LALITKUMAR D CHAPSEY Vs. NICKIE KIRAN NANAVATI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A. INTRODUCTION

(2.) This contested Probate Petition is unusual in one crucial, and as we shall see, most telling, aspect: there are no less than three avatars of the Will propounded. The Plaintiff says they are all identical. They are not. One has a marking or stamp that is missing in the other two. Another document, produced in trial, and said to be a photocopy of the Will, has markedly different signatures of the two attesting witnesses. The entire case therefore turns on a single determinant: if these three avatars of the Will clearly differ in their physical countenance, and there is no explanation at all from the Plaintiffs seeking probate for these discrepancies, can it be said, only because the contents of the Will are the same, that due execution and attestation of the Will stand proved? If the Will is unproved, the Codicil cannot stand on its own; and, as we shall see, there are innumerable issues with the Codicil itself.

(3.) Of which of these three documents do the Plaintiffs seek probate? We are not told, and it is, in my judgment, no answer at all to say that all three documents - each slightly different from the other - together constitute 'the Will'. This is simply untenable in law. 'Proof of a Will in its solemn form' requires proof of execution, proof of attestation by at least two witnesses, and proof of mental and physical fitness for the purpose. This proof is required in respect, evidently, of a single document. Multiple documents, each internally inconsistent or discrepant, and especially with differing signatures, cannot either all, each or even one claim to be "the Will" in question. The law allows a plaintiff to give proof of a copy of a Will. It does not contemplate proof of various incarnations of the document. A probate court is not concerned with the contents of the Will propounded. We do not invalidate Wills on the basis of the dispositions they contain, barring of course considerations of the Will being unnatural. 'Proof of the Will in its solemn form' is proof of the legitimacy of the execution of the document, not of the correctness of its contents. A probate court will look to the contents only to assess if the execution is or is not proved. It is therefore quite untenable to suggest that because the contents of these three documents are the same, therefore the unexplained discrepancies in signatures or marking are irrelevant.