Bombay High Court Dismisses Probate Suit for Alleged Will of 1975 Due to Non-Prosecution and Failure to Prove Execution. The court held that the propounder must prove due execution and attestation under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, and failure to lead evidence results in dismissal.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY
  • 5
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The suit was filed by the plaintiffs, who were great grandsons and other relatives of the deceased, seeking probate of an alleged Will dated 3rd January, 1975 of late Mr.Reginald Cajetan Lobo. The original plaintiff, Mr.John Damasceno Lobo, claimed to be the executor under the Will and had filed Testamentary Petition No.233 of 1988. The defendants, who were daughters of the deceased, contested the probate, alleging that the Will was not genuine and was not executed in accordance with law. The matter was converted into a testamentary suit. On the date of trial, the plaintiffs failed to appear, and their advocate reported no instructions. The court noted that the plaintiffs had not led any evidence to prove the execution and attestation of the Will. The court held that the burden of proof lay on the plaintiffs to prove the Will, and since they failed to discharge that burden, the suit was liable to be dismissed. The court dismissed the suit with costs, and the defendants were entitled to costs from the plaintiffs.

Headnote

A) Succession Law - Probate - Burden of Proof - Section 63 Indian Succession Act, 1925 - The propounder of a will must prove that the will was duly executed and attested as per law. In this case, the plaintiffs failed to lead any evidence and did not appear for trial, resulting in dismissal of the suit. (Paras 1-10)

B) Civil Procedure - Dismissal for Non-Prosecution - Order 9 Rule 8 CPC - When the plaintiffs fail to appear and prosecute the suit, the court may dismiss the suit. Here, the plaintiffs' advocate reported no instructions, and the court dismissed the suit with costs. (Paras 11-15)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the plaintiffs have proved the due execution and attestation of the alleged Will dated 3rd January, 1975 of late Mr.Reginald Cajetan Lobo so as to be entitled to a grant of probate.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The suit is dismissed with costs. The defendants are entitled to costs from the plaintiffs.

Law Points

  • Burden of proof on propounder of will
  • Section 63 Indian Succession Act
  • 1925
  • Section 68 Indian Evidence Act
  • 1872
  • Attestation requirement
  • Dismissal for non-prosecution
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2017 LawText (BOM) (10) 75

Testamentary Suit No.61 of 1989 in Testamentary Petition No.233 of 1988

2017-10-10

R.D. Dhanuka, J.

Mr.Ramgopal Tripathi for the Plaintiffs, Mr.Vincent Pereira for the Defendants

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

Nature of Litigation

Testamentary suit for grant of probate of an alleged Will.

Remedy Sought

Plaintiffs sought probate of the alleged Will dated 3rd January, 1975 of late Mr.Reginald Cajetan Lobo.

Filing Reason

The original plaintiff claimed to be the executor under the alleged Will and sought probate.

Previous Decisions

The matter was converted from a petition to a testamentary suit. No previous decisions mentioned.

Issues

Whether the plaintiffs have proved the due execution and attestation of the alleged Will dated 3rd January, 1975. Whether the suit should be dismissed for non-prosecution.

Submissions/Arguments

Plaintiffs failed to appear and lead evidence; their advocate reported no instructions. Defendants contested the probate, alleging the Will was not genuine.

Ratio Decidendi

The propounder of a will must prove its due execution and attestation under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. Failure to lead evidence and prosecute the suit results in dismissal.

Judgment Excerpts

It was the case of the original plaintiff that the said Mr.Reginald Cajetan Lobo had alleged to have executed his last Will and Testament on 3rd January, 1975 and had appointed him as the sole executor of the said Will. The plaintiffs have not led any evidence to prove the execution and attestation of the alleged Will.

Procedural History

The original plaintiff filed Testamentary Petition No.233 of 1988 for probate. The matter was converted into Testamentary Suit No.61 of 1989. On the date of trial, plaintiffs failed to appear and their advocate reported no instructions. The court dismissed the suit with costs.

Acts & Sections

  • Indian Succession Act, 1925: Section 63
  • Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Section 68
  • Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC): Order 9 Rule 8
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Gujarat High Court Reduces Compensation in Motor Accident Claim Due to Contributory Negligence and Incorrect Income Assessment. The court held that the claimant was 50% contributorily negligent and reduced the monthly income from Rs. 9,000 to Rs. 4,5...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Landlord's Writ Petition Challenging Tenant's Purchase of Land Under Section 32G of Bombay Tenancy Act. The Court Upheld the Revenue Tribunal's Order Confirming the Tenant's Purchase, Finding No Error of Law or Fact.