Suit. One who claims title to a property by adverse possession should not be allowed to contest a will made by another person also claiming title to the property. 32. The applicants along with their father had claimed title and possession of the property by adverse possession in the Delhi Suit. One who claims title to a property by adverse possession should not be allowed to contest a will made by another person also claiming title to the property. I will refer to the authorities cited on behalf of the respondent later. DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS: 33. It is most important to note the law on the subject. The Indian Succession Act, 1925 and the Original Side Rules of this Court govern grant of probate by this Court. 34. Section 281 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 provides that an application for grant of probate shall be accompanied by a declaration by one of the attesting witnesses to the will when such witness is procurable. The language of the section is that the petition should be verified by one such witness. The form of declaration to be made in this verification is also provided in that section. The witness must have seen the testator affix his signature or mark on the Will. Our Court follows the practice of an attesting witness swearing and filing an affidavit to this effect. 35. Section 283 (1) (c) of the Act gives discretion to the judge to issue citations upon all persons having an interest in the estate of the deceased. This citation is called general citation if it is put up in some conspicuous part of the Court house as provided in section 283 (2) of the Act or it may be special if it is served individually on all these persons, also contemplated in section 283 (2). Usually the procedure followed in all Courts is that both general and special citations are issued to the persons referred to in section 283 (1) (c) of the Act. These persons are said to be having a caveatable interest. 36. Our Court has developed the practice of granting probate in common form. It follows the English practice of grant of probate in common form with important modifications, as noted by me in the case of Bharat Kumar Amritlal Sayani & Ors. vs. Jayantilal Kalidas Sayani & Ors. reported in (2012) 1 CLT 234 (HC) cited by both learned Counsel. 36. Our Court has developed the practice of granting probate in common form. It follows the English practice of grant of probate in common form with important modifications, as noted by me in the case of Bharat Kumar Amritlal Sayani & Ors. vs. Jayantilal Kalidas Sayani & Ors. reported in (2012) 1 CLT 234 (HC) cited by both learned Counsel. In the English system of granting probate in common form, the executor declares before the Court that the will that he seeks to propound is the genuine will of the maker. Believing this assertion to be true, in good faith, the Court grants probate, in common form without issuing notice to any heirs of the deceased or any person interested in his estate. 37. But this grant of probate is immediately suspended if any person interested in the grant approaches the Court for revocation of the grant. The executor is asked to prove the will in solemn form (See Ashok Kothari vs. Dipti Bavishi reported in AIR 2007 Cal 21 ) cited by Mr. Reetobroto Mitra, for the applicants. 38. In our Court when probate is granted in common form, we have modified the English system to the requirements of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. In this process we have developed our own practice of granting probate in common form. The adaptation is that issuance of general and special citations is dispensed with if all the heirs on intestacy file affidavits consenting to the grant of probate to the executor. The heirs on intestacy are declared by the executor in the body of the application for grant of probate. (See Chapter XXXV Rule 5 (a) of the Original Side rules) Moreover, one of the attesting witnesses to the will has to file an affidavit making the declaration mentioned in Section 281. In addition, an undertaking has to be filed by the petitioner executor that there are no other persons interested in the grant of probate, apart from the heirs on intestacy mentioned in the application. On receipt of this evidence, the grant of probate in common form is made by this Court. 39. The impugned probate was also granted in common form by this Court. 40. On receipt of this evidence, the grant of probate in common form is made by this Court. 39. The impugned probate was also granted in common form by this Court. 