Case Note & Summary
The matter before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay concerned a testamentary suit for grant of probate of the last Will and Testament of Rajalakshmi Gopal Ayengar @ Rajlaxmi Ayengar. Dr. Govindaraja Venkatesh Iyengar, the plaintiff, claimed to be the executor named in a Will dated 22 December 1998 executed by the testatrix. The testatrix was the wife of Dr. A.R. Gopal-Ayengar, an eminent scientist at Bhabha Automatic Research Center (BARC), Mumbai. Dr. Gopal-Ayengar died on 8 September 1992 leaving a Will dated 23 August 1992 under which he bequeathed certain movable properties to nephews including A.R. Sampathkumar and the immovable property, a bungalow at 73, Mysore Colony, Mahul Road, Chembur, Mumbai, to the testatrix. The testatrix thus became absolute owner of the bungalow. Under the alleged Will of the testatrix, the plaintiff was bequeathed the right, title and interest in the subject property, with a direction that he may enjoy it absolutely or dispose of it and use the proceeds for A.R. Gopal-Ayengar Educational Trust. The testatrix died on 2 February 2002. The plaintiff, a scientist residing in USA, filed the testamentary petition in 2011, and the suit came to be numbered in 2012. The defendant/caveator A.R. Sampathkumar, through his legal heirs, contested the Will alleging that the testatrix was his aunt, that she was of unsound mind and in ICCU on the date of execution, that the stamp paper was purchased on 29 January 1998, and that the plaintiff and others had created false records and a bogus trust. The defendant also raised delay and laches. The court framed two issues: whether the respondent proved the deceased was not of sound and disposing mind on 22 December 1998, and whether the petitioner proved due execution of the Will. Evidence included PW1 the plaintiff, PW2 attesting witness R.K. Ramanathan, PW3 handwriting expert Yeshwant Datay; DW1 A.R. Sampathkumar, DW2 Dr. P.T.V. Nair (the other purported attesting witness examined by defendant), and DW3 handwriting expert Titiksha Desai-Kamble. The court noted uncontroverted facts about the relationship and ownership. The available judgment text records findings on the issues: the respondent failed to prove unsound mind, and the petitioner proved due execution. The final operative order granting probate is not included in the provided excerpt, but the recorded findings favour the plaintiff. The judgment was pronounced on 21 August 2026.
Headnote
A) Succession - Probate - Due Execution - Not mentioned - The plaintiff, as executor named in the last Will dated 22 December 1998, sought probate of the testatrix's estate; he examined himself, an attesting witness, and a handwriting expert to establish due execution; the court found the evidence sufficient and recorded an affirmative finding on due execution - Held that the petitioner has proved due execution of the Will (Paras 3-6). B) Succession - Testamentary Capacity - Sound and Disposing Mind - Not mentioned - The defendant/caveator alleged that the testatrix was in ICCU of BARC Hospital and of unsound mind, and that the Will was fraudulent and manipulated; the court weighed the evidence including the defendant's own attesting witness and handwriting expert and found the allegation not proved - Held that the respondent has not proved the deceased was not of sound and disposing mind (Paras 3-6).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the respondent proves the deceased was not of sound and disposing mind on the date of execution of the Will by her on 22nd December 1998; Whether the Petitioner proves the due execution of the Will by the deceased on 22nd December 1998
Final Decision
The court recorded findings that the respondent failed to prove the deceased was not of sound and disposing mind (Issue 1: In the negative) and that the petitioner proved due execution of the Will (Issue 2: In the affirmative). The final operative order granting probate is not included in the provided judgment excerpt.
Law Points
- Burden of proving due execution of Will on propounder
- burden of proving unsound mind on caveator
- attestation by witnesses and handwriting expert evidence considered
- delay and laches can be raised but not necessarily fatal if explained
