IMPORTANT POINT
Revocation of Probate – Exclusion of natural heir by testator does not make Will unnatural nor does the same gives rise to suspicious circumstances – Mere intention to execute a Will does not have effect of revoking previous Will.

JUDGMENT

Raja Basu Chowdhury, J.—The present appeal has been preferred challenging the judgment dated 31st January, 2017 passed by the Additional District Judge, FTC-IV, Alipore, South 24-Parganas, in O.S. No. 01 of 2017, granting probate of the Will made and published by Uma Sankar Kejriwal, in a contentious cause.

2. Shorn of unnecessary details the facts leading to filing of the instant appeal are set out hereunder:—

(i) The Uma Sankar Kejriwal (hereinafter referred to as the deceased) during his life time made and published a Will and appointed Om Prakash Kejriwal, as the sole executor of the said Will.

(ii) The said Uma Sankar died on 5th July, 1999 leaving behind and surviving the following natural heirs and representatives:—

3. The said Om Prakash Kejriwal (hereinafter referred to as the propounder), having survived the deceased, filed an application for grant of probate of the aforesaid Will, claiming the same to be the last Will and testament of the deceased.

4. The said application was accompanied by an affidavit of assets affirmed by the propounder and an attesting witness’s affidavit affirmed by Uchhal Kumar Bhadra, stating that the deceased, in the presence of Mr. B.L. Vyas, Barrister-at-law and in his presence had executed the Will and that the said deceased at the time of execution of the Will was “hale and hearty”.

5. The aforesaid probate proceedings were contested by Bal Krishna Kejriwal by filing written statement. In the written statement filed by the Bal Krishna Kejriwal, the predecessor in interest of the appellants, (hereinafter referred to as the objector), claimed that the Will of which, the propounder was seeking probate, was a product of coercion, fraud and undue influence. There were suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will. Apart from the aforesaid, the following defences were also raised by the objector:—

(a) the alleged Will is undated;

(b) the signatures of the witnesses made in the will do not show that the alleged testator and the witnesses have signed at a time in presence of each other;

(c) the alleged Will is totally one sided in favour of propounder and is unnatural;

(d) no reason whatsoever has been assigned as to why the testator deprived his other legal heirs and legal representatives of their legitimate share in the assets and property of the deceased;

(e) the deceased wanted to make some alleged provisions for his two daughters also, i.e., defendant nos. 2 and 3 and in paragraph 10 of the alleged Will depicts a picture of getting sometime in the alleged Will, but it will appear that the propounder will also share equally with the sisters and the amount to be received by the defendants no. 2 and 3 is practically nil;

(f) all movable and immovable assets of the deceased have been bequeathed to the plaintiff and his son, depriving the other heirs absolutely;

(g) in normal circumstances, no father will deprive his other three children (all full-blooded to the plaintiff) and bequeath everything to one child, the plaintiff herein unless there are some threat or evil influence;

(h) the affidavit sworn by one of the alleged attesting witness Shri Uchhal Kumar Bhadra is false, and fabricated and the manner of signature on the last page of the Will by the said Uchhal Kumar Bhadra abundantly shows that the said signatures were put on the alleged Will subsequently. It is further significant that while the address of said Uchhal Kumar Bhadra appears in the Will an