SURESH HEMMADY Vs. DINESH PANDURANG BELLARE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Petitioner / Plaintiff is the executor under the Will of the deceased Mira R. Nadkarni he has sought to probate. The Caveator / Defendant is one of the heirs of the deceased. The deceased was a widow without issues. She left behind two brothers and two sisters as her heirs and legal representatives. One of the daughters of one of her sisters, one Leena Bijoor (Leena) is the main legatee under her will dated 15th April, 1988. The Caveator / Defendant is the son of another sister. His wife and son have been nominated by the deceased as nominees in respect of the residential flat of the deceased under her last nomination. The deceased expired on 21st April, 2003. The Caveator / Defendant has essentially contended that the will of the deceased was not genuine and was a fraud committed by the Petitioner / Plaintiff and Leena Bijoor in collusion with one another. His case is that the deceased went to live near the residence of the Caveator / Defendant after she was widowed in about 1970. He and his family looked after and cared for the deceased during her illness. He claims that the will of the deceased was got prepared upon fraud or misrepresentation practised upon her which would not have been her last will and testament and her last will and testament could have been contemporaneous with her later nomination, but which has been suppressed. In essence, therefore, his case is that the execution of the will of the deceased was by fraud or misrepresentation.

(2.) Upon such pleadings Justice Dharmadhikari framed the following issues on 29th July, 2009 which are answered as follows :

(3.) The Plaintiff / Petitioner has examined himself as the executor of the Will and the person in whose custody the Will was kept after its execution. One of the attesting witnesses was a Doctor by profession who has been examined by the Plaintiff / Petitioner. The Caveator / Defendant has examined himself.