The main legal point established is that a person who signs a document containing contractual terms is bound by them, and the court will not accept claims of duress or lack of understanding of the legal effect of the document without proof of force or fraud.

1. By this petition, petitioner seeks revocation of grant of probate dated 10th May, 2006 issued by this Court in respect of the Will dated 8th November, 2002 of the deceased Mr. Haripada Roy who died on 25th November, 2002. The petitioner is the son of the said deceased.

2. It is not in dispute that one of the executors named in the Will Mr. Subhash Chander Rewari had filed petition (436 of 2005) in this Court inter alia praying for probate of the Will dated 8th November, 2002. Consent affidavits of Mrs. Bani H. Roy, Ms. Shobha Mukherjee and the present petitioner i.e. Mr. Rana H. Roy were filed. Deponents of the affidavits have deposed that they were aware that the said deceased died on 25th November, 2002 and had left a Will dated 8th November, 2002. The deceased had appointed Mrs. Bani H. Roy, Mr. Subhash Chander Rewari and Mr. Durga Shankar Sharma as executrix/executors of the estates of the said deceased and Mr. Subhash Chander Rewari had appointed M/s. Rajani Associates, Advocates and Solicitors to apply for the probate of the estate of the deceased. In paragraph (4) of the said affidavit, deponents including the petitioner gave their no objection and gave their full and free consent that the probate be granted in favour of Mr. Subhash Chander Rewari without service of any citation/notice upon them and without justifying any surety in respect of their share in the estate of the deceased. Signature of the petitioner was identified by the solicitor M/s. Rajani Associates who had filed that petition. In view of the consent affidavit filed by the all the legal heirs of the deceased, this Court granted probate in favour of the executor on 10th May, 2006.

3. The petitioner has filed this petition on 27th June, 2013 inter alia praying for revocation of the grant of probate on various grounds. Mr. Kantawala, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner invited my attention to the grounds raised in the petition. It is submitted that there was gross delay in filing probate petition. Though deceased had expired on 25th November, 2002, probate petition was filed only in the month of April, 2005. It is submitted that though there were three executors appointed under the Will in question, petition came to be filed only by one executor. Mrs. Pratima Choudhary had filed her affidavit whilst other witness Ms. Sushama Rewari has not filed her affidavit as a witness. Learned counsel invited my attention to the Will and testament and submits that the signature of the witnesses is not below the signature of the testator but is on the separate page. My attention is also invited to the affidavit of the attesting witness filed by Ms. Pratima Chaudhary. Learned counsel submits that though in the said affidavit of the attesting witness, it is stated that the attesting witnesses had signed the Will at the foot of the testamentary paper as witness and had alleged that there were initials on each page of the said Will before execution of the Will, no such initials are found on the Will which has alleged to have been witnessed by the said witness. It is submitted that there was already an existing Will on the date of execution of the Will in question which was suppressed by the executor. Learned counsel submits that signature of the deceased on the Will in question and Will dated 16th December, 1995 are different which creates a suspicion of the execution of the Will in question.

4. Learned counsel submits that though the petitioner had signed the consent affidavit, the said affidavit was signed in the circumstances explained in paragraphs 7 and 8 of the petition. Learned counsel would submit that when he signed the consent affidavit, the petitioner did not read the date of the purported Will as 8th November, 2002 which was purely mistake on the part of the petitioner. It is alleged in paragraph (8) that the petitioner was married on 7th May, 1989 and that there were various disputes between the petitioner and his wife during the period when th