You’ve Made a Will. Now What?

Drafting your Will is just the first step. Read about what can go wrong with your Will and what you can do to make the process smooth.

Where There’s a Will, There’s a Long…long way

The Indian Succession Act is quite ‘no-frills’ about making a Will.

However, the real story of a Will only begins once its maker has passed. There are numerous things that can go wrong when your successors or appointees try to enforce your Will. This is not to mention the general delays that all litigants in India experience when approaching courts.

In this article we try and categorize the many ways things can go wrong when enforcing a Will.

Contents

1. Why Should I Care
2. Terminology
3. Suggestions in this Article
4. Methodology
5. 10 Different Categories of Issues with Wills
6. Insights From the Data
7. A Statistician Would Not Like Our Data
8. What Are the Lessons from the Data?
   • What constitutes suspicious circumstances?
   • Situation No. 1
   • Situation No. 2
   • Situation No. 3
   • Situation No. 4
   • Situation No. 5
   • Situation No. 6
   • Situation No. 7
   • Situation No. 8
   • Situation No. 9
   • Situation No. 10
   • Situation No. 11
   • Situation No. 12
   • Situation No. 13
9. Other Considerations
10. Conclusion

Why Should I Care

Since you drafted a Will, you clearly want to ensure your loved ones’ well-being after you are gone. So, smoothing over hurdles will save your loved ones from wasting years in courts. Our hope is that this article sparks ideas on how you can change small things in your Will process so that your loved ones avoid difficulties after you are gone.

Terminology

There are some common terms that will repeat throughout the article which we define simply as follows:

• Testator – The person making the Will and leaving his property to persons named in his Will. The female equivalent is ‘Testatrix’.
• Bequest – A specific grant of an asset in the Will. For example, “I leave my Maruti 800 to Mr. X” is an individual bequest of the car to Mr. X. The verb form is ‘to bequeath’.
• Estate – All of the Testator’s properties and assets.
• Executor – A person named in the Will to act as a trustee of the Testator’s Estate after the Testator’s death. He is responsible for enforcing the Will (by giving out bequests and arranging for payment of debts).
• Administrator/Letters of Administration – If the Will does not name an Executor, or the named Executor is unwilling or unable to apply for probate, any of the beneficiaries in the Will can apply to be granted Letters of Administration. If the applicant is successful, he will be named Administrator of the Testator’s Estate by the Court.
• Beneficiary/Legatee – The recipient of a bequest is a beneficiary or legatee.
• Probate – The process by which a Will is ‘proved’ to the satisfaction of the Court, allowing the Executor to act on the Will.
• Propounder – The person seeking to prove a Will in court. It is the person who files a probate application or application for letters of administration.
• Recital – A part of any legal document that explains the background leading up to the main objective and contents of that document. It is usually not considered an ‘operative’ part of the document but is used for interpretation whenever there is any doubt or ambiguity.
• Residuary Beneficiary – a beneficiary who is bequeathed the remainder of the Testator’s Estate which is not otherwise specifically bequeathed in the Will.

Suggestions in this Article

For those without the time or inclination to read the entire article, our suggestions for your Will are:

1. Divide the Will into two clear parts – (i) the main body with recitals, identifying Executors, beneficiaries, witnesses and an (ii) Annexure with details about the Estate
2. The Recitals in the Will should be detailed and comprehensive especially explaining any parts of the Will that may appear surprising for e.g. not bequeathing any property to a particular child.
3. Name a Residuary Beneficiary in your Will without fail.
4. Make all or most of the arrangements for execution of your Will yourself so that there are witnesses who can state that you were mentally capable at the time of making the Will.
5. Have more than 2 witnesses to your Will and at least 1 witness who is 5-10 years younger than you.
6. Clearly demarcate the space for witness signatures on the signing page. Under their signatures indicate their names, identification numbers (e.g. PAN, Aadhar) and addresses/contact numbers.
7. Have the witnesses sign each page of the Will with full signatures.
8. Store the executed Will in a safe place together with other personal documents.
9. Only inform the Executor/witness about where the Will is stored if you trust them unreservedly.
10. Have a discussion with your chosen Executors about the Probate process and what it entails. You can affix a guideline sheet with your Will which summarizes the To-Do for your Executor along with contact information for your trusted Advocate.
11. Review your completed Will thoroughly to remove any ambiguities. Use simple language and short sentences when constructing the Will.
12. If you are in ill-health or beyond the age of sixty-five when making a Will, you can do any of the following additional things: (1) obtain a doctor’s certificate as to your mental capacity or have your family doctor as one of the witnesses to the Will (2) register your Will (3) leave a video recording in which you read through and explain the Will.
13.  Choose credible and trustworthy witnesses (from the Court’s perspective).
14. If you want to modify your Will, make a new Will entirely in which you expressly void the earlier Will. Also physically destroy the earlier Will. Do not make codicils.
15. If an interest in joint family/ancestral property is part of your Estate, either partition the joint/ancestral property during your lifetime or transfer your independently built properties to the intended recipients during your lifetime and not through the Will.

