R.S. Dalvi, J.

1. The plaintiff is the grand son of the deceased, one B.M. Bhathena who executed a will dated 27th November, 1985 and who expired on 25th May, 1989. The plaintiff has sought to probate the will. The deceased left behind one son and two daughters as his only heirs. They would be entitled to an equal 1/3rd share in the estate of the deceased on intestacy. The plaintiff is the son of one of the daughters. The son of the deceased challenged the will of the deceased sought to be probated by the plaintiff. He is survived by the defendants. The estate of the deceased consists essentially of one bungalow at 4 -bungalows, Andheri, Versova, Mumbai. The defendant / caveator was residing in the said bungalow. The deceased was also earlier residing in the said bungalow. After 1970 it is disputed whether the deceased lived in the said bungalow. The deceased lived in Pune. One of his daughters also lived in Pune.

2. The defendant has contended that the signatures of the deceased on pages 1 and 2 are forged. He has shown some inaccuracies in the will. He claims that the will is not genuine will of the deceased and is forged. The main contention of the defendant is that pages 1 and 2 of the will do not bear signatures of the testator. The affidavit in support of the caveat does not show the specific case of the defendant that the signature in the execution clause of the will is not the signature of the deceased as has been his case with regard to the two other signatures on pages 1 and 2 of the will. The defendant would contend that the signature in the execution clause was obtained on a blank paper and the document was thereafter prepared. Upon such pleadings the following issues have been framed which are answered as follows :

ISSUES

1 Does the plaintiff prove the will dated 27th November, 1985 is last will and Testament of late B M Bhatena. Yes

2 Do the defendants prove that the will dated 27th November, 1985 purported to have been executed by late B M Bhatena is forged. No

3 What order? As per final order

3. The plaintiff has examined himself and one attesting witness. The defendant has examined himself and one handwriting expert. The defendant has relied upon several admitted signatures of the plaintiff and sought to compare the signatures on pages 1 and 2 of the will. Upon aforesaid oral and documentary the above issues have to be decided.

Re -execution of the will

ISSUE NO.1

4. The will of the deceased is typewritten. It runs in three pages. It is prepared in the lawyers office. It is signed by one lawyer and the managing clerk of the lawyer who prepared it. It is deposited with the sub registrar of assurances. The deceased is stated to have been gone with the plaintiff to the office of the senior advocate Mr. P L Nain who drafted the will. The will has been attested by his colleague advocate Ms. K C Nichani and his managing clerk Ms. N S Mistry.

5. The plaintiff evidence shows that the will has been duly executed. The plaintiff's cross examination would show that the plaintiff knew advocate Ms. K C Nichani, who is one of the attesting witnesses. The plaintiff has been extensively cross examined upon his acquaintance with the said advocate. His cross examination shows that he did not remember when he met Ms. Nichani for the first time but that she was junior of Mr. P L Nain. She had filed company petition on his behalf. He did not know about separate litigations of his grandfather, the deceased. His grandfather, the deceased had been to his advocate's office on several occasions including when the deceased executed his will.

6. The attesting witness has deposed about the specific attestation of the will in the presence of the deceased. She had typed the document upon the draft being prepared. She was known to the draftsman of the will as also the other attesting witnesses. They all worked in the same office. She identified the signatures of the deceased, other advocate as also her signature in due execution and attestation o