SHIRISH POPATLAL SHAH Vs. ARUN POPATLAL SHAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Plaintiff seeks Letters of Administration with Will Annexed to a Will dated 21st November 1992<SLINK_NO>1</SLINK_NO> that he says was the last Will of his father, Popatlal Bhogilal Shah ("Popatlal"), who died in Mumbai on 2nd January 1993. Popatlal had a daughter and three sons with Lilavatibai Popatlal Shah ("Lilavati"). They are: Vinodini Mody ("Vinodini"), the Plaintiff, the Defendant and Sushil Shah ("Sushil").

(2.) The Defendant filed a Caveat dated 14th February 2005<SLINK_NO>2</SLINK_NO> and an Affidavit in Support dated 21st February 2005.<SLINK_NO>3</SLINK_NO> The Petition was then renumbered as Testamentary Suit No. 20 of 2005.

(3.) Before I go further, I should note that this is the second of two testamentary contests between the same parties. Shirish Shah, the present Plaintiff earlier filed Testamentary Petition No. 754 of 2004, for Probate to Will he said had been made by the parties' mother, Lilavati. The present Defendant, Arun Shah, opposed the Petition. He entered a Caveat and that Petition was renumbered as Testamentary Suit No. 18 of 2005. The Will propounded divided Lilavati's estate, including her inheritance from her husband, Popatlal, between Vinodini, the present Plaintiff, Sushil and Asim (the Plaintiff's son). Arun, the present Defendant, was excluded. I decided that Suit, and held for the Defendant. For several reasons, I held that the Will was not proved. I pronounced judgment in that Suit on 28th March 2016. That judgment is under appeal. This is of some importance to this case, for Mr. Narula for the Defendant would have it that the present Will, too, was 'conjured up', as he puts it, at about the same time as Lilavati's Will; and that the Plaintiff's intention was only one: to grab the entirety of the parties' parents' estates. I will address that argument shortly.