Methodology

We examined 125 judgements of the Supreme Court and the High Courts of Bombay, Delhi, Madras and Calcutta.  To pick 25 judgements from each of these Courts we needed a method which would be uniform across all the Courts while also leading to some credible learning. We also needed our data to be reproducible by readers.

The solution was to use a publicly available database (Indian Kanoon) for judgements. We entered the same keyword search when searching judgements across all courts viz. (“testamentary” AND “Will”). Using this open-ended keyword ensured that we confined the search results to matters of Wills. Lastly, we sorted the results “by relevance” which is based on the database’s own algorithm. Although we did not have the details of this algorithm, we were satisfied that at least the same parameters would apply to search results for all Courts.

10 Different Categories of Issues with Wills

After examining the 125 judgements, we narrowed down 10 categories of types of disputes in matters of Wills:

1. Improper execution – the Indian Succession Act in Chapter III of Part VI provides the way a Will (for most people) is to be executed. In this category of disputes, the manner of execution of the Will was contested.
2. Suspicious circumstances – This is when the circumstances surrounding the contents/execution of the Will are contested as being ‘suspicious’. For example if one child who has had no contact with the Testator for decades is left the entire Estate in the Will at the cost of his siblings who lived with the Testator.
3. Interpretation of the Will – When the wording of parts of the Will is ambiguous.
4. Hindu joint family/ancestral property – When a property that is bequeathed in the Will is claimed to be a joint family or ancestral property especially under Hindu Mitakshara law.
5. Jurisdiction – When the court’s jurisdiction to hear the Probate petition or to decide on a contested aspect of the matter is disputed. For example, the court hearing the probate petition passes an order with regards to the title of a property.
6. Existence of the Will – When the Will’s existence is itself disputed. For example, a party claims that a Will exists but only produces a copy and not the original.
7. Multiple Wills – When multiple Wills of the same Testator are sought to be proved.
8. Limitation period – When a person’s attempt to either prove a Will or contest it is claimed to be outside the prescribed limitation period.
9. Forged Will – When the Will sought to be proved is claimed to be a forgery.
10. Others – For example, where the application of Muslim Personal Law is also a question.

Insights From the Data

	Number of Cases
Categories	Supreme Court	Bombay High Court	Delhi High Court	Madras High Court	Calcutta High Court	Total
Improper execution	8	11	6	12	11	48
Suspicious circumstances	6	2	8	5	5	26
Interpretation of the Will	6	0	2	1	1	10
Existence of the Will	1	2	2	2	1	8
Joint family/ancestral property	2	0	3	2	0	7
Forgery of the Will	0	4	0	1	2	7
Jurisdiction	2	1	0	0	3	6
Multiple Wills	0	2	2	0	0	4
Limitation period	0	1	1	0	1	3
Others	0	2	1	2	1	6
Total	25	25	25	25	25	125

• By far the most frequent category was that of ‘Improper execution.’ This suggests that, even though there are few formal requirements for making/executing a Will, it is still possible to cast doubt on the circumstances of the execution.
• Surprisingly, even in the Supreme Court judgements the ‘Suspicious circumstances’ category was frequent. This is the one category in which the issue is entirely a ‘question of fact’ rather than a ‘question of law’. Typically, when hearing appeals the Supreme Court will constrain itself to questions of law.
• Matters before the Supreme Court would typically be those of substantial importance whether because of the parties involved, the extent of the Estate or an important question of law. It is telling that categories such as Forgery of the Will, Multiple Wills and Limitation Period were seen in the High Courts but not in the Supreme Court. Perhaps, the parties appearing before the High Courts in these 3 categories of matters did not feel as passionately about their versions of events as those complaining of improper execution or suspicious circumstances. Alternatively, perhaps these 3 categories of cases are more black-and-white in nature leaving less room for continued litigation after a High Court has already decided the matter.
• In the judgements of the Calcutta High Court and Bombay High Court, we encountered no judgements hinging on the issue of joint family/ancestral property. For the Calcutta High Court, this is possibly explained by the relatively uncomplicated Dayabhaga School of Hindu Law being prevalent in the Court’s jurisdiction while for the Bombay High Court it is possibly explained by the cosmopolitan nature of the regions of Mumbai, Goa and Pune with nuclear families being common.
• Judgements hinging on technical/procedural issues such as limitation and jurisdiction were comparatively infrequent.
• Surprisingly we saw judgements on the issue of ‘existence of the Will’ in each of the Courts. In fact, in many such cases the problem arose because the original of the supposed Will could not be produced for various reasons and only a copy was submitted instead.

