Bangalore District CourtMrs.Jennifer Susan Andrews vs Dr.(Miss) Gladys Soumitra on 11 January, 2022IN THE COURT OF THE IV ADDL. CITY CIVIL &\n SESSIONS JUDGE AT MAYO HALL BENGALURU\n                 (CCH-21)\n                      Present:\n       Sri.D.S.Vijaya Kumar, B.Sc., LL.B.,\nXXVI Addl. City Civil & Sessions Judge & C/civic ACC &\n                     S.J. Bengaluru\n\n     Dated this the 11th day of January, 2022\n                O.S.No.25227/2009\n\nPlaintiffs:-   1.    Mrs.Jennifer Susan Andrews\n                     Aged about 59 years,\n                     W/o Geoffrey Andrews,\n                     Presently Residing at No.21,\n                     McLanahan      Road,    Windsor\n                     Gardens, Adelaide 5087, South\n                     Australia, Camping in Bangalore\n                     care of Barbara Papili, No.61,\n                     Wellington Street, Richmond\n                     Town, Bengaluru 560 025.\n\n               2.    Mrs. Inez May Dunham, Since\n                     deceased represented by her\n                     Legal heirs :-\n\n               2(a) Mr.Rodnye Michael,\n                    Aged about 77 years,\n                    S/o    Late    Oswald  Edward\n                    Dunham, Presently Residing at\n                    No.21,      McLanahan   Road,\n                    Windsor     Gardens,  Adelaide\n                         2\n                                     OS No.25227/2009\n\n                  5087, South Australia.\n             2(b) Mrs.Jennifer              Susan\n                  Andrews,Aged about 69 years,\n                  W/o Geoffrey Andrews, Presently\n                  Residing at No.21, McLanahan\n                  Road,      Windsor     Gardens,\n                  Adelaide 5087, South Australia,\n\n             2(c) Karen Tonkin,\n                  Adult,    D/o Late Chiristine\n                  Elizabeth May, 19, Kilmeston\n                  Court, Maddington, Western\n                  Australia.\n\n             2(d) Alison Torre,\n                  Adult,    D/o    Late    Christine\n                  Elizabeth May, 8         Osterley\n                  Terrace,      Darch,      Western\n                  Australia.\n\n                  [By M/s.Rego & Rego-Adv.]\n\n                  Vs.\n\nDefendants:- 1.   Dr.(Miss) Gladys Soumitra,\n                  Aged about 64 years,\n                  D/o Late Dr.D.Devaputra,\n                  Presently Residing at No.5/8,\n                  'Hussainabad        Apartments',\n                  Longford Road, Longford Town,\n                  Bengaluru 560025.\n             2.   Mr.John Charles Karkadia,\n                  Aged about 70 years,\n           3\n                        OS No.25227/2009\n\n     Presently Residing at No.9,\n     Curley Street, Richmond Town,\n     Bengaluru - 560 025.\n3.   Mr. Ravikiran David,\n     Aged about 37 years,\n     Son of Late David Jambaiah,\n     Presently Residing at No.934,\n     Banashankari 1st Stage, II Block,\n     Bengaluru 560 050.\n4.   Mrs.Alice Mascarenhas,\n     Aged about 50 years,\n     W/o Richard Mascarenhas,\n     Presently Residing at No.203,\n     Skyline Apartments, Langford\n     Road, Bengaluru 560 027.\n5.   Ms.Sharon Yvonne Mascarenhas,\n     Aged about 27 years, D/o\n     Richard Mascarenhas, Presently\n     Residing at No.203, Skyline\n     Apartments, Langford Road,\n     Bengaluru-27.\n6.   Mr.Rohan Mascarenhas,\n     Aged about 22 years,\n     S/o Richard Mascarenhas,\n     Presently Residing at No.203,\n     Skyline Apartments, Langford\n     Road, Bengaluru 560 027.\n7.   M/s.Standard Chartered Bank,\n     A Banking Institution transacting\n     Business at Raheja Towers,\n     No.26, Mahatma Gandhi Road,\n                                        4\n                                                          OS No.25227/2009\n\n                               Bengaluru 560 001.