The Court held that the Will was validly executed, the deceased was of sound mind at the time of execution, the Will was not unnatural, and the Defendant failed to prove that the Plaintiffs unduly influenced the deceased in the making of his Will.

G.S. PATEL, J.

1. Rajendra Singh Kushwaha (Rajendra, the Testator the deceased) died in Mumbai on 18th December 2009. The Plaintiffs are his elder son, Jitendra; Jitendra’s wife, Suman and their daughter, Nisha. All three Plaintiffs are Executors named in Rajendra’s Will dated 10th May 2006. They seek probate to this Will. They are opposed by Rajendra’s younger son, Jitendra’s brother, Suresh.

2. Rajendra’s wife, Damayanti, died before him in 1985. She bequeathed her entire estate to Rajendra, her husband. Rajendra and Damayanti had five children, three daughters and two sons. The three daughters, Prafulla Devendrapal Singh Chauhan (Prafulla), Aruna Dinesh Jayant (Aruna) and Bina Nishikant Singh Chauhan (Bina) are all married and have children. Jitendra and Suman have four children: Nisha (Plaintiff No. 3), Ajit, Manisha and Anjali. Suresh (Rajendra and Damayanti’s younger son; Jitendra’s brother) is married to Nita Suresh Kushwaha (Nita). They have two children, Yashraj and Swati.

3. Rajendra was a practicing advocate till the 1960’s, and it shows: the alleged Will is punctilious, and meticulously organized. It has eight sections, styled as paragraphs. The first paragraph “Myself and My Sound Mind” as its heading suggests, declares the document to be his last Will, made in sound health and state of mind and without any influence. Paragraph II, “I Have Not Made Any Will” states that the document is his first and last Will. In paragraph III, “All My Properties Are Self-Acquired” he makes it clear that all of his property is capable of being bequeathed in his Will. He outlines in IV “Nobody Has Any Interest or Title in My Properties” the previous gifts that he has made to his relatives, and reiterates that all of his property is self-acquired. In paragraph V, “My Family” he lists his immediate heirs. Paragraph VI, “My Properties” lists all of his properties, both movable and immovable, a total of 13 entries. In paragraph VII, “Appointment of Executors and Their Duties” he appoints Jitendra, Suman and Nisha, the Plaintiffs, as the Executors and Administrators of his Will and lists their rights and duties. In the eighth and final paragraph, “Directions” he makes his bequests.

4. Most relevant for our purposes are Clauses 5 and 6. In Clause 5, he states that he has given instructions to Jitendra about the amounts to be given to each of his relatives; these amounts are not set out in the Will itself. In Clause 6, he bequeaths all of his property, subject to the various conditions enumerated in paragraph VI(2), to Jitendra; if Jitendra predeceases him or dies before he can take charge of the properties, they are to go to Suman and if both predecease him, they are to go to Ajit, Jitendra’s son.

5. The attesting witnesses to the alleged Will were one Dhirajlal Ramaji Kothari (Dhirajlal), a Chartered Accountant, and one Dr. Shashikant Rasikbhai Kothari (Dr. Kothari), a doctor. The Plaintiffs say that the Will was registered before the Sub-Registrar of Assurances under Serial No. 6489/2006.

6. The Petition for probate was filed on 29th July 2010. Suresh entered a Caveat on 23rd August 2011 with an accompanying Affidavit in Support dated 29th August 2011. The Petition was then renumbered as a suit, to be tried as such. Suresh was, for some reason, also allowed to file a ‘Written Statement’ on 31st October 2011, though there is no such procedure prescribed. In any case, this is verbatim his Affidavit in Support.

7. In his opposition (the Affidavit in Support of the Caveat and the Written Statement), Suresh alleges that the signature on the alleged Will is not that of Rajendra, his deceased father; that Rajendra was not of sound mind; that the properties Rajendra purported to distribute were not his self-acquired properties and thus were not his to bequeath; and that the Will was procured by undue influence.

8. Issues were framed on 23rd A