Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
Arif S. Doctor, J.
Mrs. Shushila Teunram Parsani alias Shushiladevi T. Parsani alias – Petitioner
Versus
Mr. Ramesh T. Parasani, Hindu – Defendant
Testamentary Suit No.50 of 2005 In Testamentary Petition No. 3 of 2005
Decided On : 31-07-2023
Indian Succession Act, 1925 – Section 63, 59 – Suit – Framed for determination – Whether Plaintiff proves that writing was duly and validly executed and attested in accordance with law as last Will and Testament of deceased – Held, Court find that would require explanation, is that fact that while it is case of Plaintiff that Testatrix had dictated said Will to Plaintiff, why Plaintiff would refer to herself in third person and refer to her own mother has “Bhabhi” – Again, Court find that there is not even an attempt on part of Plaintiff to explain this anomaly – Suit dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
1. The present Suit seeks Probate of a Will dated 1st February 2001 (“the said Will”) said to be last Will and Testament of one Sushiladevi T. Parsani (“the Testatrix”).
2. The relevant facts are as follows: -
(ii) The Testatrix upto the year 1984 was residing with Teunram and the Defendant in a flat in a building known as “Broacha House”.
(iii) In the year 1984 the Testatrix left the house in which she was residing with Teunram and the Defendant and went to reside in Indore where she stayed in a Temple-cum-Home said to be built by Tenuram.
(iv) On 24th August 1994, Teunram is said to have executed a Will inter alia bequeathing all the shares held by him in the joint names of the Defendant and the Testatrix, as also the right to reside in the Broacha House flat to the Defendant. The will also is stated to have appointed the Defendant as Executor and provided that the Defendant had the right to reside in the said flat in Broacha House.
(v) In the year 1997 the Testatrix came back to Mumbai and once again resided with the Defendant at Broacha House.
(vi) The Testatrix thereafter in the year 1998 left the Broacha House flat and began to reside with the Petitioner, which she continued to do so until the time of her death.
(vii) On 1st October 2000 Teunram passed away.
(viii) On 1st February 2001 the Deceased is stated to have executed the said Will.
(ix) On 26th February 2001 all shares in the name of the Deceased were transferred to her name by the Defendant.
(x) The Testatrix passed away on 24th April 2001.
(xi) The Plaintiff then filed Testamentary Petition No. 3 of 2005 for probate of the said Will by the Plaintiff. Except for the Defendant, all the other legal heirs of the Testatrix have filed their respective consent affidavits. It was thus that the Testamentary Petition was converted into the present Suit.
(xii) It appears that in the year 2012 the Defendant has filed Testamentary Petition No. 1088 of 2012 for probate of the last will and testament of Teunram. The same was converted into Testamentary Suit No. 53 of 2013.
3. In the present Suit, the following issues were framed for determination by this Court, viz.
2. Whether the Plaintiff proves that at the time of the said alleged Will, the deceased was of sound and disposing state of mind, memory and understanding?
3. Whether the Defendant proves that the alleged Will is a forged, fabricated and got up document?
4. Whether the Defendant proves that the alleged Will is unnatural?
5. What reliefs and what orders?”
Evidence led by the Plaintiffs:
(i) Ms. Sita Laxmi Narayanswami (attesting witness) PW-1, and
(ii) Sushila Teunram Parsani (the Plaintiff) PW-2 as propounder.
Evidence led by the Defendant:
(i) Ramesh Teunram Parsani (the Defendant) DW-1
Submissions of Ms. Kochar on behalf of the Plaintiff.
4. At the outset Ms. Kochar invited my attention to the said Will and submitted that the Testatrix had dictated the same to the Plaintiff in the Sindhi language to PW- 2 who had then translated and typed out the same in English and thereafter read out the entire Will in English, Hindi and Sindhi to the Testatrix. In support of her contention, she invited my attention to the cross examination of PW-2 viz.
Ans: It was dictated in Sindhi and I translated in English and typed it.
Q. 21 After typing the Will in English was it read out in Sindhi?
Ans: After typing out the will in English, I read out the Will in English, Hindi and Sindhi and explained the contents thereof. Whichev
The court established that the propounder of a will must provide clear and cogent evidence to prove its validity, particularly in the presence of suspicious circumstances, as outlined in the Indian S....
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 o....
The propounder of a Will must satisfactorily dispel all suspicious circumstances regarding its validity, particularly when substantial benefits accrue to them, or the Will may be deemed invalid.
A will's validity must be proven beyond suspicion, especially when claims of fraud or undue influence arise; the burden of proof lies on the party benefiting from the will under suspicious circumstan....
The court affirmed that the plaintiff sufficiently proved the valid execution of the Will, while the defendant failed to establish claims of forgery or suspicious circumstances surrounding it.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