\n                        8.     Bank of India,\n                               A Banking Institution transacting\n                               Business at Prestige Kada, 71,\n                               Richmond Road, Bengaluru-01,\n                               Represented herein by its\n                               Present Chief Manager-\n                               Mr. N.Chandrashekar\n\n                               [D.1 & 3: Ex-parte; D.2-By\n                               Sri.GLV-Adv; D.4 to 6: By Sri.TSI-\n                               Adv; D.7: By Sri.BCA-Adv; D.8:\n                               By Sri.HRK-Adv]\n\nDate of Institution of suit:                           06.02.2009\n\nNature of the Suit (Suit for Pronote, Suit for\nDeclaration and Possession, Suit for                   Declaration\nInjunction, etc.):\n\nDate of Commencement of recording of\nevidence:                                              11.02.2011\n\nDate on which the Judgment was                         11.01.2022\npronounced:\nTotal Duration:\n\n                                     Years       Months       Days\n\n                                       12         11           05\n\n\n\n                                        (D.S.VIJAYA KUMAR)\n                                   XXVI Addl. City Civil Judge\n                                   & C/c IV ACC & SJ.,Mayo Hall,\n                                           Bengaluru.\n                              5\n                                            OS No.25227/2009\n\n                   JUDGMENTPlaintiffs 1 and 2 since deceased by her Legal\n\nheirs earlier filed P & SC against the Defendants 1 to\n\n8 seeking Probate of the Will dtd. 29.01.1998 of Late\n\nRonald James Ringrow. Subsequently as per Order dtd.06.02.2009 the said Petition has been permitted to\n\nconverted into a suit for declaration and issuance of\n\nProbate of the above Will.2. Brief facts of the case of the Plaintiffs in plaint\n\nare as below:-Plaintiffs are Australian Nationals of Indian origin\n\nand permanent residents of the City of Adelaide, South\n\nAustralia and they are housewives. The first plaintiff is\n\nthe biological niece of one Ronald James Ringrow S/o\n\nEdward Ringrow who was a resident of New No.5, Old\n\nNo.10, Eagles Street, Langford Town, Bengaluru and6OS No.25227/2009\n\nthe 2nd plaintiff is his biological sister and sibling. The\n\nsaid Ronald James Ringrow died on 25.10.2004 in the\n\nabove premises. Late Ronald James Ringrow was an\n\nIndian National and a Protestant Christian of the\n\nMethodist Fellowship by religious denomination and\n\ndevolution of his Estate is governed by the provisions\n\nof theIndian Succession Act, 1925. That the writing in\n\nthe certified copy of what is believed and asserted to\n\nbe the Last Will and Testament dated 20.01.1998 of\n\nthe deceased Ronald James Ringrow and the same was\n\nmade and executed by him whilst he was of sound\n\nmind, body, memory and understanding. The Original\n\nof Exhibit "C" is not traceable despite due and diligent\n\nsearch having been made for the same. The aforesaid\n\nWill was registered in the office of the Sub Registrar of\n\nAssurances, Shivajinagar, Bangalore, as document No.