PADMAVATI ANANTRAI MEHTA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner had filed this petition for grant of probate in respect of the last Will and testament of Smt Padmavati Anantrai mehta alias Smt. Padmavati A. Mehta alias Smt. P. A. Mehta. The defendants filed caveat challenging the said petition and, therefore, the petition was converted into suit. The caveators filed written statement. Both the parties led evidence in support of their contentions. The petitioner/plaintiff examined one of the three attesting witnesses and the defendants examined Dr. Sunil shah as their witness. Thereafter I heard the arguments of both the parties.

(2.) THE deceased-testator Padmavati was about 80 years of age when she executed the Will on 29/03/1994. She died three months thereafter i. e. on 21/06/1994. The plaintiff is the executor of the Will and not beneficiary. The plaintiff is distantly in relation to the deceased so also the defendants. There were three attesting witnesses to the Will viz. Dr. Sunil Shah; dulerai Prataprai Parekh and Advocate K. D. Shukla. The caveators challenged the Will on the following grounds in their affidavit in support of their caveat. The Will is fraud and fake; the deceased was not keeping good health during the last days of her life; she was semi conscious and she survived till the time of her death on oxygen in that condition; and on the day of Will she was semi conscious and was not able to hear and understand anything; she knew writing and could have affixed her thumb impression because she had executed one other Will, copy of which was annexed with the affidavit. However, the Advocate for the defendants clarified that because the Will was signed by one person it was not produced nor any attempt was made to produce the will. The other grounds are also raised by the defendants viz. they were taking the care of the deceased and looking after her household activities and bearing the medical and other expenses. Ms. Kumud C. Mehta, the wife of the defendant was looking after her and none of the attesting witnesses have affirmed any affidavit. On these grounds the defendants have challenged the Will.

(3.) HOWEVER, it is pertinent to note that none of the defendants have examined themselves in support of their contentions or to prove any of the aforesaid facts within their personal knowledge, viz. physical and mental condition of the executrix or that she was under semi conscious and was on oxygen or they were looking after her or wife of the defendant was looking after her or they were bearing the medical and other expenses. The defendants have examined Dr. Sunil Shah as one of the attesting witnesses to disprove the case of the plaintiff.