CONTENTS

A. INTRODUCTION.................................................................. 4

B. FACTS ....................................................................................7

C. THE WILL IN QUESTION ................................................... 9

D. THE CODICIL IN QUESTION ............................................13

E. THE CAVEAT TO THE PROBATE PETITION..................14

F. ISSUES ..................................................................................15

G. THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD ...........................................17

H. RE: ISSUES NOS. 1, 3 AND 4 ...............................................17

I. RE: ISSUE NO.2 ....................................................................33

J. RE: ISSUE NO. 5 .................................................................. 36

K. GENERAL OBSERVATIONS & CONCLUSIONS .............. 38

L. ORDER ................................................................................. 49

A. INTRODUCTION

1. The Testamentary Suit and Miscellaneous Petition both relate to the estate of one Dr. (Miss) Bharati Dhanvantlal Nanavati (“the Deceased”; “the Testator” or “Bharatiben”). The Plaintiffs to the Testamentary Suit are the Petitioners in the Miscellaneous Petition. Where necessary, I refer to them in this judgment by their names (“Lalit”; “Samir”) or as “the Plaintiffs”. The original Defendant to the Suit was one Kiran Dhanvantlal Nanavati (“Kiran”) Bharatiben’s brother and only surviving relative. He died in August 2009. His son, Nickie, has continued in his deceased father’s place. Kiran originally obtained Letters of Administration to Bharatiben’s estate, claiming intestacy. The Plaintiffs/Petitioners sought to have these revoked in their Miscellaneous Petition. They said Bharatiben left a Will dated 26th March 2001 (“the Will”) and a Codicil dated 24th June 2002 (“the Codicil”). They claimed they were appointed executors under the Will. On that Miscellaneous Petition, this Court directed the Letters of Administration to be deposited in Court. The Plaintiffs then filed the Testamentary Petition to propound these testamentary writings, seeking probate. Kiran entered a caveat to oppose the grant of probate. The suit was taken to trial. Clearly, if the Plaintiffs succeeded and obtained Probate either to both the Will and the Codicil, or at least to the Will, Kiran’s grant of Letters of Administration would automatically fail; that is to say, the Plaintiffs’/Petitioners’ Miscellaneous Petition for revocation of the grant of Letters of Administration would automatically succeed.

2. This contested Probate Petition is unusual in one crucial, and as we shall see, most telling, aspect: there are no less than three avatars of the Will propounded. The Plaintiff says they are all identical. They are not. One has a marking or stamp that is missing in the other two. Another document, produced in trial, and said to be a photocopy of the Will, has markedly different signatures of the two attesting witnesses. The entire case therefore turns on a single determinant: if these three avatars of the Will clearly differ in their physical countenance, and there is no explanation at all from the Plaintiffs seeking probate for these discrepancies, can it be said, only because the contents of the Will are the same, that due execution and attestation of the Will stand proved? If the Will is unproved, the Codicil cannot stand on its own; and, as we shall see, there are innumerable issues with the Codicil itself.

3. Of which of these three documents do the Plaintiffs seek probate? We are not told, and it is, in my judgment, no answer at all to say that all three documents—each slightly different from the other—together constitute ‘the Will’. This is simply untenable in law. ‘Proof of a Will in its solemn form’ requires proof of execution, proof of attestation by at least two witnesse