Pravin Laxmidas Tanna v. Kusumben A. Kakkad

13. On 31.08.2020, during hearing of the case it was brought to the notice of this Court that Report of Hand-writing Expert was ready but could not be filed due to the then national lock-down and hence time to file the Report was extended further by a period of two weeks. In pursuance thereof, Hand-writing Expert submitted his Report dated 20.03.2020, concluding that the questioned signature on the Will and admitted signature on Exhibit D-1 and Exhibit D-2 were of the same person and showed same authorship. The Report of Hand-writing Expert was taken on record by this Court by order dated 24.09.2020 and it was categorically agreed by both parties that their respective evidence was completed and the matter may be placed for final hearing. It is pertinent to note here that, in view of the finding contained in the Report it was always open for Defendants to seek 6 of 32 cross-examination of the Hand-writing Expert, however Defendants deliberately did not do so and made a statement that their evidence was completed.

14. As regards to physical and mental health of the Testatrix at the time of execution, attesting witness (PW-1), who is a qualified Medical Practitioner - Doctor deposed that he visited the residence of Testatrix at about 10.00 a.m. on 15.01.2004, checked her blood pressure, enquired about her health and found her to be in good health, sound and disposing mind, good memory and clear understanding. He has deposed that Testatrix introduced him to Advocate V. G. Trivedi. In cross-examination PW-1 was asked if Testatrix had visited his dispensary and requested him to come to her residence to give his signature on her Will in the presence of Advocate Trivedi. He answered that she had not visited him but he visited her residence on 15.01.2004 at her request to come there in the morning at 10.00 a.m. to attest her signature. A case was put to PW-1 during cross-examination that the Testatrix was not in a sound physical or mental condition to put her signature or write on any document on 15.01.2004 to which PW-1 categorically replied in the negative and answered that she was physically and mentally fit and in a good condition to sign on any document at that time. It is seen that evidence of PW-1 is consistent as far as the health and sound disposing 7 of 32 mind of the deceased Testatrix is concerned at the time of execution and there is nothing in the cross-examination which discredits his deposition.

15. PW-2 in his examination-in-chief has deposed that he is the eldest son of the maternal uncle of deceased Testatrix and has lived with the deceased Testatrix right from the time of his birth i.e. 31.10.1956 till her demise on 15.01.2004. PW-2 has deposed that ever since his birth, his family comprising of his father Shri. Laxmidas Tanna (expired on 20.06.2005), mother Smt. Shantaben Tanna (expired on 08.11.2013), his two brothers Suresh Tanna and Deepak Tanna (both executors named by Testatrix alongwith PW-2) and his sister Purnima Singala lived alongwith the family of deceased Testatrix comprising of her father Shri. Hiralal Hansraj Bhindora (expired on 12.01.1974), her mother Smt. Dudhiben Bhindora (expired on 11.07.1992) and herself. He has deposed that by the last Will and Testament of deceased, immovable property comprising of land and building situated at 110, Bora Bazar, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 consisting of ground plus five floors has been bequeathed by deceased Testatrix. He has also deposed that deceased was married at some point of time, however, for reasons unknown to him, she had separated from her husband and was living with her parents and his family even prior to his birth. 8 of 32

15.1. Next, PW-2 has deposed that original Defendant Smt. Kusumben’s son Vijay Kakkad was living with his family in the year 1995 and thereafter in the year 1999 he expired in unfortunate circumstances due to which the original Defendant and her husband left Mumbai to settle down permanently in Keshod, Gujarat. He has deposed that when father of deceased Testatrix expired on 12.01.1974, family of deceased did not have any source of income and were residing with his family and were fully taken care of by Shri Laxmidas Tanna (maternal uncle of deceased), PW-2 himself as well as Suresh Tanna and Deepak Tanna. He has deposed that the building situated at 110, Bora Bazar, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 was purchased on 04.09.1974 after demise of Shri. Hiralal Bhindora on 12.01.1974 in the name of deceased by his father Shri. Laxmidas Tanna out of his own funds with an intention to offer security to the family of deceased, since the deceased had separated from her husband and was unlikely to remarry at that age.

