The propounders have the onus to prove due execution of a Will as per the requirements of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. When there are suspicious circumstances, a greater onus lies on the propounders to dispel such suspicions.

JUDGMENT :

1. The present Testamentary Suit has been filed for Letters of Administration in respect of a writing dated 10th August 1991 propounded by the Plaintiffs as being the last Will and Testament (“the said Will”) of one Mr. Vithal Gunduji Rananavare (“the deceased”).

2. Before proceeding further, it is useful to set out that the deceased had married twice and had children from both his wives. From his first wife, namely Indumati Vithal Rananavare (first wife) he had two sons and from his second wife, Shantabai Vithal Rananavare (second wife) he had two sons and two daughters. The present Suit is filed by the sons of the deceased from the second wife. Defendant No. 1 is son of the deceased from his first wife and Defendant No. 2 is the daughter of the deceased from his second wife. The family tree of the deceased is as follows:-

3. It is Plaintiff’s case that the deceased executed the said Will interalia bequeathing movable and immovable properties more particularly mentioned in Schedule A and B to the said Will exclusively to the Plaintiffs. The deceased also bequeathed 25 grams of gold each to his daughters from his second wife i.e. the sisters of the Plaintiffs. Admittedly, no bequest was made under the said Will in favour of the sons of the deceased from his first wife i.e., Defendant No.1 and his brother Dr. Suresh alias Surendra Vithal Rananavare.

4. After the deceased passed away, the Plaintiffs filed Testamentary Petition No.319 of 1992 seeking Letters of Administration in respect of the said Will. On receipt of the citation, Defendant No.1 filed a Caveat and the Testamentary Petition was converted into the captioned Testamentary Suit. In view of the contentions raised by Defendant No.1 in the Affidavit in support of the Caveat the following issues came to be framed viz.

“(i) Whether Plaintiffs prove that will was duly executed on 10th August 1991 by Vithal Gunduji Rananavare, deceased father of the Plaintiffs?

(ii) Whether the Defendant Mr. Avinath Vithal Rananavare, proves that the Will dated 10th August 1991 is forged and fabricated document and that it was not signed by their deceased father?

(iii) What Decree/ Order?”

5. On 20th February 2012, Plaintiff No.1 i.e. Ravindra alias Satish Vithal Rananavare passed away. Defendant No. 2 namely Dr. Shashikala Sunil Katkade, sister of the Plaintiffs was thereafter impleaded as a party Defendant, since she claimed a right in the property of the deceased through the deceased Plaintiff No.1.

6. The Plaintiffs led the evidence of the following persons namely viz.

i. Dr. Ravindra alias Satish Vithal Rananavare – Plaintiff No.1 (PW-1).

ii. Deepak Raghunath Adsul – Attesting Witness (PW-2).

iii. Dr. Balasubramanium (PW-3).

iv. Mrs. Mangala Pedgaonkar-daughter of the deceased and sister of the Plaintiffs (PW-4).

v. Mr. Dilip Mehendale Secretary of Anand Co-operative Housing Society limited (PW-5).

The Defendants on the other hand led only the evidence of Defendant No.1.

SUBMISSIONS OF DR. TULZAPURKAR, ON BEHALF OF THE PLAINTIFFS:

7. At the outset, Learned Senior Counsel submitted that it was well settled that the onus of proving due execution of a Will was on the propounder of the said Will. He submitted that in the facts of the present case, the Plaintiffs as propounders of the said Will had duly discharged this burden. He therefore, submitted that the burden would now shift to the Defendants to prove the second issue i.e. that the Will dated 10th August 1991 was a forged and fabricated document and was not signed by the deceased. He submitted that while the Defendants had alleged that the said Will was forged and fabricated, no evidence whatsoever, was led by the Defendants in support of the said issue. He therefore, submitted that the Plaintiffs were entitled to the grant of Letters of Administration as prayed for.

8. Learned Senior Counsel then submitted that the law with regards to proof of Wills was well settled and the mode of proving a Will did not ordinarily differ from that of prov