A Statistician Would Not Like Our Data

There are clear biases and deficiencies in our data that would not fly as far as statistical analysis is concerned:

• This data does not capture the type of cases that were filed across various Courts, only the ones that were adjudicated. For example, it is possible that if data were available on types of cases filed and not just those that were adjudicated, in that data the category of ‘Limitation period’ may be the most frequent.
• We relied on the ‘relevance’ algorithm of the database (Indian Kanoon) whose underlying assumptions and reasons for generating a particular set of search results are not known to us.
• It was a rare case where only one of the stated categories was present as an issue. Typically, there were 3 or 4 issues in dispute in every matter. To simplify our analysis, we categorized cases based on the main issue in dispute. However, the decision of what exactly was the ‘main issue in dispute’ was a subjective decision. In certain cases, the Court expressly noted that a certain issue was the main issue. In other cases, based on the proportion of the judgement that was spent on a particular issue it was obviously the main issue.
• Our categories are not completely distinct from each other. For example, ‘Forgery of the Will’ can be seen as just an instance of ‘Suspicious circumstances’.

What Are the Lessons from the Data?

It is difficult to generate a comprehensive list of dos-and-don’ts for your Will that will help your loved ones avoid a lengthy court battle. Ultimately, you cannot stop a determined person from filing a case against you no matter what precautions you take. However, there are lessons from the 125 cases that you can apply to your Will to dissuade possible complainants from undertaking legal action.

What constitutes suspicious circumstances?

Luckily for us, the Supreme Court in Shashi Kumar Banerjee & Ors v. Subodh Kumar Banerjee [2] gave us a list of circumstances that would be considered suspicious. These were:

1. Genuineness of the Testator’s signature in the Will – for example, the Testator’s signature in the Will appeared quite different from his signatures in documents he signed just prior to executing the Will.
2. Condition of the Testator’s mind at the time of making/executing the Will – for example, if the Testator somehow managed to make a Will with intricate details of all his properties while bedridden with a serious medical condition.
3. Unfair/improbable bequests in the Will – for example, if the Will does not leave a bequest to one child even though the Testator and that child were known to have an affectionate relationship right up to the Testator’s death.
4. Other indications in the Will that the Testator did not execute it from a free mind – for example, a bequest of a property that had been previously sold by the Testator might suggest that Testator was confused and not in his right mind while making the Will.

Again, these 5 instances of suspicious circumstances are wide in their application. However, we discuss some more specific instances below.

Situation No. 1 – An Executor was trying to prove a Will in which he was also a substantial beneficiary. [2] [3]

Discussion – Imagine a classic movie premise of a villainous advisor to a wealthy senior citizen who tries to prove a Will in which he stands to gain most of the deceased’s Estate. The deceased’s relatives are aghast at the stranger’s audacity and greed. In real life, the Court would have to treat such a situation with utmost caution. However, the circumstance may not always be suspicious. For example, a Testator with a wife and only one minor child may have named his wife as his Executor and sole beneficiary. Such a situation would not arouse suspicion by itself.

Suggestion – If you name your Executor as a major beneficiary at the expense of close relations, you should explain your reasons as a recital in the Will. For example, a Testator has two children of whom one is well-settled abroad and he wishes to leave a major part of the Estate to the other child. He may make a note of this situation stating his belief that his foreign resident child, being well-settled abroad, is less in need of funds and is also unlikely to be able to look after immovable property in India.

Situation No. 2 – The Testator, without stating a reason, did not leave his descendants any bequests in his Will [2] [3]

Discussion – The Court presumes that in the natural course, a person would bequeath most of his Estate to his descendants in his Will. A deviation from this without explanation arouses the suspicion of the Court.

