A. INTRODUCTORY

1. The Plaintiff is the executor of a Will dated 16th March 1977 said to have been left by one Rameshchandra Jamnadas Dalal (“Ramesh”). The beneficiaries of the Will are Ramesh’s wife, Nayana, since deceased, their son, Sanjay; and their daughter, Varsha, the Defendant. As the following judgment will show, the opposition to the probate entered by Varsha is limited.

2. I have heard both Mr. Pai for the Defendant and Mr. Shah for the Plaintiff at some length and, with their assistance, considered the material on record. In my judgment, and for the reasons that follow, I have not been able to find a tenable basis for the opposition. I have decreed the Suit and allowed the Petition for probate.

3. Mr. Pai has taken a plea of limitation, on which a separate issue was framed, and I propose to address that before I proceed to a consideration of the evidence and the other issues. On this issue, too, I have found for the Plaintiff and against the Defendant.

B. THE DALAL FAMILY

4. Ramesh died on 12th August 1979, a little over two years after he made his Will. He died young, at the age of 48. It seems that Ramesh was not doing very well in his cotton and other businesses when he died. He left a fairly modest estate with substantial debts. The family then lived in a flat on the third floor of building known as Babulnath View at Babulnath, Mumbai 400 007, between the Babulnath Temple to the east and the city’s Chowpatty Beach to the west. The flat, too, was (and is) by no means a luxury apartment, admeasuring only about 800 sq ft. At the time when Ramesh died, Sanjay was about 16 years old. Varsha was a couple of years younger.

C. THE WILL DATED 16TH MARCH 1977

5. The Will in question is a typewritten four-page document with a docket. The date “16th” is handwritten on the docket and on page 4. We find Ramesh’s signature against the execution clause on page 4. Below this are the signatures of the two attesting witnesses, Uma Motilal Dalal (“Uma”) and Gita Vs. Aroskar, née Gita Motilal Dalal (“Gita”). Uma and Gita were sisters. They were Ramesh’s paternal cousins, the daughters of his father’s brother, Motilal Karsondas Dalal. Uma died before she could give evidence of execution of the Will. Gita gave that evidence. One peculiar feature of the Will is that the witnesses’ and Ramesh’s signatures also appear on page 2 but not on pages 1 or 3. There are handwritten corrections on pages 1 (in Clause 2), page 2 (in Clause 7), and a typewritten correction on page 4 (in Clause 9). Ramesh has initialled in the margins of the document against each of these corrections. He has also initialled against the handwritten date “16th” that appears on page 4.

6. The Will appoints Ramesh’s wife Nayana, one Manubhai Gokuldas Shroff (Motilal Dalal’s son-in-law; he was married to Uma and Gita’s sister, Vasantika) and Ramesh’s friend Suresh Manilal Mehta (the Plaintiff/Petitioner) as Executors and Trustees. The second capacity is of some consequence to the later provisions. A peculiar feature of Clause 1 of the will - the one that appoints executors - is an unambiguous expression by Ramesh of his desire that no member of his own father’s family, that of Jamnadas Karsondas Dalal, or Jayantilal Maniklal or Bhaidas Maniklal or their families be in any way engaged with the executors or trustees. These persons are not to “intermeddle” with his estate. The evidence before me does not indicate why such a clause was necessary or what the historical context to this might have been. What we can gather, however, from this clause read with Clause 4, which contains a direction to the executors and trustees to act in consultation with and under advice from his paternal uncle Motilal (the attesting witnesses’ father), is that there was some discord or distancing between Ramesh and his own father. Clause 4 in fact makes a further provision that should Motil