31. This leaves the question of what, if anything, is to be made of Mr. Ved’s Affidavit. At the cost of repetition, it must be noted that this is an Affidavit of Evidence within the meaning of Order XVIII Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Assuming for the purposes of argument, that it is an Affidavit of Evidence, or is liable to be treated as one, and Mr. Ved has not been available for crossexamination because he passed away before his cross-examination could commence, then that puts us in a situation squarely covered by Section 32 of the Evidence Act, 1872. In this context, the decision of Mr. Justice H.R. Khanna sitting singly in the Delhi High Court is one that clearly and succinctly elucidates the correct position in law.22 Such an Affidavit is not to be lightly disregarded. What weight is to be attached to it in such circumstances must depend on an assessment of all the surrounding factors. It may or may not be accepted in its entirety. In a given case, a Court may require further corroboration. Certainly it is not one to be discarded out of hand. Now, there is no inconsistency in what Mr. Ved says in his Affidavit and what Mr. Vakil says in his testimony (in a proper Affidavit of Evidence under Order XVIII Rule 4) and in his crossexamination. If this be so, then what emerges from the evidence, viz., that Bhanumati executed the Will in question, and that she did so on 24th May 1973 in the offices of M/s. Tyabji Dayabhai in the presence of Mr. Chimanlal Vakil and Mr. Ved, remains completely unshaken. Read with Question 4 put to PW 1 when cross-examined in this Court, in my judgment, this is sufficient to prove the due execution of the Will in its solemn form. Both Affidavits filed by the Plaintiff make a specific assertion that when she made the Will in