Suggestion – Much like in situation no. 1, a clear explanation in the Will for such a move is a must. However, the reason must make sense to the Court. For example, Bill Gates has gone on record to state that he will only leave a fraction of his Estate to his children as “leaving kids massive amounts of money is not a favor to them.”[1]

Situation No. 3 – The Will contained detailed descriptions of the Testator’s assets such as exact amounts lying in his bank account and details of liabilities. The Executor claimed that the Will was made impromptu by the sick, elderly Testator. [3]

Discussion – In this case, the Court noted that it is unlikely that an ordinary person would remember intricate financial details impromptu and therefore the circumstances were highly suspicious.

Suggestion – Whether you are making your Will for the first time or redoing it, it is better to make all the efforts and arrangements yourself rather than having your Executor/beneficiary do it for you. People must see and remember you as being of capable, disposing and free mind. Always name a residuary beneficiary. This will future-proof your Will.

Situation No. 4 – At least one attesting witness must prove the Execution of the Will. None of the witnesses to a Will were alive when it was sought to be proved. [4]

Discussion – You are likely to ask friends of a similar age to witness the execution of your Will. However, there is no guarantee that your witnesses will survive you or be capable of attesting to the Will after your passing. If your Executor is not able to locate or bring your witnesses on record, his job will become that much harder. Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act states that for a Will to be proved, at least one of the witnesses must appear in Court (or submit an affidavit) to answer to the attestation. In one case none of the witnesses were alive and the Propounder did not even know who the witnesses were in the first place and therefore could not even prove the witness’ handwriting or signature.

Suggestion – You must have a minimum of two witnesses to your Will. However, you can have more. Try and have more than two witnesses to your Will and at least one who is 5-10 years younger than you.

Situation No. 5 – There was a signature of a person other than the Testator on the Will. However, there were no recitals or other markings indicating in what capacity this other person had signed the document. [5]

Discussion – The attesting witness to the Will must sign with ‘animo attestandi’ or the intention to attest. For example, a person may sign a document on request without knowing what he is signing. This would not be a case of an intention to attest. A simple signature without any indication that the intention to attest was present may lead to suspicion of improper execution.

Suggestion – Better safe than sorry. On the signature page of the Will clearly leave space for ‘Witnesses’ and specify the space for Witness No. 1, Witness No. 2 and so on. The witnesses’ details should also be specified – name, address, telephone number, email address and if possible Aadhar or PAN number. Furthermore, we suggest that the witnesses also sign in full on each page of the Will which will indicate that they perused the entire Will.

Situation No. 6 – The Propounder could not produce the original Will in Court. Instead, he produced a photocopy of the Will. [6]

Discussion – Most courts with jurisdiction in Will matters compulsorily require that the Propounder produce the original of the Will in Court. If the Propounder fails to produce the original, it can lead to a suspicion that he has something to hide.

Suggestion – Where should you keep your Will after executing it? This question does not have a simple answer. You should be cautious about your own safety and that means not revealing the location of your Will to just anyone. You can keep your Will with your other personal documents such that there can be no suspicion about its location after your passing. Alternatively, you may also inform your witnesses and/or Executor about its location. However, this depends on whether you strongly trust your witnesses and Executor in this matter.

Situation No. 7 – The Propounder filed the probate petition with a significant delay. [4]

Discussion – A significant delay in filing a probate petition leads to suspicions about the circumstances and the genuineness of the Will.

Suggestion – If you trust your Executor(s), you should discuss with them about the process of filing a probate petition and the burden that they will face. Alternatively, you may enclose a letter to your Executor with the Will, outlining the requirements and suggesting trusted legal advisors who they can reach out to for help with the Probate petition.

Situation No. 8 – Two parts of the same Will dealt with the same property. In the first part, the Testator bequeathed the property to one beneficiary. In the second part, the Testator stated that in case of sale of the property, the proceeds would be distributed amongst various beneficiaries. [7]

Discussion – A mention of the same property in different parts of the Will can require the Court’s interpretation of the Will. In situations of ambiguous wording, the Court must ‘step into the shoes’ of the Testator and try and understand the overall objective of the Will and therefore how the confusion should be resolved. This interpretation may or may not be what the Testator intended. If the Court needs to interpret a part of the Will it would extend the court proceedings further.

