High Court of Judicature at Bombay Adjudicates Disputed Probate of Will Dated 18 November 2000. Testamentary Suit Arose from Caveats Filed by Legal Heirs Against Grant of Probate to Executors Named in the Will.

Testamentary suit seeking probate of a Will described as the last Will and Testament of Sunderdas Mulchand Harpalani, converted from a testamentary petition after caveats were filed.

Plaintiffs sought probate of the Will dated 18 November 2000 naming Suresh Harpalani and Lajwanti S. Harpalani as executors and Suresh Harpalani as major beneficiary.

Defendants (legal heirs) filed caveats and affidavits opposing the Will, alleging it was bogus and fabricated and that the testator lacked sound disposing mind.

The Testamentary Petition was converted into Testamentary Suit No. 91 of 2009 after caveats were filed; issues were framed by order dated 14 October 2016.

Whether the Plaintiffs prove that the writing dated 18th November, 2000 was duly and validly executed and attested in accordance with law as the last Will and testament of the deceased, Sunderdas Mulchand Harpalani? Whether the Plaintiff prove that at the time of the said alleged Will, the deceased was of sound mind and disposing state of mind, memory and understanding? Whether the Defendants prove that the alleged Will is bogus and fabricated? What reliefs and what orders?

Plaintiffs led evidence of Plaintiff No. 2 (Lajwanti Suresh Harpalani, PW1), attesting witnesses Praveen Basantilalji Bapna (PW2) and Kripal Chandiram Kewalramani (PW3), and handwriting expert Hiral Mehta (PW4). Plaintiffs contended due execution under Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, based on attesting witnesses' testimony that testator signed in their presence and they signed in testator's presence and each other's presence. Plaintiffs relied on evidence that a doctor examined the testator and found him mentally and physically fit, and the doctor read the will at testator's request, establishing sound disposing mind. Plaintiffs argued defendants' allegations of fabrication and lack of capacity were baseless and unsupported by evidence, pointing to PW1's testimony that the will was drafted by Advocate Sheru Ajwani with help of Advocate Sushma Singh at testator's instructions. Defendants led evidence of Defendant No. 2 Mohan Sunderdas Harpalani (DW1) and contended the will was bogus and fabricated and that testator lacked sound mind, but no detailed defense submissions are included in the excerpt.

The captioned Testamentary Petition was filed seeking probate of a Will dated 6th February 2008 ('the said Will') stated to be the last Will and Testament of one Sunderdas Mulchand Harpalani ('the Testator'). The Testator passed away on 6th February, 2008, leaving behind two daughters, namely Nanki Varandani and Laxmi Rawtani, and four sons, namely Dayal Sunderdas Harpalani, i.e., Defendant No. 1; Mohan Sunderdas Harpalani, i.e., Defendant No. 2; Gul Sunderdas Harpalani, i.e., Defendant No. 3; and Suresh Sunderdas Harpalani, i.e., Plaintiff No. 1. 1. Whether the Plaintiffs prove that the writing dated 18th November, 2000 was duly and validly executed and attested in accordance with law as the last Will and testament of the deceased, Sunderdas Mulchand Harpalani? Doctor examined Sunderlal. Doctor has found him mentally and physically correct and Doctor has given certificate in his own handwriting.

Testamentary Petition No. 1028 of 2008 was filed seeking probate of the Will. The daughters of the testator consented to the probate. The defendants filed caveats and affidavits in support, opposing the Will. The Testamentary Petition was converted into Testamentary Suit No. 91 of 2009. On 14 October 2016, the court framed four issues for determination. Evidence was led by both parties: plaintiffs examined PW1 to PW4, defendants examined DW1. Judgment was reserved on 9 May 2025 and pronounced on 29 July 2025.

• Indian Succession Act, 1925: Section 63(c)