15.2. PW-2 has further deposed that deceased was capable of reading and writing in Gujarati and also signing her name and that deceased had prepared a small journal containing various religious bhajans in Gujarati. Finally he deposed that original Defendant had 9 of 32 received her benefit under the Will whereby the fixed deposit receipt bearing receipt No. 0806225 with the Union Bank of India was encashed at her instance in the name of her husband and the money was collected by him as per the bequeathal under the Will to her. This is an admitted fact and not disputed by the Defendants before me.

15.3. In cross PW-2 was asked a question regarding the source of income of his father to which he answered that his source of income was from a shop belonging to him situated at Bora Bazar, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001. PW-2 was asked about his relationship with Dr. Mahendra C. Shah (PW-1) to which he answered that he knew him since last many years and had good relations with him. There is nothing brought on record during the cross-examination of PW-2, in order to counter and disbelieve / discredit PW-2’s deposition.

16. DW-1 in his examination-in-chief has deposed that in the year 2003, deceased had expressed her desire of making a Will to his father and after that the Plaintiff started harassing her and she had confided about the same to DW-1 himself and his sister i.e. Defendant No.1(b). He has deposed that during her lifetime, deceased conveyed to him and his sister about her intention of donating 50% of her estate for religious purpose and balance 50% to his mother i.e. original Defendant. He disputed the signature of deceased appearing on the Will and also deposed that there was suppression of movable 10 of 32 properties and bank accounts held by deceased Testatrix. He deposed that both attesting witnesses were interested witnesses as they had personal business dealings with Plaintiff and alleged that the Will was attested by them after the demise of deceased Testatrix. He has also stated that deceased Testatrix was suffering from various ailments and was not physically and mentally fit to execute the Will.

16.1. It is pertinent to note that in support of his deposition DW-1 has not furnished any supporting documents or documentary evidence, save and except mere statements in his Affidavit. All that he would submit and answer in his cross-examination, is that he had met deceased Testatrix prior to her death when she was not in good health and that she was mentally tortured by Plaintiff and his family members. However he has neither given any further details nor produced any documentary evidence in support of the above answers. He has infact to the contrary answered that deceased Testatrix used to work in Kathiawar Trading Company post lunch every day i.e. in the second half of the day and she was working right until the second last day before her demise.

17. Plaintiff in support of his case has referred to and relied upon the following decisions of the Supreme Court and this Court:-

(i) Chiranjilal Shrilal Goenka V/s. Jasjit Singh & Ors.1;

(ii) Daya Subhash Tiwari V/s. Kashinath Lalta Tiwari & Ors.[2] and;

(iii) Kaikhosrow Aspendiar Oshtori V/s. Dr. Meherji

17.1. On the basis of the above decisions, Plaintiff would submit that in a Probate Petition the only issue that can be raised and decided by the Court is that whether the Will of which Probate is sought is legal and valid Will. Reliance is placed on paragraph Nos.15 to 20 of the aforementioned decision in the case of Chiranjilal Shrilal Goenka (first supra) which are relevant and read thus:-

17.2. Plaintiff would next submit that Hand-writing Expert was appointed by this Court at the request and behest of Defendants in Notice of Motion No.151 of 2019 and hence has to be treated as witness of Defendants, as he has tendered the Report at the instance and cost of Defendants. In this context, Plaintiff has argued that once contents of the Report filed by the Hand-writing Expert were known to the parties, it was incumbent upon the Defendants to cross-examine the Hand-writing Expert on his Report, since by virtue of the said Report the Hand-writing Expert had concluded that the signature of deceased Testatrix on the Will clearly matched with her signatures on the two signature cards in the record of Union Bank of India (Exhibit D-1 and Exhibit D-2). That being the case, Defendants did not choose to do so despite the said Report being obtained at their behest and costs. Plaintiff would argue that Defendants deliberately chose not to cross-examine the Hand-writing Expert and however allowed the said Report to be taken on record only by this Court. In view of the above, Plaintiff would argue that the objection now raised by Defendants that this Court should not consider Hand-writing Expert’s Report dated 20.03.2020 is completely unfair. Plaintiff has further argued that once Hand-writing Expert’s Report is taken on record by an order of the 17 of 32 Court, this Court should look into and consider the findings in the said Report and apply the same to the present case. Plaintiff has argued that if Hand-writing Expert’s Opinion is disregarded then Defendants would derive an unfair advantage which would be detrimental to the case of Plaintiff. In support of the Plaintiff’s case regarding reliance to be placed on Hand-writing Expert’s Opinion / Report, the following decisions have been referred to and relied upon by the Plaintiff:-

(i) Rabindra Nath Mukherjee and Anr. Vs.