Suggestion – It is extremely important that you review the Will several times to ensure that it is coherent and there are no repetitions or ambiguities. If possible, list specific asset details and to whom those assets are bequeathed only in a tabular format as an Annexure. The body of the Will should only contain the details of the Testator, Beneficiaries, Executors and recitals such as reasons for denying a bequest to a particular person.

Situation No. 9 – The Testator was known to suffer from serious medical issues. A claimant raised a doubt about the Testator’s state of mind when executing the Will. The Propounder did not produce any medical records to demonstrate that the Testator’s medical issues would not have affected his state of mind. [8][9]

Discussion – The Propounder must satisfy the Court as to proper execution of the Will and that the Testator was in a sound and disposing mind when executing the Will. If any other interested person raises doubts, such as suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will, the doubter must prove the valid existence of these suspicious circumstances. Once the suspicious circumstances are established the burden once again shifts to the Propounder to dispel the suspicions. In this specific case, the health issues that the Testator was suffering from were serious and a reasonable person would presume that the Testator’s state of mind would therefore be severely affected. It was up to the Propounder to produce medical records to prove otherwise.

Suggestion – Several clients have asked us – “do I need a doctor’s certificate along with the Will?” The answer is technically, no. There is no such requirement to make or execute a Will.

However, the above situation is exactly the one due to which people take steps such as obtaining a doctor’s certificate attesting to soundness of mind or reading out the Will in a video or registering the Will. There is nuance in the circumstances. If you executed your Will in your fifties, the Court is unlikely to immediately question your soundness of mind at the time of execution. However, if you were in your seventies and in ill health when executing your Will then the Court will naturally be skeptical and will need reassurance.

Even something simple as choosing respectable and uninterested (in your Estate) witnesses could be enough to dispel doubts. An additional suggestion is the same as for Situation No. 3 – you should make the efforts and arrangements for your Will yourself.

Situation No. 10 – One of the witnesses called upon to attest to the Will gave conflicting testimonies on the stand. It was also shown that she was unable to understand English but had submitted her affidavit using complex legal phrases. [8]

Discussion – It goes without saying that this situation created tremendous suspicion in the mind of the Judge.

Suggestion – Choose your witnesses carefully – they should have credibility before the Court. If possible, allow the witnesses to peruse the Will and explain the reasoning behind any peculiar bequests or lack thereof.

Situation No. 11 – The Testator executed 2 Wills and a further 3 codicils. One codicil repudiated the 2^nd Will while another revived it. [10]

Discussion – When there are multiple Wills/Codicils, the Court may be forced to try and decode the intention of the Testator. This will complicate and elongate proceedings and may end up offering a result far from the Testator’s actual intention.

Suggestion – (1) Avoid codicils. (2) When executing a new Will, you should expressly revoke all earlier Wills, and also physically destroy the earlier Wills.

Situation No. 12 – A claimant said that a particular immovable property mentioned in a Will was actually Hindu joint family/ancestral property. Therefore it could not be bequeathed. The Propounder claimed that the Testator had self-acquired the property. [11]

Discussion – For those Hindus living in joint family situations, this is a particularly tricky issue. The circumstances determine whether a property was self-acquired or a joint family/ancestral property.

When a claimant states that a property bequeathed in the Will was actually acquired for the benefit of the joint family, the Court asks whether it appears that the property has been ‘thrown into the common pot.’ For example, if one brother living in a joint family buys a commercial property from his own share of the family business; then allows a sibling to build and operate an office from that property, it lends credence to the idea that the property was purchased for joint use.

To successfully show that a property is ancestral, the claimant must show that the property was not purchased by the Testator from the Testator’s self-generated funds and was in fact purchased from ancestral wealth. For example, a Testator was the karta of a Hindu Undivided Family (HUF) but also had his own independent business. He intermingled the HUF funds in his control with the profits from his business in a single account. If his financial statements and tax returns could not prove that the funds that his independent business generated were sufficient to purchase the property while also meeting his regular needs, then the property would likely be deemed ancestral property for having been purchased from the ancestral wealth.

A claim of ancestral property in a Will elongates and complicates the court proceeding.

Suggestion – Let us say the intention is to bequeath independent property via a Will at the expense of joint family members. It would be better to deal with your interest in joint family/ancestral property and your independent properties separately. Option number one is to seek partition of the ancestral property during your lifetime. Option number two is to transfer your independent properties during your lifetime so that your Will does not mix the 2 types of properties.

