Execution of Will – The Plaintiffs sought probate of the Last Will and Testament of Yashwantilika Narottamdas Dalal, dated 12th December 1996. The Will was contested by Defendants alleging forgery, fabrication, and undue influence. The Court held that the Plaintiffs successfully proved the due execution of the Will through the testimony of an attesting witness, Mr. Thakorbhai Desai (PW1), and dispelled all suspicious circumstances. (Paras 1, 9, 17A)

Burden of Proof – The Court emphasized that the initial burden of proving the due execution of the Will lies on the propounder (Plaintiffs). Once the Plaintiffs discharged this burden, the onus shifted to the Defendants to prove any suspicious circumstances, which they failed to do. (Paras 17A, 17D)

Adverse Inference – The Court drew an adverse inference under Section 114(g) of the Indian Evidence Act against the Defendants for failing to lead evidence or submit themselves to cross-examination, despite making serious allegations of forgery and undue influence. (Paras 13, 17B)

Interested Witness – The Court disregarded the testimony of Dinesh Rathod (DW1), the caretaker of the deceased, as he was found to be an interested witness. DW1 was occupying property far in excess of what was bequeathed to him under the Will and was earning rental income from the premises. (Paras 14, 17C)

Costs Awarded – The Court imposed costs of Rs. 5,00,000 (Rupees Five Lakhs) on Defendant Nos. 4 and 5 for filing frivolous caveats and failing to diligently contest the suit, amounting to an abuse of the process of law. (Paras 17E, 18vi)

The Court granted probate of the 1996 Will to the Plaintiffs, holding that they had successfully proved its due execution. The Court dismissed the Defendants’ allegations of forgery and undue influence, drawing an adverse inference against them for failing to lead evidence. Costs of Rs. 5,00,000 were imposed on Defendant Nos. 4 and 5 for frivolous opposition. (Paras 17, 18)

Major Acts:

• Indian Succession Act, 1925 (Section 63(c)) – Requirements for valid execution of a Will.

• Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (Section 68) – Proof of execution of documents required by law to be attested.

• Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (Section 35) – Award of costs for frivolous litigation.

Subjects:

• Probate – Legal process of proving the validity of a Will.

• Attesting Witness – Witnesses required to sign a Will to validate its execution.

• Suspicious Circumstances – Allegations raised by Defendants to challenge the validity of the Will.

• Adverse Inference – Presumption against a party failing to provide evidence or submit to cross-examination.

• Interested Witness – A witness with a personal interest in the outcome of the case.

Facts:

1. Nature of the Litigation – The Plaintiffs filed a Testamentary Suit seeking probate of the Last Will and Testament of Yashwantilika Narottamdas Dalal, dated 12th December 1996. The Defendants opposed the probate, alleging that the Will was forged and that the deceased had executed a prior Will in 1995. (Paras 1, 2)

2. Remedy Sought – The Plaintiffs sought the grant of probate for the 1996 Will, which included provisions for the construction of a hospital and the transfer of property to a company. (Paras 2, 4)

3. Reason for Filing – The Defendants filed caveats opposing the probate, claiming that the Will was fabricated and that the deceased had executed a prior Will. They also alleged that the deceased was unduly influenced by the Plaintiffs. (Paras 2, 5)

4. Previous Decisions – The Court had previously dismissed Testamentary Suit No. 65 of 2006, which sought probate for the alleged prior Will of 1995. The caveats filed by Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 were also dismissed. (Paras 5, 7)

Issues:

1. Whether the Plaintiffs proved that the Will dated 12th December 1996 was the last Will and Testament of the deceased? (Para 6i)

2. Whether the Plaintiffs were entitled to the grant of probate for the 1996 Will? (Para 6ii)

3. Whether the Defendants proved that the 1996 Will was false, fabricated, or not genuine? (Para 6iii)

4. Whether the Defendants proved that the deceased did not voluntarily execute the 1996 Will or was influenced by the Plaintiffs? (Para 6iv)

Submissions/Arguments:

• Plaintiffs – The Plaintiffs argued that the Will was duly executed and attested by two witnesses, as required under Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. They also contended that the Defendants failed to prove any suspicious circumstances or undue influence. (Paras 8, 9, 10)

• Defendants – The Defendants alleged that the Will was forged and that the deceased had executed a prior Will. They also claimed that the deceased was unduly influenced by the Plaintiffs. However, they failed to lead any evidence to support these allegations. (Paras 5, 12)

Ratio:

• Due Execution of Will – A Will is valid if it is executed in accordance with Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, and its due execution can be proved through the testimony of an attesting witness. (Paras 9, 17A)

• Burden of Proof – The burden of proving suspicious circumstances lies on the party challenging the Will. Failure to lead evidence or submit to cross-examination results in an adverse inference under Section 114(g) of the Indian Evidence Act. (Paras 13, 17B)

• Interested Witness – The testimony of an interested witness, especially one with a personal stake in the outcome, cannot be relied upon unless corroborated by independent evidence. (Paras 14, 17C)

• Costs for Frivolous Litigation – Courts may impose costs under Section 35 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for frivolous or vexatious litigation that amounts to an abuse of the process of law. (Paras 17E, 18vi)