40. In the case of Ashok Kothari vs. Dipti Bavishi reported in AIR 2007 Cal 21 (Supra), the question was about the objection of an heir of the testator, who claimed not to have received the citation. This heir lived in the U.S.A. The housekeeper or maid had refused to accept service. On this refusal to accept service, the Court recorded good service. The heir did not lodge a caveat. The Court proceeded to grant probate in common form, after treating the grant as a non-contentious cause. It was not a case of an heir who tried to challenge the grant of probate after filing a consent affidavit. In those circumstances the Court, after noting the English practice and our practice directed the propounder to prove, the will in solemn form. 41. I had also held in the case Bharat Kumar Amritlal Sayani & Ors. vs. Jayantilal Kalidas Sayani & Ors. reported in (2012) 1 CLT 234 (HC) that when probate has been granted on the basis of consent affidavits, an heir signifying consent can only resile from such consent if it was shown that the consent was vitiated by fraud or coercion or misrepresentation or any other like circumstance vitiating consent. In the case of Wajid Ali (Deceased) And Shahjad Ahmed vs. State Bank of India, Employees Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. reported in 2012 (2) CHN (Cal) 760 this Court had held that apart from the above grounds if there was any doubt in the mind of the Court regarding execution of the will it would revoke the probate. This judgment only followed the dicta of the Supreme Court in Anil Behari Ghosh vs. Smt. Latika Bala Dassi and Others reported in AIR 1955 SC 566 and our division bench judgment in Promode Kumar Roy vs. Sephalika Dutta reported in AIR 1957 Cal 631 . These three cases were cited by Mr. R. Mitra. 42. These grounds are also recognised in section 263 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 dealing with revocation or annulment of probate. 43. Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 is inserted below: "263. These three cases were cited by Mr. R. Mitra. 42. These grounds are also recognised in section 263 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 dealing with revocation or annulment of probate. 43. Section 263 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 is inserted below: "263. Revocation or annulment for just cause.- The grant of probate or letters of administration may be revoked or annulled for just cause. Explanation.-Just cause shall be deemed to exist where- (a) the proceedings to obtain the grant were defective in substance; or (b) the grant was obtained fraudulently by making a false suggestion, or by concealing from the Court something material to the case; or (c) the grant was obtained by means of an untrue allegation of a fact essential in point of law to justify the grant, though such allegation was made in ignorance or inadvertently; or (d) the grant has become useless and inoperative through circumstances; or (e) the person to whom the grant was made has willfully and without reasonable cause omitted to exhibit an inventory or account in accordance with the provisions of Chapter VII of this Par, or has exhibited under that Chapter an inventory or account which is untrue in a material respect." 44. At least grounds (a), (b) and (c) will apply to revocation of probate in common form. 45. Now the question is: whether the circumstances as brought out in the application for revocation of the grant of probate warrant its revocation or suspension? 46. The applicants are well educated. They are professional women. The evidence brought forward before this Court shows that their consent was sought by their uncle to obtain probate of the Will of their grandmother. Both of them signed the affidavits before Notaries. Not only they, the other legal heirs of the testatrix, also swore similar affidavits. 47. There was no concealment in the documents sent by Mr. Sudesh Talwar to the applicants. The letter dated 6th September, 2007 said that documents were being sent in connection with "Mummy's Probate". The applicants understood and there is no dispute about this that it related to the probate of the Will of their grandmother. The draft consent affidavits stated that the applicants had no objection to the grant of this probate. Now, a case is sought to be made out that the applicants believed that the probate related to a Will devising movable properties only. The draft consent affidavits stated that the applicants had no objection to the grant of this probate. Now, a case is sought to be made out that the applicants believed that the probate related to a Will devising movable properties only. I do not accept this contention. When such a document is sent to an educated person, he is immediately put to enquiry. If the applicants thought that the probate was of a Will relating to movables they should have enquired from their executor uncle. They did not even ask for a copy of the Will. They signed the consent affidavits. Only after the letter of 13th May, 2010 of the executor asking the applicants and their father to vacate the property that the applicants asked for a copy of the Will. Only thereafter they alleged that the Will was forged. In fact Mr. Sudesh Talwar in his letter dated 6th September, 2007 asked the first applicant to retain a copy of the consent affidavit. A similar letter was written to the second applicant. This is quite clear indication of good intention. 