\n\n352/1997-98 in Book III, Volume 131, Page 231 to 220.7OS No.25227/2009\n\nThe Signatures appearing on Exhibit "D" which\n\ncorrelate to those on Exhibit "C" appear to be those of\n\nthe Late Ronald James Ringrow and those of the\n\nwitnesses who attested the same. The said Will was\n\nmade and executed by Late Ronald James Ringrow on\n\n29.1.1998 and attested by the witnesses thereto in\n\naccordance    with   the   provisions   of     theIndian\n\nSuccession Act, 1925. The Original true counterpart/\n\ncopy of the Will of the deceased is deposited in Court\n\nthis day in a sealed cover for safe custody. The First\n\nPlaintiff is the same person as Jennifer Susan Andrews\n\nreferred to in the said Will of the deceased Ronald\n\nJames Ringrow. That the deceased was a widower and\n\ndid not leave biological issue or lineal descendants. He\n\nwas an educationists and retired from service in the\n\ncapacity of Vice Principal, Bishop's School, Pune. That\n\nthe Plaintiffs have truly set forth in Annexure "A" to8OS No.25227/2009\n\nthe Affidavit or Valuation barbed to try the First\n\nPlaintiff and filed herewith all the property and credits\n\nwhich the deceased died possessed of or was entitled\n\nto at the time of his death which have or are likely to\n\ncome to their hands and so far as the Plaintiffs have\n\nbeen able to uncertain or aware there are no property\n\nand credits other than what are specified in Annexure\n\n"A" as aforesaid. That the said assets exclusive of what\n\nthe deceased may have been possessed of or entitled\n\nto as a Trustee of another and not beneficially or with\n\npower to confirm a beneficial interest and also\n\nexclusive of the items mentioned in the said Annexure\n\n"B" but inclusive of all rents, interests and dividends\n\nand increased value since the date of his death are\n\nunder the valuation of Rs. 1,08,01,141.81 ps. That no\n\napplication has been made to any District Court or\n\nDelegate or to any High Court for grant of Probate of9OS No.25227/2009\n\nany   Will   of   the   said      deceased   or    Letters    of\n\nAdministration with or without the Will annexed to\n\nhis property and credits. The Plaintiffs have become\n\naware that vide a deed of Revocation dated 6.2.2001\n\nregistered as document No.301/2001-2002 in Book III,\n\nVolume 156, Pages 247 to 248 in the office of the Sub\n\nRegistrar of Assurances, Shivajinagar, Bangalore the\n\ndeceased Ronald James Ringrow allegedly revoked\n\nabsolutely    and       forever     his   Last      Will     and\n\nTestament at Exhibit "C" and "D". That to the best of\n\nthe knowledge information and belief of the plaintiffs\n\nthe aforesaid Deed of Revocation was never executed\n\nby late Ronald James Ringrow and the same is a fraud,\n\ncoercion, undue influence and such other importunity\n\nwhich took away the free agency of the said deceased\n\nExecutant and was thus void ab initio and not\n\njusticiable and did not thus in law or in fact revoke10OS No.25227/2009\n\nand   annul    his     last    Will   and   Testament        dated\n\n29.01.1998. Further at the relevant time Ronald James\n\nRingrow was not of sound and disposing state of mind\n\nand could thus never have executed and registered\n\nthe same suo moto. The execution and registration of\n\nthe aforesaid Deed of Revocation is shrouded by\n\nsuspicious circumstances. Hence, the aforesaid deed\n\nof    revocation       is     void    ab    initio     and     not\n\njusticiable. The entire disposable Estate of the\n\ndeceased Ronald James Ringrow would devolve on his\n\nsole surviving heir and next kin the Second Plaintiff\n\nherein and hence, Second Plaintiff would thus in law\n\nand in fact be entitled to a grant of representation to\n\nthe Estate of the deceased Ronald James Ringrow. The\n\nSecond     Plaintiff        would     be    entitled    to     the\n\ngrant of Letters of Administration to the Estate of the\n\nsaid deceased Ronald James Ringrow. The Second11OS No.25227/2009\n\nPlaintiff has thus joined the First Plaintiff in the\n\ninstitution of the above Petition as she would be solely\n\nentitled to grant of Letters of Administration to the\n\nEstate of the deceased Ronald James Ringrow of which\n\nshe   is     the     universal        and     sole     legatee     in\n\nthe   alternative.     