Non-compliance with execution formalities and unexplained inordinate delay in propounding a Will invalidate the grant of Probate.

The Plaintiff, Madhusudan Sanghavi, sought Probate of a purported Will dated January 5, 1980, allegedly executed by his father, Mansukhlal Sanghavi (the Testator), who passed away on January 17, 1982

The Plaintiff claimed to be a surviving executor

The petition was filed in 2009, approximately 27 years after the Testator's death

The Defendants (daughters of the Testator) contested the Will, alleging it was a forged document consisting of two disparate instruments stitched together, and citing an inordinate, unexplained delay in filing

One attesting witness, Hashu Vazirani, died on the very day the petition was filed, and his supporting affidavit appeared to have been prepared in 1995 but altered for filing in 2009

Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, regarding the mandatory manner of execution and attestation of Wills

Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, requiring at least one attesting witness to prove execution

The court invoked the "judicial conscience" test from H. Venkatachala Iyengar v. B.N. Thimmajamma, requiring the propounder to dispel suspicious circumstances

Regarding limitation, the court applied Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963, as interpreted in Kunvarjeet Singh Khandpur v. Kirandeep Kaur, noting that while the right to apply for probate is continuing, a delay beyond three years requires satisfactory explanation and heightens suspicion

The court found the physical integrity of the Will (Exhibit-P1/2) highly suspect, noting it comprised two distinct sets of pages with independent numbering—the first part being a draft-like testament and the second part settling a trust—with no clear correlation between them

Suspicion was further raised by the use of feminine pronouns ("Testatrix," "her") in the execution clause and the absence of the Testator's signature on intermediate pages

Regarding the 27-year delay, the court found the Plaintiff’s explanations (family meetings and lack of knowledge of legal necessity) to be vague, unsubstantiated by evidence, and contradicted by the Plaintiff’s own admissions of legal awareness

The court specifically highlighted the "grave suspicion" arising from the use of an attesting witness's affidavit affirmed in 1995 but filed only in 2009 on the day of the witness's death, with the date on the affidavit visibly altered

It held that the Plaintiff failed to establish that the document was the last Will and Testament of the deceased or that the Testator understood its contents

The court found the inordinate delay and the dubious circumstances surrounding the attesting witness's affidavit fatal to the Plaintiff's case

Accordingly, the suit was dismissed, and the prayer for Probate was rejected