(ii) Ramabai Padmakar Patil (dead) through Lrs and

Ors Vs. Rukhminibai Vishnu Yekhande and Ors.5;

(iii) Uma Devi Nambiar and Ors. Vs. T. C. Sidhan

(iv) Geetabai Ramchandra Pawar Vs. Rambhau

(v) Swarnalatha and Ors. Vs. Kalavathy and Ors[8]

(vi) Meenakshiammal (dead) through Lrs. And Ors.

Vs. Chandrashekaran and Anr.[9]

18. It is argued on behalf of Defendants that examination-inchief of Dr. Mahendra C. Shah (PW-1) and answers given by him in cross-examination have a lot of contradictions and they are vague, evasive and his evidence is therefore untrustworthy as it is given to favour the Plaintiff. It is argued that according to PW-2 i.e. Plaintiff, the subject property was purchased on 01.09.1974 by his father in the name of deceased as benami property and therefore it cannot be construed as self-acquired property of deceased Testatrix. It is argued that deceased was under tremendous pressure and undue influence and coercion for execution of the Will and therefore it was executed in suspicious circumstances as she expired on the same date in the night at 10.30 p.m. Hence on totality of circumstances it would be established that deceased never had any control over the subject property bequeathed under the Will to the Plaintiff. In support of their case, Defendants have referred to and relied upon the following decisions of the Supreme Court:-

(i) Anil Kak Vs. Kumari Sharada Raje & Ors.10;

(ii) ShivaKumar and Ors Vs. Sharanabasappa & Ors11.

18.1. On the basis of the aforesaid decisions, Defendants would submit that proving the Will does not only mean proving the signature of the Executor and attesting witnesses, but it means something more 10 (2008) 7 SCC 695, decided on 24.04.2008 11 (2021) 11 SCC 277, decided on 24.04.2020 19 of 32 than that. It is submitted that proving the Will is like proving any other document, but adherence has to be had to the provisions of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 read with Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. It is argued that execution of the Will must be atleast proved by one attesting witness and burden of proof that the Will has been validly and genuinely executed is on the propounder of the Will. Defendants have argued that Plaintiff’s reliance on the Hand-writing Expert’s Report dated 20.03.2020 will have no evidentiary value in view of the fact that the Hand-writing Expert has not stepped into the witness box and cross-examined. Defendants have argued that deceased Testatrix was under the influence of Plaintiff as she was residing with his family and hence the Will is executed under duress. It is argued that deceased Testatrix was suffering from various ailments such as lung fibrosis since long, rather for 10 years before execution of the Will and much prior to her demise and therefore not physically and mentally fit to execute her Will. It is next argued by Defendants that Will is in Gujarati and is executed on the very same day on which she expired i.e. 15.01.2004 which raises a grave suspicion on the genuineness of the Will. Since execution and time of demise are in very close proximity to each other severe doubts about the genuineness of the Will are created. 20 of 32

18.2. It is also argued by Defendants that there is a reference to one fixed deposit of amount of Rs.38,816/- Receipt No.0806225 with the Union Bank to be given to the Defendants’ mother Kusumben alongwith the Savings Account No.2821 with the Union Bank, Keshod. However amount of Rs.42,877/- (Rupees Forty Two Thousand Eight Hundred Seventy Seven Only) was paid to the original Defendant’s husband i.e., Amrutlal M. Kakkad by Demand Draft dated 03.02.2004 drawn on Union Bank of India, Bazar Gate Street, Mumbai – 400 001 being at Serial No.11 on page No.303 in the compilation of documents filed by Plaintiff. This Fixed Deposit was handed over to the husband of original Defendant and not to the original Defendant during her lifetime though she was alive at that time.

18.3. It is argued that the death certificate of deceased Testatrix dated 30.01.2004 was issued after 15 days, but within a period of three days without production of the Succession Certificate or Probate, the amounts were disbursed by the bank in favour of Amrutlal N. Kakkad from the savings account / Fixed Deposits held by the deceased as per her wishes in the Will. It was vehemently argued that the said act of acceptance of the demand draft by their father does not amount to acceptance of the terms of the Will. However, it remains an undisputed fact that husband of the original Defendant accepted the amount of Rs.42,877/- (Rupees Forty Two Thousand Eight Hundred 21 of 32 Seventy Seven Only) towards the bequeathal given to his wife under the Will of the Testatrix without any demurrer by the original Defendant.

19. From the above submissions, pleadings and the evidence placed before me, it is pertinent to note that the issue relating to whether the Will is valid and legal is required to be determined at the outset. It is alleged by Defendants that the Will is forged and fabricated. In reference to this context, it is pertinent to note that DW- 1 in his cross-examination was asked as to what prompted him to file the Caveat, to which he replied that the signature of deceased Testatrix on the Will was forged. He was thereafter asked how he came to the conclusion that the signature was forged, to which he replied that “I was knowing the family since my birth and their malafide intention and since the Fixed Deposit was closed before it was matured”. DW-1 was thereafter asked if he or any of his family members had a joint bank account with the Testatrix, to which he replied in the negative. He also deposed and confirmed that he had never seen the Testatrix personally sign any document during her lifetime. This is an important question. Record reveals that the answers given to question Nos.6, 26, 27 and 29 and that the Affidavitin-support of Caveat was brought to the notice of DW-1 during his cross- examination and a suggestion was specifically put to him as 22 of 32 under:- “I put it to you that all these answers and averments are bald and without any basis.” The answer given by DW-1 to this question was as under:- “That is why my Advocate wants to proceed on Notice of Motion to appoint Hand-writing Expert”.

19.1. From the above, it is clear that DW-1 has admitted that there was no supporting material and evidence to prove that the signature of the deceased Testatrix on the Will was forged and not genuine and therefore resisted by answering that Defendants wanted to appoint a Hand-writing Expert. In that view of the matter, Notice of Motion No.151 of 2019 for appointment of Handwriting Expert was filed by the Defendants and was allowed and Handwriting Expert Mr. Yashwant Datay was appointed by way of an order dated 06.02.2020 (Coram: A.K. Menon, J.). The Handwriting Expert filed Affidavit dated 25.08.2020 alongwith his Report after comparing the signature of the Testatrix in her last Will and Testament with her signature as contained in the records submitted by the production witness of Union Bank of India. It is seen that the signature of deceased Testatrix contained in the signature cards of the deceased Testatrix i.e. account holder have been marked as Exhibit D-1 and Exhibit D-2 respectively. The Expert in his Report has opined as follows:- 23 of 32 “The questioned signature marked as Exhibit D[1] and the admitted signature marked as Exhibit D[2] are of the same person and shows the same authorship.”

19.2. The Expert has in paragraph 6 of his Affidavit stated as under:- “6. Upon conducting the handwriting/signature analysis as aforesaid, I have conclusively arrived at the following findings:a) The signatures as Savita Hiralal Bhindora, as appearing on Will and the signature appearing as Savita Hiralal Bhindora on bank specimen signature are completely similar and of the same authorship. b) Assuming that the signature as Savita Hiralal Bhindora on the Union Bank of India are genuine and authentic, then the signature as Savita Hiralal Bhindora, as appearing on the Will are undoubtedly and conclusively genuine.”

19.3. On the basis of the above it is clearly derived that Defendants did not have any supporting material or evidence for proving that signature of deceased Testatrix on the Will was forged or fabricated. Next, the Report of the Hand-writing Expert was against Defendants and therefore they deliberately chose not to cross-examine the Hand-writing Expert and declared the evidence to the closed.

19.4. It is therefore abundantly clear that Defendants have raised the contention of forged and fabricated signature merely on the basis of a misfounded apprehension and without any cogent and conclusive proof. Plaintiff on the other hand has not only produced an eye witness, but also an Expert witness and has corroborated the fact that the signature on the Will is actually that of the deceased Testatrix and it had been signed by deceased Testatrix in presence of the two 24 of 32 attesting witnesses. It is further pertinent to note that the attesting witness Dr. Mahendra C. Shah (PW-1) has also put the date below his signature on the Will.