That   since         the    latter   part   of\n\nthe   year    1999     Ronald         James       Ringrow    started\n\ndeteriorating in mind and body. He was afflicted by a\n\nmalignancy in his prostate gland and                        suffered\n\nfrom repeated urinary infections and problems. He had\n\ndeveloped an enlarged libido and become amorously\n\ndisposed towards women. Having suffered the removal\n\nof his right lung the deceased had extreme difficulty\n\nin breathing and suffered from umpteen respiratory\n\nproblems, too. He also suffered from high blood\n\npressure and mental depression. He felt insecure and\n\nhad developed a strange fear that he would be12OS No.25227/2009\n\ndisposed of his movable and immovable properties. He\n\ndesired police protection as a result of the same. He\n\nbecame duly suspicious of his friends and soon\n\ncame under the influence on the Fourth Defendant in\n\nthe above case and the said Fourth Defendant was a\n\nfrequent visitor of the deceased and she soon began\n\nto dominate him and gradually by this undue influence\n\nthat she wielded over him appropriated his movable\n\nand immovable properties for her benefit and that of\n\nthe members of her family. She ensured that the\n\ndeceased remained isolated and thus precluded from\n\ncommunicating    with    those    close   to   him.    She\n\nmisrepresented   facts   and     circumstances    to   the\n\nPlaintiffs and their relatives and gradually assumed\n\ntotal control of the assets of the deceased. She has\n\nillegally and for inadequate considerations caused\n\nconveyance of valuable immovable assets of the13OS No.25227/2009\n\ndeceased and the Second Plaintiff situated at New No.\n\n5, Old No. 10, Eagles Street, Langford Town, Bangalore\n\nto her daughter and herself. The deeds of sale\n\nwhereby the properties referred to herein supra were\n\nconveyed by the Fourth Defendant to her daughter the\n\nFifth Defendant    and himself. The Fourth Defendant\n\nhas inter meddled with the Estate of the deceased and\n\nhas failed to render an account of her dealings in\n\nrespect thereof despite having been called upon to do\n\nso. She has assumed complete control of the major\n\npart of the assets of the deceased and has also sought\n\nto make payments on behalf of the Estate of the\n\ndeceased which she was not authorized in law to do.She has also thereby made the Sixth Defendant an\n\nillegal beneficiary of some of the financial assets of the\n\ndeceased. The said Fourth Defendant has monitored\n\nthe health of the deceased and has been solely14OS No.25227/2009\n\nresponsible       for         the    "medical         treatment\n\nwhich was accorded to the deceased which the\n\nPlaintiffs now learn are of a highly suspicious and\n\ndubious     nature.     The     bonafides    of   the    alleged\n\nphysician of the deceased and the Fourth Defendant\n\nand her abettor are called into question in this regard.Plaintiffs have reason to believe that the demise of the\n\nlate   Ronald     James        Ringrow      was    not    wholly\n\noccasioned by natural circumstances and causes. The\n\ncomplicity of the Defendants 1, 2, 3 and 5 and one\n\nFaustin D'Silva in the illegal acts of commission and\n\nomission of the Fourth Defendant is a dominant factor\n\nin context of the last days of the deceased on Earth\n\nand his Estate. The plaintiffs have reason to believe\n\nthat via criminal conspiracy hatched by the fourth\n\ndefendant       the estate of the late Ronald James\n\nRingrow and 2nd plaintiff have been defrauded and15OS No.25227/2009\n\nunlawful    losses    caused      to   them.    In   these\n\ncircumstances plaintiffs have filed this suit seeking\n\nprobate of the Will dtd. 29.01.1998 and for issuance of\n\nLetters of Administration to the Estate of the deceased\n\nRonald James Ringrow in favour of Second Plaintiff.3.    