G.S. Patel, J.

1. One Babhubhai Chunnilal Patel ("Babubhai") died at Mumbai on 3rd October 2006. He left a Will dated 10th March 2005. The will is registered. Babubhai was married to one Neelaben Babubhai Patel ("Neelaben"). They had three children, two daughters and a son. Both daughters, Sheila Vasu Sumaya ("Sheila") and Bharati Yatin Dossa ("Bharati") are married. Babubhai's and Neelaben's son Shailesh died intestate on 3rd February 2005, i.e., before Babubhai. He was married to one Supriya Shailesh Patel, the Defendant ("Supriya"). Babubhai was thus survived by his widow, Neelaben, his two daughters, and his daughter-in-law, the Defendant. Yatin Dossa, the Plaintiff ("Yatin"), is Babubhai's son-in-law, the husband of his second daughter, Bharati.

2. On 23rd January 2008, Yatin filed the present Testamentary Petition 105 of 2008 for probate to Babubhai's Will. Babubhai's heirs were cited. Neelaben, Sheila and Bharati filed Affidavits of the same date consenting to the grant of Probate. On 29th January 2008, the two attesting witnesses to the Will, one Mr. V. Shanbag and one Mrs. S. Biswas, filed their affidavits accompanying the probate petition.

3. On 27th March 2008, Supriya entered a caveat and, on 4th April 2008, filed an Affidavit in Support of that caveat. In her affidavit, Supriya disputed the execution of the will. She alleged it to be invalid for want of a dispositive state of mind on Babubhai's part, and also alleged undue influence by the Plaintiff, Yatin, Babubhai's son-in-law. She claimed that Babubhai was in extremely poor health and, following Shailesh's death, was in a 'morbid depression'. For some peculiar reason, and despite the fact that the Affidavit in Support of the Caveat is to be treated as a Written Statement, on 15th October 2008 Yatin filed an 'Affidavit in Reply' to the Caveat and this was taken on record.

4. The peculiarities in this trial did not stop there. After the affidavits in lieu of examination-in-chief were filed by the Plaintiff and the attesting witness, Vasudeo Shanbag ("Shanbag"), cross-examination commenced. This was followed by the cross-examination of the Defendant, Supriya.

5. In all this time, issues had not been formally framed and, indeed, it was not till 3rd November 2014, when the matter was placed before me, that this was pointed out. Accordingly, issues were framed on that day. These are set out below with my responses against each.

Sr.No.	Issue	Finding
1.	Does the plaintiff prove that the will dated 10th March 2005 is duly, properly and validity executed by the deceased and the same is duly attested?	Yes
2.	Does the Defendant prove that Will dated 10th March 2005 is executed by the deceased under correction and by exercising undue influence by the Propounder/Plaintiff and hence the said Will dated 10th March 2005 of the deceased is not valid?	No
3	Does the Defendant prove that the deceased did not have disposing mind or necessary mental capacity to make any testamentary disposition and hence the said will dated 10th March 2005 of the deceased is invalid?	No
4.	Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to probate the will as prayed for?	Yes
5.	What order and reliefs?	Suit decreed

6. Before I discuss the issues, I must note that Mr. Kapadia, learned Senior Counsel for the Plaintiff, fairly conceded that the burden of proof of Issue No. 3, i.e., as to the testator's soundness of mind, lay on the Plaintiff and not on the Defendant. Therefore, despite the manner in which it is framed, I have proceeded on the basis that the burden of proving that issue is on the Plaintiff.

RE: ALL ISSUES

7. I do not believe much of significance is to be gained by addressing each issue separately. Clearly, they overlap. At the heart of the dispute lies a narrative of Babubhai's life and,