Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

1. This is an appeal from the judgment of Mr. Justice Kania dated December 7, 1944. The appeal raises a short though interesting question with regard to the proof necessary to establish due execution of a will on a petition for probate which is contested.

2. The deceased in this case was Dr. H.M. Mody, who died on October 21, 1942. He had married his second wife Manoramabai in September, 1942, and on October 6, 1942, he executed a testamentary document in her favour which purports to be attested by a solicitor and his clerk. On October 15, 1942, it is alleged that he executed a second testamentary document and this purports to be attested by Mr. Somne and one Choudhari Mohammed Mustaqueem Khan. This document of October 15 is the one in respect of which the petitioner asks for probate, and except for the signatures, it is typewritten on a sheet of the Doctor's note paper and is in the following terms:

18. With great respect to the learned Judge, the Privy Council decision cannot be said to so hold, since no reliance could be placed upon the evidence of the only witness.

19. Some of the surrounding circumstances in the case before us, such as the marriage in September, 1942, the alleged testamentary document of September 6, 1942, conferring benefits on the new wife and the absence of any benefit for the wife in the document of October 15, 1942, and that the person propounding the will claims a large benefit under it are such that any person who seeks to uphold this document must have realised that the minimum proof permissible to admit an attested document in evidence in uncontested matters would not be sufficient to prove it as a duly executed will of the deceased which ought to be admitted to probate. In fact, as appears from the original petition, an official in the Testamentary Department of this Court endorsed it as follows: