Bombay High Court Dismisses Suit for Will Probate, Cites Unexplained Suspicious Circumstances and Testatrix's Inability to Understand English

Mumbai, Maharashtra – The Bombay High Court, in a significant judgment pronounced on May 5, 2025, by Justice N. J.Jamadar , dismissed a testamentary suit seeking Letters of Administration for a Will dated December 7th/10th, 2002, allegedly executed by Yesubai Gopinath Dadarkar . The Court found that the plaintiffs, heirs of the original propounder, failed to dispel several suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will's execution, most notably the testatrix's inability to read or understand English, the language in which the Will was drafted.

The suit (Testamentary Suit No. 39 of 2011 in Testamentary Petition No. 534 of 2010) was originally filed by Sudheer Gopinath Dadarkar , son of the testatrix Yesubai and the sole legatee under the contested Will. After his demise, his heirs pursued the matter. The defendants were Rita Mahesh Dadarkar , the widow of Yesubai 's other predeceased son Mahesh , and her children.

Background of the Dispute

Yesubai Gopinath Dadarkar , the testatrix, passed away on September 1, 2009. She had four sons: Jayant , Ramesh , Mahesh , and Sudheer (the original plaintiff), and one daughter. Jayant and Ramesh predeceased her as bachelors. Mahesh , husband of defendant No.1 Rita, passed away in 2005.

The contested Will, dated December 7th/10th, 2002, and registered on December 11th, 2002, revoked an earlier Will from 1989. Under the 2002 Will, Yesubai purportedly bequeathed her entire property to her son Sudheer . The defendants challenged this Will, alleging it was unnatural, suspicious, and not executed with the testatrix's free will or sound disposing mind, particularly given her alleged debilitating illness and inability to understand English.

Arguments from Both Sides

The Plaintiffs' Stance (Propounders of the Will): Represented by Mr. Rajesh Kachare, the plaintiffs argued that the Will was duly executed and attested in accordance with Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. They presented attesting witnesses Bhakti Thakur (PW2) and Ravindra Patil (PW3), and Dr. Basant R. Jain (PW4) who certified the testatrix's fitness. They contended that the registration of the Will and the fact that the testatrix lived for seven years after its execution without revoking it, supported its validity. The disinheritance of Mahesh 's family was attributed to strained relations.

The Defendants' Contentions (Challengers of the Will): Mr. Aadil Parsurampuria, counsel for the defendants, argued that the Will was shrouded in numerous suspicious circumstances. These included:

* Conflicting Execution Dates: The Will showed handwritten dates of December 7th, 2002 (first page) and December 10th, 2002 (execution clause), with registration on December 11th, 2002.

* Testatrix's Illiteracy in English: The Will was in English, a language the testatrix admittedly could not read or write. There were inconsistencies regarding how and by whom it was explained to her in Marathi.

* Inconsistent Witness Testimonies: Significant discrepancies were noted in the testimonies of attesting witnesses, particularly in Bhakti Thakur's (PW2) two affidavits regarding the place and manner of execution, and the late introduction of a Mr. Harishchandra Raul who allegedly explained the Will.

* Unnatural Disinheritance: The Will disinherited other blood relatives, contrasting with an earlier 1989 Will that reportedly favored them.

* Propounder's Prominent Role: The deceased plaintiff-propounder, Sudheer , was alleged to have taken a leading part in the Will's execution.

Court's Analysis of Evidence and Legal Principles

Justice Jamadar undertook a detailed examination of the evidence and legal precedents governing the proof of Wills.

The Burden of Proof in Will Cases: The Court reiterated the established principle that the propounder of a Will bears the onus of proving its due execution and attestation, and must dispel any suspicious circumstances to satisfy the Court's conscience. > "Cases in which the execution of the will is surrounded by suspicious circumstances stand on a different footing...the propounder must remove all legitimate suspicions before the document can be accepted as the last will of the testator." (citing Jaswant Kaur v. Amrit Kaur and R. Venkatachala Iyengar v. B.N. Thirnmajamma ).