48. There is nothing on record to show that any fraud or coercion or misrepresentation was practised on any of the applicants. Neither was there any mistake on their part. In fact, the authorities cited before me are quite clear that it is the duty of a person to read and understand a document before signing it. It is also the duty of a person to be very careful in signing a blank document for other persons to fill up its contents. Normally, in such cases a person cannot deny his liability under the document. In the case of Saunders vs. Anglia Building Society reported in [1970] 3 ALL ER 961 before the House of Lords, cited by Mr. Abhrajit Mitra, Lord Wilberforce remarked as follows: "In my opinion, the correct rule, and that which in fact prevailed until Bragg's case is that, leaving aside negotiable instruments to which special rules may apply, a person who signs a document, and parts with it so that it may come into other hands, has a responsibility, that of the normal man of prudence, to take care what he signs, which if neglected, prevents him from denying his liability under the document according to its tenor. I would add that the onus of proof in this matter rests on him i.e. to prove that he acted carefully, and not on the third party to prove the contrary. I consider therefore that Carlisle and Cumberland Banking Co vs. Bragg was wrong, both in the principle it states and in its decision, and that it should no longer be cited as an authority for any purpose." 49. This principle of law was adopted by the Court of Appeal in the case of United Dominions Trust Ltd. vs. Western and another reported in [1975] 3 ALL ER 1017. It was endorsed by our Supreme Court in the case of Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna And Others vs. M/s Green Rubber Industries And others reported in (1990) 1 SCC 731 , also cited by Mr. Abhrajit Mitra. In this passage the Supreme Court opined as follows: "It is settled law that a person who signs a document which contains contractual terms is normally bound by them even though he has not read them, even though he is ignorant of the precise legal effect. In view of clause 4 having formed one of the stipulations in the contract along with others it cannot be said to be nudum pactum and the maxim nudum pactum ex quo non oritur actio does not apply. 50. But in my opinion the case which very clearly applies to the facts and circumstances of the case is M/s. Grasim Industries Ltd. & Anr. Vs. M/s. Agarwal Steel reported in AIR 2010 SC (Supp) 291 cited by Mr. Abhrajit Mitra. In paragraph 5 the Supreme Court opined: "In our opinion, when a person signs a document, there is a presumption, unless there is proof of force or fraud, that he has read the document properly and understood it and only them he has affixed his signatures thereon, otherwise no signature on a document can ever be accepted. In particular, businessmen, being careful people (since their money is involved) would have ordinarily read and understood a document before signing it. Hence the presumption would be even stronger in their case. There is no allegation or force or fraud in this case. Hence it is difficult to accept the contention of the respondent while admitting that the document Ex. D-8 bears his signatures that it was signed under some mistake. Hence the presumption would be even stronger in their case. There is no allegation or force or fraud in this case. Hence it is difficult to accept the contention of the respondent while admitting that the document Ex. D-8 bears his signatures that it was signed under some mistake. We cannot agree with the view of the High Court on this question. On this ground alone, we allow this appeal, set aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and remand the matter to the High Court for expeditious disposal in accordance with law." 51. Moreover, I find that on 6th May, 2010, the two uncles of the applicants wrote to them to vacate the property in Delhi. By their letter of 13th May, 2010 the, executor uncle sent a copy of the grant of probate. After about a month, on 11th June, 2010, the applicants wrote back that they were unaware of the Will and that the will was forged. 52. The applicants took nearly two months' time to reply to the subsequent, letter dated 21st June, 2010 by their uncles. The reply was made on 12th August, 2010. It was only after the civil suit filed by the uncles in the Delhi High Court on 14th September, 2009 and an ex parte order passed therein on 15th September, 2010 that the instant application for revocation of grant was filed in this Court on 17th September, 2010. 53. Moreover, to satisfy my conscience, I have carefully examined the signatures of Bhagwati Talwar on the Will. I have compared this signature with the admitted signatures of Bhagwati Talwar in the report of the document examiner dated 3rd June, 2010 produced by the petitioner. I find that the signatures on the Will are absolutely similar to the signatures described as "standard" or the "admitted" signatures of Bhagwati Talwar. In fact the "questioned" signatures in the report do not match the actual signatures on the Will. Therefore, there is no doubt created in the mind of the Court as spoken about by Supreme Court in the case of Anil Behari Ghosh vs. Smt. Latika Bala Dassi and Others reported in AIR 1955 SC 566 , Promode Kumar Roy vs. Sephalika Dutta reported in AIR 1957 Cal 631 and Wajid Ali (Deceased) And Shahjad Ahmed vs. State Bank of India, Employees Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. reported in 2012 (2) CRN (Cal) 760. 54. 54. Furthermore, I have no reason to disbelieve the affidavit of the attesting witness Mrs. Sarla Gulati. 55. For all the above reasons I would dismiss this application. Order accordingly. 56. Urgent certified photocopy of this judgment and decree, if applied for, to be provided upon the usual undertaking.