1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO.496 OF 2008 IN MISC.PETITION NO.67 OF 2007 IN PETITION NO.84 OF 2001 Geeta Vishnu Soni @ Geeta Ishwar Melwani .. Appellant V/s Shri.Ramesh Bansidhar Kabra & Ors. .. Respondents Mr.O.S.Kutty i/by Mr.S.S.Jinsiwale for the Appellant. CORAM: D.K.DESHMUKH & R.G.KETKAR, JJ. DATE: 4th August, 2011. P.C.: 1. By this appeal, the appellant challenges the order dated 17.10.2008 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in Misc. Petition No.67 of 2007. That petition was taken out by the petitioner for revocation of probate of a Will of one Vishnu Hundraj Soni. The probate was granted on 12.12.2003. Petitioner claimed to be daughter of said Vishnu. According to her, her mother was married to deceased Vishnu in the year 1976 and from that marriage two daughters were born and she is one of the two daughters. The ground for revocation of the probate was that 2 in the probate petition, the petitioner was not cited as legal heir left behind by deceased Vishnu. The learned Single Judge has examined all the documents that were produced by the petitioner in support of her case that on 09.04.1976 the mother of the petitioner was married to deceased Vishnu. The learned Single Judge has held that the petitioner has not been able to establish that she is daughter of deceased Vishnu. 2. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant. We have perused the record. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the birth certificates which were produced by the petitioner were enough to prove that petitioner was the daughter of deceased Vishnu. The learned Single Judge has considered this birth certificate. The learned Single Judge has held that there is discrepancy in the address which is mentioned in the birth certificate and what is stated in the petition for revocation of the probate and therefore he has disbelieved the birth certificate. 3. We thought that if it is the case of the petitioner that her mother was married to deceased Vishnu in the year 1976 and they were living together till 2000 there will be many documents such as Ration Card, Voters List etc. which would show that they were 3 living together as husband and wife. We therefore permitted the petitioner to produce such documents. 4. Today, the learned counsel for the petitioner has produced before us compilation of the documents. The petitioner has not been able to produce any Ration Card which would show that deceased Vishnu and her mother were living together as husband and wife for any length of time. No voters list has been produced. In short not a single document has been produced which will show that after their alleged marriage, they were living together as husband and wife. If it was the case of the petitioner that her mother was married to deceased Vishnu, then she could have filed affidavit of the priest who performed the marriage ceremony, but nothing was done. Even the affidavits of the persons who might have been present at the marriage ceremony have not been produced. Thus, even after giving an opportunity to the appellant, the appellant is not in a position to produce the documents which will establish that she is really the daughter of deceased Vishnu. If the relationship of the petitioner with deceased Vishnu is not established then no fault can be found with the executor who filed the petition for probate, not citing the petitioner as heir left behind 4 by deceased Vishnu. 5. Taking overall view of the matter, therefore, we see no reason to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge which is essentially based on the finding of fact recorded by the learned Single Judge that the petitioner has been unable to establish that she is daughter of deceased Vishnu. Appeal therefore fails. Appeal is dismissed. (R.G.KETKAR, J.) (D.K.DESHMUKH, J.)