Key Suspicious Circumstances Identified by the Court:

Discrepancies in the Will's Execution Date: The Court found the evidence of both attesting witnesses "plainly unsatisfactory" regarding the execution date, especially given the two different handwritten dates on the Will itself. Dr. Jain (PW4) further complicated matters by testifying he inserted the date on the first page. > "In the facts of the case, this discrepancy in the date of the execution of the Will (P1), unless satisfactorily accounted for, throws a cloud of doubt over the very factum of execution and attestation of the Will (P1)." (Para 74)

Uncertainty Over the Place of Execution: The initial affidavits of both attesting witnesses suggested the Will was executed at the Sub-Registrar's office. However, Bhakti Thakur's (PW2) later affidavit claimed execution at the testatrix's residence a day before registration. Ravindra Patil (PW3) did not corroborate this change. > "Apparently, there is a disconnect in the testimony of Bhakti (PW2) and Ravindra (PW3) as regards the place of execution of the Will (P1)..." (Para 76)

Testatrix's Understanding of the Will's Contents: This was deemed the "most crucial" suspicious circumstance. The Will was in English, and Sudheer (PW1), the original plaintiff, admitted his mother (the testatrix) "could not read, or write in, English" and did not understand anything read to her in English without further explanation in Marathi. The Will contained an endorsement that it was read over and explained in Marathi. However, the identity of the explainer, Mr. Harishchandra Raul , was introduced only in PW2's second affidavit, an improvement the Court found significant and not satisfactorily explained, especially since PW3 did not mention Mr. Raul . > "In the face of clear evidence to show that the testatrix could not read, or write in, English and, conversely, the absence of positive evidence to show that the contents of the Will (P1) were explained to the testatrix, it would be hazardous to record a satisfaction that the testatrix fully knew and understood the contents of the Will." (Para 102)

Role of Registration and Witness Testimonies: While acknowledging the registration of the Will, the Court, citing Rani Purnima Debi v. Kumar Khagendra Narayan Deb , held that registration alone does not dispel suspicions if there's no clear evidence the testator understood the document's contents. The claim that the Sub-Registrar explained the Will was not supported by any endorsement or examination of the concerned official.

The Court found the explanations for inconsistencies in witness testimonies, particularly PW2's, unconvincing. Bhakti Thakur, when confronted with contradictions in her two affidavits regarding the execution events, stated her second affidavit was correct but "cannot explain" the mistake in the first, volunteering memory lapses due to time.

Court Cites Precedents on Suspicious Circumstances

The judgment extensively referred to landmark Supreme Court rulings, including:

* Jaswant Kaur v. Amrit Kaur (1997) : On the court's conscience and the propounder's duty to explain suspicious circumstances.

* Shivakumar v. Sharanabasappa (2021) : Defining "suspicious" circumstances and the need for cogent explanations.

* Lilian Coelho v. Myra Philomena Coalho (2025) : Highlighting that even a seemingly genuine Will might not be acted upon if suspicious circumstances remain unaddressed.

The "Unnatural Disinheritance" Argument

While the defendants argued the disinheritance of Mahesh 's family was unnatural, the Court noted that exclusion of natural heirs is not, by itself, a suspicious circumstance if the Will is otherwise proven validly executed by a testator who understood its contents ( Uma Devi Nambiar v. T.C. Sidhan ). However, in this case, the primary failure was in proving the testatrix's knowledge and understanding of the Will's dispositions. > "However, where the propounder fails to satisfy that the testatrix knew and understood the contents of the Will (P1) and the dispositions thereunder, the strained relations of the testatrix with the heirs, who have been excluded from the estate, cannot be pressed into service in the proof of the Will (P1), as such." (Para 99)

Final Verdict

Concluding that the plaintiffs failed to satisfy the Court's conscience that Yesubai Dadarkar fully knew and understood the contents and effect of the 2002 Will, Justice Jamadar ruled: * Issue 1 (whether Yesubai died testate leaving the 2002 Will) – Negative. * Issue 2 (whether the 2002 Will is legal, valid, and duly executed) – Negative. * Issue 3 (whether the Will is shrouded in suspicious circumstances and not executed out of free will) – Affirmative.

The Suit and the underlying Petition for Letters of Administration were dismissed, with parties to bear their own costs.

Key Takeaways

This judgment underscores the rigorous scrutiny applied by courts in probate matters, especially when suspicious circumstances are present. It reinforces that: * The propounder of a Will must remove all legitimate doubts regarding its execution and the testator's understanding. * If a testator is illiterate in the language of the Will, positive and convincing evidence is required to show it was accurately explained and understood. * Discrepancies in dates, places of execution, and witness testimonies can be fatal to the propounder's case if not cogently explained. * Registration of a Will, while a relevant factor, does not automatically validate it or cure fundamental defects in its proof, particularly concerning the testator's comprehension.