1. The Plaintiff is a grandson of the deceased, Lady Jena Jamshedji Duggan. He has applied for Letters of Administration (L.A) with the Will of the deceased annexed thereto dated 4th April 1993 as the Executors mentioned under the Will have renounced their Executorship. The Defendant is the wife of the predeceased son of the deceased. The constituted attorney of the Plaintiff who is his mother initially applied for L.A. She has since expired. The Plaintiff himself has sued thereafter. Initially the Defendant was not shown as the heir of the deceased. L.A were granted. L.A have been revoked upon the Petition of the Defendant in that behalf. Thereafter the Defendant has filed her Caveat.

2. It is the case of the Defendant in her affidavit in support of the Caveat that the Will has not been validly executed and that there are strong suspicious circumstances casting doubt upon the genuineness of the Will. She has also contended that the deceased was not in a sound state of mind and was hospitalized soon after the execution of the Will. She has further contended that the Will was executed by fraud or undue influence or importunity and is not natural.

3. Based upon the aforesaid pleadings issues came to be framed in this Suit by Justice Abhay S. Oka on 8th August 2007 as follows and which are answered as follows:

ISSUES FINDINGS

1. Whether the writing dated 4th April 1993 is the validly executed Will of deceased Lady Jena Duggan. Yes

2. Whether the deceased Lady Jena Duggan was in sound and disposing state of mind at the time of execution of the said writing dated 4th April 1994. Yes

3. Whether the Defendant proves that at the relevant time the testator of the Will was not in sound and disposing state of mind. No

4. Whether the writing dated 4th April 1993 has been obtained by fraud and undue influence as alleged in para 7 of affidavit in support of caveat. No

5. What relief ? As per final order.

6. What Order ? As per final order.

4. The Plaintiff has sought to prove the Will of the deceased through the affidavit of examination-in-chief of one of the attesting witnesses who is an Advocate of this Court. The other attesting witness has admittedly expired. The Plaintiff has not led evidence himself. He has not led evidence of any other witness. Counsel on behalf the Plaintiff sought to rely upon an affidavit of a Doctor who is a General Practitioner and who was stated to be the family Doctor of the deceased, which was filed on 30th November 1994, in Misc. Petition No.16/1994 for revocation of the Letters of Administration granted earlier. The Doctor has since expired. His death certificate has been produced.

5. The Defendant has led evidence of herself, a friend of the deceased and another Doctor. The Defendant has essentially contended that the deceased was not in a sound state of mind and was unduly influenced by the Plaintiff in executing her Will which largely benefits the Plaintiff; in fact he is almost a sole beneficiary of her estate. The friend of the deceased has been examined to show the mental state of the deceased during the period prior to the execution of the Will and thereafter. The Doctor who has been examined was known to the deceased more as a friend than as her Doctor. He is examined also to show her state of health. He has visited her twice, examined her once and refrained from treating her after his initial prescription.

6. The Plaintiff has relied upon the Will itself, a duplicate copy of the Will endorsed by a Special Executive Magistrate (SEM), the death certificate of the deceased as also her family Doctor and copies of certain correspondence and certain legal proceedings between the deceased and the Defendant in the Civil Courts.

7. The Defendant has also relied upon certain correspondence between the parties and their Advocates, the proceedings in the Civil Suits, the death certificate of another Doctor one Dr. Mujumdar and the records of Breach Candy hospital for medical treatment given