Siblings fight over mother’s wills, Bombay high court holds both false

Twenty years after their mother’s death, the attempts made by a brother and sister to produce her “real will” have come a cropper.
In a testamentary suit filed in the Bombay high court, the two wills produced by Prithviraj Patel and his sister, Meena Patel, claiming a right over their mother’s share in the family business, her Napeansea Road flat and property at Jalna, failed to impress the court. Dismissing both their suits, the court held, “From the evidence as a whole, neither of the wills is proved and can be probated.”

While the brother had produced a will dated March 9, 1990, the sister had relied on her mother’s will of May 24, 1989. Their mother passed away on July 14, 1990.

Their father, who died in 1978, had bequeathed his residential building to his son and the remaining property to his wife. However, he had given both his wife and son a 50% share in the family business. Meena, who was married and had settled down in London, was not left any property.

After their mother’s death, the will produced by Prithviraj was examined by the court first as it was the latest. However, he could not examine the attesting witness of the will — a business acquaintance and their family priest in Jalna. Prithviraj had deposed before the court saying he did not know the whereabouts of these witnesses. Citing a Supreme Court observation that “attestation is not an empty formality,” the court held that Prithviraj’s will cannot be proved.

Meena contended that her brother had not looked after their mother well and had also mismanaged the family business.

However, the daughter's visit just a month prior to the execution of the will produced by her, did not go down well with the court.

“Perhaps tactfully and artfully the sister succeeded in getting the mother to sign the writing in the office of the solicitor known to both of them upon winning her over by her gifts, her company at the pilgrimage which was the mother’s most cherished wish and the offer of making a passport for her, which could have well been the ultimate bait,” justice Roshan Dalvi observed.