After   service   of   Notice/suit   summons,\n\nDefendants 2, 4 to 8 appeared through their\n\nrespective counsels and Defend ants 1 and 3 were\n\nplaced Ex-parte. Defendants 4 to 6 have filed written\n\nstatement and contested the suit. Defendants 7 and 8\n\nhave not filed written statement.4. Brief facts of the case of the Defendant Nos. 4\n\nto 6 in the written statement are as below:-The suit is not maintainable and liable to be\n\ndismissed. These defendants admit the relationship of\n\nplaintiffs. It is stated that the said Ronald James16OS No.25227/2009\n\nRingrow sold the said property on 19.10.2000 in favour\n\nof defendants 4 & 5 by executing two Sale Deeds,\n\nwhich are registered in the office of the Sub Registrar,\n\nShivajinagar, Bengaluru. They admit the said Ronald\n\nJames Ringrow died on 25.10.2004. After the above\n\nsaid sale deeds Ronald James Ringrow put the\n\ndefendants 4 and 5 in possession of the property and\n\nthereby he ceased to be permanent resident of the\n\nsaid property. Consequent upon executing the Regd.Sale Deeds, it became the property of defendants 4\n\nand 5 as they have purchased the said property from\n\nthe said Ronald James Ringrow for value that too by\n\nraising Bank loan. These defendants deny that Ronald\n\nJames Ringrow died by leaving behind movable and\n\nimmovable properties in the City of Bengaluru and\n\nmore fully described in the schedule-A in the plaint.Said Ronald James Ringrow       did not leave behind17OS No.25227/2009\n\nhim   the    said   property    bearing   No.5     EagleStreet, Langford Town, Bengaluru at the time of his\n\ndeath, as he already executed two sale deeds dtd.19.10.2000 in favour of defendants 4 and 5. But, the\n\nplaintiffs with a sole intention to grab the property of\n\ndefendants 4 and 5 have approached the court with\n\nthis frivolous suit. Hence, the plaintiffs have no right\n\nto seek Probate or for declaration of the Will dtd.29.01.1998, because the deceased Ronald James\n\nRingrow     revoked the Will dtd. 29.01.1998 by\n\nexecuting a document on 6.2.2002, but the plaintiffs\n\nhave approached this court for Letter of Administration\n\nin respect of non existing Will. Said Ronald James\n\nRingrow on 5.2.2002 prepared a Deed of Cancellation\n\nof the Will dtd. 29.01.1998 in his own handwriting and\n\non the following day he got it typed on the stamp\n\npaper and presented the same before the Sub18OS No.25227/2009\n\nRegistrar and the Sub Registrar accepted the same\n\nand registered the same and thereby the Regd. Will\n\ndtd. 29.01.1998 stood cancelled/revoked on 6.2.2002.In that view, Ronald James Ringrow did not die leaving\n\nbehind any Will. That, as regards item nos.1 of A\n\nschedule property is concerned, it is stated that when\n\nRonald James Ringrow died on 25.10.2004 he did not\n\nhave any cash on hand as regards at the Bank is\n\nconcerned in respect of all his Bank Accounts,\n\ndefendant No.4 is named as a Joint Account Holder. As\n\none could see he did not leave behind him any\n\nhousehold goods, wearing apparels, books plates,\n\njewels, etc. When he was alive he had instructed his\n\nmaid servants to take away all the household goods,\n\nwearing apparels, books, etc. on his death and they\n\nhad taken all those things after his death. As such the\n\nclaim of the plaintiffs under item no.1 of A schedule19OS No.25227/2009\n\nproperty does not survive. As regards item no.3 of Suit\n\nA schedule property, deceased Ronald James Ringrow\n\nsold the entire house property for a sum of\n\nRs.45,00,000/- on 19.10.2000 and paid 1/3rd of the\n\nsale proceeds to the plaintiff no.2 i.e., a sum of\n\nRs.15,00,000/-   and in the remaining Rs.30,00,000/-part of the amount he had spent for himself, part of\n\nthe