Nitin W. Sambre, J.

1. Admit. Heard finally by consent of the parties.

2. Late Arvind Puttappa Nadkarni was married to respondent no.1. Since both were not blessed by any issue, they adopted present appellant. Late Arvind Nadkarni left for heavenly abode on 20.12.2010. It is claimed that at the time of his death, he was suffering from Parkinson and had chronic infection in his stomach because of ischemic colitis which developed septicemia.

3. Said Arvind Nadkarni executed a will dated 09.12.2010. The said will though does not bear signature of deceased Arvind, particularly having regard to his medical condition, he has put his thumb impression on each page of the will which was witnessed by respondent no.5 Ananda Godbole and respondent no.4 Avinash Lad. The will was supported by the medical certificate issued by family physician Dr. Chetan Mehta certifying that deceased Arvind at the time of execution of the will was in sound disposing mind and executed the same after duly understanding the complete contents of the will.

4. Based on the aforesaid will, respondent no.1 Snehalata, widow of deceased Arvind, initiated probate proceedings vide Testamentary Petition No.869 of 2011. In the said testamentary petition initiated by respondent no.1, probate came to be issued on 09.11.2012.

5. The present appellant approached this Court in testamentary and intestate jurisdiction vie Misc. Petition No.57 of 2014 in Testamentary Petition No. 869 of 2011 seeking revocation of probate granted in respect of will and testament of deceased Arvind Nadkarni. Needless to mention that the probate was granted on 09.11.2012 in Testamentary Petition No. 869 of 2011.

6. Amongst others, the grounds which were raised by the appellant seeking revocation of probate granted on 09.11.2012 can be summarized as under:-

According to the learned counsel for the appellant, there remains a genuine dispute as to whether the will in question was really executed. So as to substantiate the said contention, the learned counsel would invite attention of this Court to the affidavit filed by respondent Nos. 4 and 5 the attesting witnesses, wherein it is stated that the deceased has executed a will on 09.12.2010 at his residence, when it is an admitted position that on the date of execution of the will, deceased Arvind was hospitalized since he was suffering from Parkinson, septicemia due to infection. It is also claimed by the learned counsel for the appellant that it is the case of the respondents that the will in question was executed in the hospital. The other ground on which the probate is sought to be revoked by the appellant is the consent affidavit was executed by the present appellant without making her understand the contents of the same. According to the learned counsel for the appellant in view of death of her father late Mr. Arvind, the appellant was in depression almost for six months. During said period her signature on the consent affidavit was obtained by the respondent no.1 by misrepresenting that the same was required for complying with certain formalities. It is claimed that though she has admittedly signed the affidavit, however, same was in the backdrop of her adverse health condition, in good faith and without reading the contents of the document.

7. The learned counsel for the appellant then would urge that the will itself is a false and fabricated document as the deceased on the date of execution of will was in hospital in intensive care unit from which ailment he never recovered and passed away in the hospital. Since it is undisputedly claimed by the respondent no.1 that the will was executed in the hospital when deceased was in ICU, the said circumstance itself raises a strong ground of suspicion about execution of the will in normal condition. According to him, absence of signature of the deceased on the will which was substituted by his thumb impression also justifies the claim of the appellant that the will was executed in suspicious circumst