38. The only other aspect of the matter to which Mr. Damle adverts is his submission that the Will is “suspicious” because the bequest is, he says, to the Executors. He encourages me to read with him the Will in this fashion and to hold that because the Will makes provision for payment to Mr. Damania and Mr. Pikale of their legal costs and gives them the discretion to decide the amount and direction of the charitable bequests, that it is, in fact, a bequest to them. To begin with, this has nothing whatever to do with the due execution of the Will. It relates to the contents of the Will. This does not in and of itself disprove the due execution and attestation of the testamentary instrument. Second, I am unable to accept the submission as it is framed. This can hardly be said to be, on any fair reading of it, a bequest to the two Executors in question. If there was any doubt about the trust that Shashikala reposed in these two gentleman, I imagine it is completely put to rest not only by the nomination form,17 for in this she made both nominees of her Will, but also the other clauses, to which there is even today no challenge, and which set out that she had one or the other or both of them as nominees to her bank accounts and lockers. I must note, too, that in her examination-in-chief, Mrs. Mazumdar makes specific mention
