- 1 - IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION. ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION. ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION. jmi TESTAMENTARY SUIT NO.30 OF 2002 IN TESTAMENTARY PETITION NO.448 OF 2000. Kishor Ratilal Gandhi. ..Plaintiff. vs. Shila Madhukar Mehta. ..Defendant. .... Mr.A.B. Shrikhande, for Plaintiff. .... CORAM CORAM CORAM: S.J.KATHAWALLA, J. S.J.KATHAWALLA, J. S.J.KATHAWALLA, J. DATE DATE DATE : 12TH MARCH, 2009 : 12TH MARCH, 2009 : 12TH MARCH, 2009. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . I have perused the caveat filed by the defendant dated 31.07.2000. The contention in the affidavit raised by the defendant is that the Will is a brought up document and not executed by the deceased. The other contention raised is that the deceased Subhadra Ratilal Gandhi could not have bequeathed the said flat to the brother of the plaintiff. 2. Since in this suit (testamentary proceedings) , the right of the deceased Subhadra Gandhi to bequeath the property cannot be decided, the only issue to be decided is whether the plaintiff has proved that the document/Will of the deceased dated 30th June 1984 is - 2 - validly executed by the deceased Subhadra R. Gandhi. 3. The defendant has not come forward to defend the evidence of attesting witness or to impugn the said Will which is produced by the witness and marked as Exh-P-1. In my view, PW 1 i.e.Aruna K. Vora, the attesting witness of the Will, by her evidence (recorded separately) has proved that the Will dated 30th June 1984 is validly executed by the deceased Subhadra Ratilal Gandhi. The defendant has not come forward to prove that the Will is a brought up document as alleged in her affidavit dated 31.07.2000 filed in the above suit. The Caveat filed by the Caveatrix is, therefore, dismissed. 4. The suit is decreed accordingly. The suit stands disposed of. [S.J.KATHAWALLA, [S.J.KATHAWALLA, [S.J.KATHAWALLA, J.] J.] J.]