The burden of proof lies on the propounder to establish the valid execution of the Will, and any legitimate doubts regarding the Will's validity and the testator's free will must be removed. The exclusion of heirs in a Will is not ipso facto suspicious and does not necessarily indicate undue influence.

1. One Achaldas Hirachand Baldota (“Achaldas”) died in Mumbai on 9th January 1997. According to the Petitioner, Madhuri Pukharaj Baldota (“Madhuri”), Achaldas left a validly executed Will dated 26th July 1988. Madhuri is the sole executrix named in the Will, and she seeks to probate it.

2. Achaldasand his wife, Rajubai Baldota (“Rajubai”) had three children: a son, Pukharaj Achaldas Baldota (“Pukharaj”), Madhuri’s husband, and two daughters, Kanta Bansilal Lodha (“Kanta”) and Vasanti Omkarlal Banwat (“Vasanti”). Pukharaj was married first to one Kuntabai, with whom he had two children, Neeta Sumtilal Lodha (“Neeta”) and Sunanda Kamal Jain (“Sunanda”). Both are now married. After Kuntabai’s death, Pukharaj married Madhuri in 1984. Rajubai and Pukharaj both died before Achaldas: Pukharaj died on 10th December 1980 and Rajubai died on 10th February 1990. In other words, Pukharaj died before Achaldas and before he made his Will, while Rajubai died before Achaldas but after he made his Will.

3. Under the Will that Madhuri propounds, Achaldas allegedly revoked and annulled an earlier will made on 24th December 1975, and made certain bequests to his daughter-in-law, Madhuri; to Rajubai; and to the children of Madhuri and Pukharaj, viz., Punit Pukharaj Baldota (“Punit”), Hitesh Pukharaj Baldota (“Hitesh”), Kalpana Deepak Bhatt (“Kalpana”) and Dipika Pukharaj Bhatt (“Dipika”). Achaldas allegedly bequeathed his business, Lalwani Stores, located at Mahavir Building, Ground Floor, Bhandarkar Road, Matunga, Mumbai 400 019, all properties, receipts and payments in respect of the said business, and the tenancy rights of the shop and the godown to his grandsons, Punit and Hitesh, in equal shares. He allegedly bequeathed the building he owned at 191, Pushkaraj Sadan, Station Road, Wadala, Mumbai 400 031, to Madhuri, Punit and Hitesh in equal shares, along with the rent income after the deduction of expenditures, with Rajubai retaining a life interest, i.e., a right of residence on the top floor of the building during her lifetime. A sum of Rs. 50,000/- was allegedly bequeathed to Rajubai. All ornaments, i.e. gold and silver, were allegedly bequeathed to Madhuri, Punit and Hitesh equally, out of which some were to be given to Dipika and Kalpana at the time of their marriages. The remainder was allegedly bequeathed to Madhuri, Punit and Hitesh in equal shares. It was also stated in the alleged Will that if Achaldas’s wife, daughter-in-law or grandsons predeceased him, their property was to be termed “remaining property” and was to devolve in the manner aforesaid, instead of going to their heirs.

4. The Defendants are Omkarlal Daulatram Banwat (“Omkarlal”), Vinay Omkarlal Banwat (“Vinay”) and Abhay Omkarlal Banwat (“Abhay”), some of the heirs of Achaldas’s deceased daughter, Vasanti, who also died after him. They entered a Caveat on 12th October 1999, in which they disputed the execution of the Will. They alleged that the Will was fabricated; that the signature on the Will was not that of Achaldas; that assuming without admitting that the signature was in fact that of Achaldas, he had signed the Will without knowledge of its contents; that he was subjected to undue influence from Madhuri and Punit; and that the Will was unnatural in its exclusion of Kanta, Vasanti, Neeta and Sunanda. Vinay also filed an Affidavit on 22nd February 2012. According to the Defendants, Achaldas died intestate.

5. On the Caveat and Affidavit being filed, the Petition was renumbered as Suit No. 89 of 1999.

6. On these pleadings, issues were struck on 2nd February 2011. These are reproduced below, with my findings against each.