amount was spent by him for his day today needs\n\nand remaining amount was concerned he had kept the\n\nsame in a Bank and for the Bank Account he has\n\nnamed the defendant No.4 as a Joint Account holder\n\nand hence the plaintiffs have not right over it. As\n\nregards   B schedule property since Ronald James\n\nRingrow during his lifetime deposited Rs.10,000/- with\n\nthe Methodist Church and after his death, the Pastor of\n\nthe said Methodist Church performed the last rites of\n\nRonald James Ringrow out of the said amount. This20OS No.25227/2009\n\nclearly     shows   the   plaintiffs   were   not   properly\n\nacquainted with the deceased Ronald James Ringrow\n\nand that is why they have made an incorrect\n\nstatement. The figure stated by the plaintiffs in\n\nrespect of the house property is imaginary               and\n\nwithout any legal foundation. These defendants deny\n\nthe allegation of the plaintiff that the Revocation deed\n\nexecuted by the deceased Ronald James Ringrow was\n\na product of fraud, coercion, undue influence. They\n\nalso deny that on the date of Revocation of Will Ronald\n\nJames Ringrow       was not of sound and disposing state\n\nof mind and lacked testamentary capacity as such he\n\ncould never have executed and registered            the said\n\nDeed of Revocation suo moto. That on 8.9.2000 the 2 nd\n\nplaintiff    authorized the deceased Ronald James\n\nRingrow to dispose of her share in item no.1 of the\n\nschedule A property by executing a General Power of21OS No.25227/2009\n\nAttorney. That apart Ronald James Ringrow             on\n\n2.2.2002 closed the Joint Account No.11880 opened by\n\nhim in the name of himself, Dr.Clady's Sumitra and\n\nJohn Charles Karkadia at Bank of India. In view of the\n\nsaid fact Will dtd. 29.1.1998 in respect of item no.3 of\n\nthe suit 'A' property has become inoperative and lost\n\nits essence. As such it was necessitated for Ronald\n\nJames Ringrow to revoke the Will dtd. 29.01.1998. As\n\nsuch there is no point in finding fault with the\n\nRevocation deed dtd. 6.2.2002. But, the plaintiffs with\n\na sole intention to mislead the court have taken a\n\ncontention that the defendants 1 to 7 are behind the\n\nRevocation of the Will dtd. 29.1.1998 on 6.2.2002, but\n\nabsolutely there is no truth in it. Deceased Ronald\n\nJames Ringrow       sold the property in favour of\n\ndefendants 4 and 5 under two different Sale Deed\n\ndtd.19.10.2000 and as regards the Bank Accounts are22OS No.25227/2009\n\nconcerned, on 28.1.2002 Ronald James Ringrow\n\ninstructed his Bankers to enter the name of defendant\n\nNo.4 as a Joint Account Holder along with his name\n\nafter canceling the nomination made by him earlier. In\n\nthe light of the said fact, on the death of Ronald James\n\nRingrow, defendant     No.4 is entitled to operate the\n\nbank accounts being a joint account holder, either or\n\nsurvivor. In that view of the matter, deceased Ronald\n\nJames Ringrow      did not die leaving behind any\n\nmovable or immovable property and hence the\n\nplaintiffs are not entitled for issuance of Letter of\n\nAdministration of the Will dtd. 29.1.1998. These\n\ndefendants deny the ailment of the deceased Ronald\n\nJames Ringrow and state that the plaintiffs in order to\n\nsuit their convenience have made such an allegation\n\nwithout any legal foundation. It is stated that as far as\n\nthe defendants are concerned they knew that about23OS No.25227/2009\n\n50 years ago a part of his right lung was removed and\n\nhe was not suffering from any respiratory problems. It\n\nis further stated that the deceased Ronald James\n\nRingrow    was not living alone as contended by the\n\nplaintiffs, but he was living with two maid servants\n\nnamely Ruth and Rathna. As such insecurity, strange\n\nfear of dispossession over his