Disposed

Madhu Ramchand Lund v. Chandulal Bhagwandas Hinduja and 4 Ors.

Bombay HC26 Sept 2016CST/127/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This order in a petition for revocation of probate grants leave to the petitioner's handwriting expert to inspect the Will and depose. The court also permits respondents to add expert evidence on similar terms.

What did the court decide?

Leave granted to petitioner and respondents to lead evidence of handwriting experts on specified terms; matter listed for future directions.

Madhu Ramchand Lund Vs Chandulal Bhagwandas… — Succession and Inheritance | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

28-MPT20-03.DOC

¶2

ATUL

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY TESTAMENTARY AND INTESTATE JURISDICTION CHAMBER SUMMONS NO. 127 OF 2015

¶4

IN

¶5

MISCELLANEOUS PETITION NO. 20 OF 2003

¶6

IN

¶7

TESTAMENTARY PETITION NO. 1014 OF 1999

¶8

Madhu Ramchand Lund
Versus
C.B. Hinduja & Others

¶9

…Petitioner

¶10

…Respondent

¶11

Mr. A.P. Wachasundar, i/b Meghraj & Associates, for the Petitioner.
Mr. Zal Andhyarujina, with Mr. N. Amin, i/b N.N. Amin & Co., for
Respondents Nos. 1, 2(a) to 2(c).

¶12

Ms. Sunanda Kumbhat, with Mr. Kunal Kumbhat, for Respondent
No. 3.

¶13

Ms. Priyanka Gharge, i/b S.K. Srivastav & Co., for Respondent No.
4.

¶14

CORAM: G.S. PATEL, J DATED: 26th September 2016

¶15

PC:-

¶16

1.This is an application by the Petitioner who seeks revocation
of probate granted in Testamentary Petition No. 1014 of 1999.
Evidence was taken in the Miscellaneous Petition.

¶17

Page 1 of 3
26th September 2016

¶18

28-MPT20-03.DOC

¶19

2.The parties on both sides of this Miscellaneous Petition are
victims of procedural uncertainty, particularly in regard to the
marking of documents and reference of matter to the
Commissioners for recording evidence. In fact, in this matter some
documents were marked before trial commenced, some were
marked after and some have even purportedly been marked by the
Commissioner. All of this will need to be rationalized at some stage.
However, it seems that the Will in question was not actually marked
as a document in evidence till the Respondent examined a witness.

¶20

3.What the Petitioner in Miscellaneous Petition now seeks is
leave to lead evidence of a handwriting expert in relation to the Will.
To disallow this application would, in my view, be unjust to both the
sides. I do not think that it is appropriate to carry on with a situation
where conceivably either or both sides are possibly victims of some
procedure being not followed or being incorrectly adopted.

¶21

4.The revocation Petitioner will be entitled to lead the evidence
of her own handwriting expert. That expert will be entitled to
inspect the Will in the Registry and to take photographs either
personally or by an authorized representative or an Agent. That
inspection will be taken by prior appointment and with notice to the
Advocates for the Respondent. Once that expert opinion is received,
the expert will make an Affidavit of Evidence. The Affidavit of
Evidence and the Opinion or Report will be placed before the Court
for being marked as a document, after which the cross-examination
of the Petitioner’s handwriting export will commence either in
Court or before a Commissioner.

¶22

Page 2 of 3

¶23

26th September 2016

¶24

28-MPT20-03.DOC

¶25

5.In order to maintain the balance, and since this is a somewhat
extraordinary situation, I will grant leave to the Respondents as well
to introduce the evidence of their own handwriting expert, if they so
wish, on the same terms and conditions. That is a decision that the
Respondents will be entitled to defer till after the cross-examination
of the Petitioner’s handwriting expert.

¶26

6.Mr. Andhyarujina states that Defendants Nos. 1 and 2(a) to
2(c) do not propose to lead any further evidence (reserving their
right to introduce the opinion of a rival handwriting expert as noted
earlier).

¶27

7.Liberty to the Petitioner to apply to have the matter placed for
marking the expert’s report after it is received and after the
Affidavit of Evidence is made. List the matter for directions on 16th
November 2016.

¶28

8.The Affidavit in Reply on behalf of Respondent No. 3 is taken
on file.

¶29

9.The Chamber Summons is disposed in these terms with no
order as to costs.

¶30

(G. S. PATEL, J.)

¶31

Page 3 of 3
26th September 2016

Madhu Ramchand Lund v. Chandulal Bhagwandas Hinduja and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Madhu Ramchand Lund v. Chandulal Bhagwandas Hinduja and 4 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sarojkumar N. Agarwal and Ors. Vs Sajjan N. Agarwal and 18 Ors. and Indian Dynamic Containers Pvt. Ltd. and 18 Ors. (Pro. Def.)

Conrad Aubrey Almeida and Anr. Vs Jeanette Elerina Trindade and 4 Ors.

Ravindra Thyampanna Shetty Vs Merkala Thyampanna Shetty and 2 Ors.

Savitri Devi Kabra Vs Kiran Gaurishankar Jhawar

Rajan Gopinath Khot and Anr. Vs Prafulla Kamlakar Gavande and Anr.

Amar Brijkishore Gupta Vs Ashok Gupta