Situation No. 13 – The Testator, inexplicably affixed his thumbprint to the Will. [12]

Discussion – In this situation, the Propounder claimed that Testator’s hands were shivering and hence instead of signing put his thumbprint on the Will. However, the Propounder did not provide medical records to prove the same. He also needed to prove that the infirmity was only physical and not mental. This situation was doubtful in 2 ways: (1) why did the Testator suddenly switch from signing documents to affixing his thumbprint? (2) If there was indeed a medical reason for the switch, then was it serious enough to cast doubt on the soundness of the Testator’s mind at the time of making the Will?

Suggestion – This situation is like situation no. 9 and our suggestions are the same. Some people annex doctor’s certificates to their Wills attesting to the physical condition but confirming the patient’s soundness of mind. Others create videos showing their competence while also explaining their physical infirmity. In this situation registration of the Will may also help. The Registrar may be able to attest to the mental competence of the Testator while confirming the physical infirmity.

Other Considerations

Q. Do I need to register my Will?

No, it is not compulsory to register your Will under the Registration Act. However, the cost-benefit analysis of registering your Will also depends on your circumstances. We would recommend that you only consider registering your Will if the following circumstances are true for you:

• Your Estate will include immovable property.
• Your age is over sixty-five years, or you have not been keeping in good health.
• You reside in a metro or Tier – 1 city (there have been reported cases in the past where an interloper has managed to convince officers in the Sub-Registrar office to give false testimony to the Court).
• There is a strong probability of your beneficiaries/heirs challenging your Will.

Q. Do my witnesses need to read the entire contents of my Will?

This is a difficult one to answer. As per the Succession Act, witnesses have to attest as to the Testator’s intention in the Will. Some High Courts have held that this is only possible when the Witnesses have read the Will. Other High Courts have held that this does not imply that the Witnesses need to have read the Will.

Q. Do I need a Will in the first place?

The answer depends on your situation. If your Estate includes immovable property, then we highly recommend that you make a Will. However, we once had a client who only had movable property (bank deposits) as part of her Estate. She had disposed of other property during her lifetime. In such a situation, she did not necessarily require a Will as after her death the nominee to her bank account could simply recover the money in her deposit without needing to prove a Will. A nominee of a property acts as its trustee and is accountable to the heirs or beneficiaries of the deceased. However, practically speaking for movable property the nominee has full control over the property.

Conclusion

Making a Will is a tough process. You confront your own mortality which is hard enough. You also must plan for situations in which you will have no way of interceding. We strongly encourage you to identify and begin discussing the situation with a trusted legal advisor in the same way you might discuss your health with a trusted family doctor.

Disclaimer: The views in this article do not constitute legal advice and are only the interpretations and opinions of the authors.

Author: Nakul Gupta with help from Chaitanya Daptardar

---

[1] https://finance.yahoo.com/news/bill-gates-children-only-inherit-151514768.html

[2] AIR 1964 SUPREME COURT 529.

[3] Niranjan Umeshchandra Joshi v. Mrudula Jyoti Rao & Ors., 007 AIR 614.

[4] R. Subramaniam v. R. Surendran, AIRONLINE 2020 MAD 883.

[5] Jagdish Chand Sharma v. Narain Singh Saini (Dead); 2015 (8) SCC 615.

[6] “Shiv-Krupa” v. Gaurang Gunvantrai Gupta, Testamentary Suit No. 48 of 1996, Bombay High Court. Decided on 22 July 2008.

[7] Jennifer Mary Cardoz And Others v. Joseph Anthony Dcunha; Suit No. 517 of 2014, Bombay High Court. Decided on 2 May 2019.

[8] Jivaji Framroze Tarachand v. Minoo Mistry; TESTAMENTARY SUIT NO. 85 OF 2005 IN TESTAMENTARY PETITION NO. 604 OF 2005 in Bombay High Court. Decided on 25 September 2014

[9] Bharat Mohan Kohli v. State; Testamentary Cas 48/2017 at Delhi High Court. Decided on 29 May 2024.

[10] Kaikhushru Jehangir v. Bai Bachubai Jehangir; AIR 1951 BOM 339

[11] Devendra Shanker v. State; CS(OS) 985/2002 Delhi High Court. Decided on 5 December 2011.

[12] K.S.Venugopal v. R.Meenakshi; S.A.No.606 of 1997 at Madras High Court; Decided on 23.09.2011.