Bombay High Court Grants Probate of Will and Codicil in Favor of Executors Despite Caveat by Son — Execution and Attestation Proved Under Section 63 of Indian Succession Act, 1925. The court held that the Will and Codicil were duly executed and attested, and the caveator's allegations of undue influence and lack of testamentary capacity were not substantiated.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY In Favour of Prosecution
  • 29
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The plaintiffs, being three of the executors named in the last Will and Testament dated 16th June, 1999 and a Codicil dated 23rd July, 2001 of Sorabji Hormusji Commissariat (deceased), filed a petition for probate which was converted into a suit. The deceased died on 15th August, 2009 at Mumbai, leaving behind his widow (plaintiff no. 1), a daughter (plaintiff no. 2), and a son (the defendant/caveator). The Will appointed six executors and bequeathed properties to the widow, daughter, and son. The Codicil made certain changes. The defendant/caveator opposed the grant of probate, alleging that the Will and Codicil were not duly executed, that the deceased lacked testamentary capacity, and that they were obtained by undue influence. The court examined the evidence, including the testimony of one attesting witness, Dr. Zarir F. Udwadia, who confirmed the execution of the Will. The court found that the plaintiffs had discharged the burden of proving due execution and attestation under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The caveator failed to produce any credible evidence to support his allegations. Consequently, the court allowed the suit and granted probate of the Will and Codicil to the plaintiffs, subject to compliance with formalities.

Headnote

A) Succession Law - Execution of Will - Section 63 Indian Succession Act, 1925 - Proof of Attestation - The court examined whether the Will and Codicil were executed in accordance with Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, which requires the testator to sign or affix mark in the presence of two attesting witnesses, and each witness to attest in the presence of the testator. The plaintiffs examined one attesting witness and proved the signatures of the testator and other witness. The court held that the execution and attestation were duly proved, and the caveator's allegations of undue influence or lack of testamentary capacity were not substantiated. (Paras 1-10)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the Will dated 16th June, 1999 and Codicil dated 23rd July, 2001 of the deceased Sorabji Hormusji Commissariat were duly executed and attested as per law, and whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a grant of probate.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The suit is allowed. The plaintiffs are granted probate of the Will dated 16th June, 1999 and Codicil dated 23rd July, 2001 of the deceased Sorabji Hormusji Commissariat, subject to compliance with necessary formalities.

Law Points

  • Execution of Will
  • Attestation of Will
  • Codicil
  • Probate
  • Caveat
  • Section 63 Indian Succession Act
  • 1925
  • Section 68 Indian Evidence Act
  • 1872
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2014 LawText (BOM) (06) 22

Testamentary Suit No. 60 of 2011 in Testamentary Petition No. 1164 of 2010

2014-06-11

R.D. Dhanuka, J.

Mr. Zuben Behramkamdin along with Ms. Jenifer Michael i/by Wadia Ghandy & Co. for plaintiffs; Mr. B.G. Saraf along with Ms. Bhairavi Thakker for defendants

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Testamentary suit for grant of probate of Will and Codicil

Remedy Sought

Plaintiffs (executors) sought probate of the last Will and Testament dated 16th June, 1999 and Codicil dated 23rd July, 2001 of the deceased Sorabji Hormusji Commissariat

Filing Reason

The deceased died leaving a Will and Codicil; the plaintiffs as executors sought probate to administer the estate

Issues

Whether the Will dated 16th June, 1999 was duly executed and attested as per Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925? Whether the Codicil dated 23rd July, 2001 was duly executed and attested? Whether the deceased had testamentary capacity at the time of execution? Whether the Will and Codicil were obtained by undue influence or fraud?

Submissions/Arguments

Plaintiffs argued that the Will and Codicil were executed in accordance with law, attested by two witnesses each, and the deceased was of sound mind. Defendant/caveator argued that the Will and Codicil were not duly executed, the deceased lacked testamentary capacity, and they were obtained by undue influence.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the plaintiffs had proved the due execution and attestation of the Will and Codicil under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The caveator failed to produce any evidence to substantiate allegations of undue influence or lack of testamentary capacity. Therefore, the plaintiffs were entitled to a grant of probate.

Judgment Excerpts

By this petition which is converted into a suit, the plaintiffs have prayed for a probate of the last will and testament dated 16th June, 1999 and a codicil dated 23rd July, 2001 of the deceased Sorabji Hormusji Commissariat...

Procedural History

The plaintiffs filed Testamentary Petition No. 1164 of 2010 on 8th September, 2010 seeking probate. The defendant filed a caveat, and the petition was converted into Testamentary Suit No. 60 of 2011. The suit was heard and judgment reserved on 30th April, 2014, and pronounced on 11th June, 2014.

Acts & Sections

  • Indian Succession Act, 1925: Section 63
  • Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Section 68
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Grants Probate of Will and Codicil in Favor of Executors Despite Caveat by Son — Execution and Attestation Proved Under Section 63 of Indian Succession Act, 1925. The court held that the Will and Codicil were duly executed and att...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Appeal in Specific Performance Suit — Sets Aside Dismissal for Default and Restores Suit on Condition of Costs. Advocate's Mistake in Noting Date Constitutes Sufficient Cause Under Order IX Rule 9 CPC.