Will. They relied upon exchange of communications between the respondent No.1 i.e. one of the executors and the said other executor Ms. Kety Mehta in respect of their claim regarding fraud. They further claimed that the respondent No.1 as one of the executors had differences of opinion with the said Ms. Kety Mehta despite grant of probate in respect of the Will, as a result of which, there was a stalemate in implementation of the Will in its entirety, although some legacies under the said Will were distributed. According to the petitioners, it was only on 02.08.2017 when the respondent No.1 sent a written communication to them that as heirs of the deceased, they ought to approach this Court for appropriate orders, that the cause of action arose for them to file the present petition. The said communication dated 02.08.2017 was issued after Ms. Kety Mehta expired on 10.03.2016. According to the petitioners, in the light of the communications exchanged between the respondent No.1 and Ms. Kety Mehta, some of which were copied to the petitioners, a reference was made to the defective affidavit of the attesting witness Roshan Minocher Master i.e. respondent No.2 in the present petition. The petitioners found that while the affidavit of the attesting witness filed in Petition No.257 of 1997 for grant of probate stated that the deceased had executed the Will at Room No.455 of Taj Mahal Hotel, in fact the deceased, on that date, was in St. Elizabeth’s Hospital at Malabar Hill at Mumbai. This rendered the affidavit defective, thereby demonstrating that the probate ought to be revoked.