20. During cross-examination of DW-1, it came to light that DW- 1 had filed the Caveat as a Constituted Power of Attorney of Smt. Kusumben Amrutlal Kakkad who was suffering from Alzheimer and therefore, the Plaintiff seriously doubted if the said Caveatrix / original Defendant was even in a position to direct her Constituted Attorney to file the Caveat. It was put to DW-1 that Caveat was filed solely by him and not at the instance of Smt. Kusumben Kakkad, to which he replied that he was the General Power of Attorney Holder of his mother Kusumben and he confirmed that the General Power of Attorney was executed before the Sub-Registrar, Keshod in 2005. On the basis of the above it is seen that Affidavit-in-support of Caveat was filed on 11.08.2004 whereas the Power of Attorney given by original Defendant i.e. sister of deceased Testatrix to her son (DW-1) is in the year 2005. Thus it is clearly seen that Caveat and Affidavit-in-support thereof was filed by Harish Amrutlal Kakkad (DW-1) in 2004 without having due authority of law from the Caveatrix and thus the Caveat ought to have been dismissed at the outset itself.

21. It is seen that in the Affidavit in support of the Caveat, Defendant No.1(a) has alleged that movable properties and bank 25 of 32 accounts of deceased are not included in the Will and eyes of deceased were donated after her demise. During the course of crossexamination he was asked to produce details of such assets and/or bank accounts which according to him were not mentioned in the Schedule to the Probate Petition / in the last Will of the Deceased. DW-1 has answered that he was not aware of any bank account and gave an evasive answer that there was some saving account maintained in some branch at native place which was not known to him. However, DW-1 has infact given a detailed explanation of distribution of 10 gold chains belonging to deceased Testatrix amongst 5 female family members which included his wife and sister [Defendant No.1(b) herein] which was as per the wish of the Testatrix.

22. It is seen that DW-1 has in the Affidavit in support of Caveat and in his Affidavit-in-lieu of examination-in-chief sought to suggest that the attesting witnesses had “personal business dealings” with Plaintiff and therefore authenticity of the Will is challenged. During cross-examination DW-1 was asked to explain the meaning of “personal business dealings”, to which he replied that both witnesses were getting good business from the Tanna family and therefore were under obligation of the business and therefore they signed as witnesses. This averment cannot be countenanced in the absence of 26 of 32 any evidence or supporting material.

23. Defendants have attempted to raise a contention that Testatrix had not countersigned the page where date of the Will was handwritten, whereas she had carried out a correction on page No.1 of the said Will. It was also contented that Will was not signed on all pages. It is pertinent to note that there is no requirement under the Indian Succession Act, 1925 for the Testatrix to sign on all the pages of the Will. It is further submitted that on the execution page of any document, it is a general practice to put the date at the time of execution and by practice the said date is never countersigned. However when a correction is made to a type-written document / record, the same is initialed / countersigned. The same is even followed in the present case and therefore does not create any suspicious circumstance as attempted to be portrayed by Defendants in the mind of the Court.

24. During the course of cross-examination of PW-2, several questions were asked to the witness pertaining to the title of the immovable property mentioned in the Schedule to the Probate Petition. It is seen that it is a well-settled proposition of law that the Probate Court delivers a judgment in rem and not judgment in personam after satisfying its conscience on the validity of execution of the Last Will and Testament of deceased and does not answer 27 of 32 questions and issues as regards to title of properties mentioned in the said Will. It is thus derivated that Plaintiff has amply propounded the Will and brought on record substantial and corroborative evidence to show its due execution. On the other hand, Defendants have neither been able to show fraud or fabrication nor have been able to demonstrate that the deceased was mentally or physically unfit at the time of execution of her Will.

25. In this connection, decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Yumnam Ongbi Tampha Ibema Devi Vs. Yumnam Joykumar Singh and others12 is relevant and in particular the paragraph Nos.11 to 13, which are reproduced below: “…. 11. As per provisions of section 63 of the Succession Act, for the due execution of the Will: (1) the testator should sign or affix his mark on the Will; (2) the signature or the mark of the testator should be so placed that it should appear that it was intended thereby to give effect to the writing as a Will; (3) the Will should be attested by two or more witnesses, and (4) each of the said witnesses must have seen the testator signing or affixing his mark to the said Will and each of them should sign the Will in presence of the testator.

12. The attestation of the Will in the manner stated above is not an empty formality. It means signing a document for the purpose of testifying of the signatures of the executant. The attested witness should put his signature on the Will animo attestandi. It is not necessary that more than one witness be present at the same time and no particular form of attestation is necessary. Since a Will is required by law to be attested, execution has to be proved in the manner laid down in section and the Evidence Act which requires that at least one attesting witness has to be examined for proving the execution of such a document.

