Disposed¶21

Kartik Natvarlal Panchal v. Shardaben Nagindas Panchal

Bombay HC18 Feb 2025TP/2320/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Bombay HC, Testamentary Petition No. 2320 of 2024; Rule 383 Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules 1980; attesting witness affidavit required for interlineations/alterations in a Will; deponent not born when Will executed; casual attempt to circumvent provisions of law; requisition of Registry not dispensed with; reference to Indian Succession Act, 1925 within Rule 383 text; single judge Arif S. Doctor; decided 30 January 2025.

What did the court decide?

On its plain reading, Rule 383 requires that interlineations, alterations etc. in a Will be sworn to by the attesting witness. ¶20

Kartik Natvarlal Panchal vs Shardaben Nagindas… — Succession and Inheritance | Bombay HC (2025)

¶1

39-TP-2320-2024.DOC

¶2

Shephali

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

¶4

TESTAMENTARY AND INTESTATE JURISDICTION

¶5

TESTAMENTARY PETITION NO. 2320 OF 2024

¶6

Kartik Natvarlal Panchal

¶7

Shardaben Nagindas Panchal

¶8

…Petitioner

¶9

…Deceased

¶10

Mr Nisha Shah , with Kinnari, i/b kalpesh Joshi Associates, for the Petitioner.

¶11

CORAM: ARIF S. DOCTOR, J DATED: 30TH JANUARY 2025

¶12

PC:-

¶13

SHEPHALI SANJAY MORMARE

¶14

Digitally signed by SHEPHALI SANJAY MORMARE Date: 2025.02.03 12:18:24 +0530

¶15

1. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has today tendered an Affidavit of one Kartik Natvarlal Panchal stated to be in compliance with Rule 383 of the Bombay High Court (Original Side) Rules 1980. Rule 383 reads thus:

¶16

“383. Interlineations, alternations, etc., in the will should be sworn to by the attesting witness:— When interlineations, alterations, erasures or obliterations appear in the will (unless duly executed as required by the Indian Succession Act, 1925, or recited in or otherwise identified by the attestation clause), a statement shall, if possible, be made in the affidavit of the attesting witness whether they existed in the will before its

¶17

Page 1 of 2

¶18

39-TP-2320-2024.DOC

¶19

execution or nor. If the attesting witness is unable to make the statement, he shall state so in the Affidavit.”

¶20

2. The plain reading of Rule 383 makes it clear that the interlineations and alternations etc in the Will should be sworn to by the attesting witness. In the present case, the deponent of the Affidavit in question was not even born on the date when the said Will was executed. Hence, the question of the deponent sworn in an Affidavit to prove the interlineations /alternations to the said Will does not arise and clearly a casual attempt to circumvent the provisions of law has been made.

¶21

3. In view of this, the requisition of the Registry is not dispensed with.

¶22

(ARIF S. DOCTOR, J)

¶23

Page 2 of 2

Kartik Natvarlal Panchal v. Shardaben Nagindas Panchal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kartik Natvarlal Panchal v. Shardaben Nagindas Panchal

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Kr Construction vs State of Maharashtra

Aditya Birla Finance Limited vs Sundara Helena Esther

Kakasaheb Vitthal Khandare and Ors. vs the State of Maharashtra Thr. Its Secretary and Ors.

Bisleri International Private Limited vs Ravi Kanth Kasala Proprietor of Devi Beverages

Asian Paints Limited vs Signaturre Paints Private Limited

Kr Construction vs State of Maharashtra