1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No.3772 of 2009 (Vasant S. Potdar v. Sharad S. Potdar and others) Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's order Shri P.G. Thombre, Advocate for Petitioner. Coram : R.C. Chavan, J. Dated : 16 th September, 2009 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. This petition is directed against the concurrent findings of the learned 3 rd Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Nagpur, as well as the learned Ad hoc District Judge-7, Nagpur, that the will of deceased Indu Balkrishna Potdar, sister of petitioner and respondent No.1, was duly proved by the propounder-respondent No.1 Sharad Potdar, who had applied for probate of will before the learned Civil Judge. The propounder had examined an attesting witness P.G. Hardas, who is shown to have deposed before the Court that he and another witness D.V. Ashtikar were present when Indu signed the will and that he had identified the signature of Indu. 2 The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the signature on the will was not that of Indu and that the record had been called from the State Bank of India to show that Indu’s signature was different in the record of the State Bank of India, which fact has been missed by the learned District Judge in his judgment. Merely because Indu might have signed differently in the Bank or her signature on the will is not similar to the signature in the Bank, it would not be permissible to hold that the will is forged. People sign differently in the Banks and for transactions with others. Therefore, mere visible difference in the signature would not be sufficient to conclude that the will was not that of Indu. If the petitioner was serious, he could have caused the signature to be sent to the Handwriting Expert, who could have compared the signature with admitted writing of Indu. In any case, there is no reason why attesting witness P.G. Hardas would falsely depose that Indu had signed the will in his presence and in the present of other witness D.V. Ashtikar. The learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kalyan Singh v. Smt. Chhoti and others, reported at AIR 1990 SC 396, for the settled principle that the propounder of the will 3 has to remove all the suspicious circumstances by placing satisfactory material on record. In this case, except for a suspicion in the mind of the petitioner that the signature does not tally with the signature of Indu in the Bank, there are no suspicious circumstances. The propounder of the will, i.e. the brother of Indu and the attesting witness, has been examined. There is no reason to suspect that the will was not signed by Indu and, therefore, the judgment cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner is unhelpful. No case for invoking jurisdiction of this Court is made out. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. Judge. pdl