13. Therefore, having regards to the provisions of section 68 of the

28 of 32 Evidence Act and section 63 of the Succession Act, a Will to be valid should be attested by two or more witnesses in the manner provided therein and the propounder thereof should examine one attesting witness to prove the Will. The attesting witness should speak not only about the testator’s signature or affixing his mark to the Will but also that each of the witnesses had signed the Will in the presence of the testator.”

26. I have perused and considered the evidence of the doctor i.e. DW-2 - Dr Mahendra C. Shah and the Will executed by deceased Testatrix is duly supported by the evidence of the two attesting witnesses being the doctor treating the deceased Testatrix and the Plaintiff and there can be no doubt to conclude that the said Will has been legally and validly executed in accordance with law. On reading of the entire evidence as well as the cross-examination, the testimony in so far as it relates to the execution of the Will is concerned is believable in the facts and circumstances of the present case and on the basis of the evidence led by the Plaintiff’s witnesses.

27. At this juncture, it is pertinent to consider the role of a Probate Court. A Probate Court cannot refuse grant of Probate to the Petitioner merely because the division of the property of deceased / Testatrix is not equitable. The question whether a particular bequest is good or bad does not fall within the purview of the Probate Court. The Court of Probate is only concerned with determination of the following questions:- 29 of 32

(I) Whether the Will put forth as the last Will and

(II) Whether at the time of such execution, the

28. In the case in hand, the aforesaid two questions which are crucial for proving the genuineness and validity of the Will are answered in the affirmative on the basis of the above observations and findings. In so far as disposition of the sound and disposing mental state of the Testatrix is concerned, there is nothing placed on record either by Defendants or emanating from the cross-examination of the Plaintiff’s witnesses to conclude to the contrary. The sequence of events of the deceased Testatrix calling upon the doctor and execution of the Will needs to be believed on the basis of the evidence placed before me. Though it is argued by Defendants that deceased / Testatrix died / expired on the very date of the execution of the Will, save and except pleadings nothing has been placed before me to convince me of any suspicious circumstances. It is to be noted that allegations levelled cannot be merely vague and general in nature. They have to be proved in accordance with law and cannot be based on presumption. This coupled with the fact that the husband of the 30 of 32 original Defendant i.e. father of the present Defendants had himself acknowledged and encashed the bequeathal to the original Defendant and received the money from the bank clearly militates against the case of the Defendants. Also acceptance of the gold chains of deceased is admitted by the Defendants which amounts to acceptance of the wishes of the deceased in the Will and the Will itself. Acceptance of the bequethal and legacy of the original Defendant under the Will by the husband of the original Defendant on her behalf itself amounts to acceptance of the legacy under the Will and therefore the original Defendant’s challenge to the Will is untenable.

29. In so far as the issue of fraud and forgery is concerned, all specific particulars of fraud and forgery are required to be placed before the Court factually alongwith all supporting documents for the Court to consider it. Without the particulars, mere averments will have no meaning or relevance as is the present case. In the present case mere allegations are levelled by Defendants. During cross-examination of DW-1 as is alluded to herein above, it is answered by DW-1 specifically that in order to overcome the genuineness of the Will after witness action was over, Defendants themselves sought appointment of Hand-writing Expert as they did not have any documents / supporting material to prove their case of fraud and forgery. In answer to question No.41, DW-1 has admitted the fact that Dr. 31 of 32 Mahendra C. Shah (PW-1), the Doctor who witnessed the execution of the Will and signed as the attesting witness and who has deposed in support of execution of the Will was a family physician of the entire family in the area where the deceased Testatrix was living till her demise. Hence the case of fraud and forgery has not been proved by Defendants.

30. In view of the above observations and findings, it is declared that the Last Will and Testament of the deceased Testatrix dated 15.01.2004 is validly executed by the deceased Testatrix in accordance with law while being in sound and disposable state of mind. In view of this declaration, Department is directed to proceed further for issuance of probate / grant in favour of the Plaintiff (original Petitioner), subject to all other compliances in accordance with law.

31. With the above directions, Suit is disposed. [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ] Ajay 32 of 32 Designation: PA To Honourable Judge