A. INTRODUCTORY

1. This contested probate petition is unlike most in one critical, central aspect: neither of the two attesting witnesses to the Will is willing to depose or make an affidavit that accords with the 1st Plaintiff’s version of the due execution of the Will. Specifically, both attesting witnesses deny the presence of the testator at the time they signed the Will; the first, a solicitor of this Court, Mr. Ramesh Makhija, admits only to a telephonic communication with the testator. So does the second attesting witness, one Dr. Vinod Shetty. Neither attesting witness filed an Affidavit in lieu of Examination-in-Chief. Their examinations-in-chief were taken in Court. The Plaintiffs were permitted specifically to put questions to Mr. Makhija in the nature of cross-examination. Similar leave was sought for Dr. Shetty, but I find no record of any specific permission. Both attesting witnesses were then cross-examined by the Defendants.

2. The case turns on a single determinant: whether the attesting witnesses’ evidence, taken as a whole, should be believed. If it i