properties are all\n\nconcoction by the plaintiffs for presenting this suit. It is\n\nstated that the 4th defendant        came to know the\n\ndeceased Ronald James Ringrow only in the year 2000\n\nthat too little earlier to the purchase of the item no.3\n\nof the suit 'A' schedule property. The 4 th defendant\n\nafter paying full value of item no.3 of the schedule A\n\nproperty i.e., house property bearing NO.5 Eagle\n\nStreet, Langford Town, Bengaluru has purchased the\n\nsame from him. Perhaps before selling the said\n\nproperty in favour of defendants 4 and 5, deceased24OS No.25227/2009\n\nRonald James Ringrow      has taken consent from the\n\nplaintiffs and paid the sale consideration amount to\n\nthe plaintiff   no.2 as per the bank statement. The\n\nallegation that defendant        no.4 has monitored the\n\nhealth of the deceased and she has been solely\n\nresponsible for the medical treatment which was\n\naccorded to the deceased is not correct. It is stated\n\nthat defendant No.4 did not monitor his health and\n\nshe was in no way responsible for his medical\n\ntreatment. In morality she visited him and inquired\n\nabout his health when he was hospitalized. On one or\n\ntwo occasions when he was ill, 4 th defendant        must\n\nhave admitted him to the Hospital on humanitarian\n\ngrounds since there was no body to look after him\n\nexcept his maid servants. It is stated that the plaintiffs\n\nhave made allegations without any basis. Deceased\n\nRonald James Ringrow       had no love and affection25OS No.25227/2009\n\ntowards the plaintiffs and that was one of the reasons\n\nmade him to revoke the will dtd. 29.1.1998 on\n\n6.2.2002. Deceased Ronald James Ringrow was an\n\nEducated person having very good health till his death\n\nand he was conscious about his dealings and when he\n\nwas mentally sound he revoked the Will dtd. 29.1.1998\n\non 6.2.2002. He was also socially mingling with a lot of\n\npeople. He was personally operating his bank accounts\n\nby going physically to the Bank. He was not depending\n\non anybody till his death. After the Will was effected by\n\nthe said Ronald James Ringrow, the plaintiff no.2 took\n\nher due share from him. As the said Ronald James\n\nRingrow died without leaving behind him either\n\nmovable or immovable properties to be succeeded by\n\nany one and in the absence of same, Plaintiffs have no\n\nright under law to seek for a letter of administration in\n\nrespect of the revoked Will.     Hence the suit is not26OS No.25227/2009\n\nmaintainable and liable to be dismissed. On these\n\ngrounds, defendants 4 to 6 have sought for dismissing\n\nthe suit with costs.5. In support of the Plaintiffs case, Power of\n\nAttorney Holder of the Plaintiffs got examined as P.W.1\n\nand got marked 13 documents as Exs.P.1 to Ex.P.13.On    behalf    of   defendants,     Defendant       No.4    got\n\nexamined as DW.1 and Ex.D.1 to D.9 has been\n\nmarked.6. Heard arguments. Learned counsel for plaintif\n\nhas also filed written arguments.7. In the written arguments of the Learned\n\ncounsel for plaintifs argued as under:-The Learned counsel for plaintiffs argues that this suit is\nfiled for the relief of declaration and probate of the Will dated27OS No.25227/2009\n\n29.1.1998 executed by one Ronald James Ringrow whilst he\nwas of sound and disposing state of mind, body, memory and\nunderstanding. Said Ronald James Ringrow died on 25.10.2004\nat Bengaluru. For   several years prior to his death Ronald\nJames Ringrow was resident with his parents, Edward John\nRingrow (Senior) and Elizabeth May Ringrow, elder brother\nEdward John Ringrow (Junior), younger brother Ronald James\nRingrow and only sister Inez May Dunham (nee) Ringrow at the\npremises bearing Old No.10 and New No.5, Eagle Street,\nLangford Town, Bengaluru. The said property was acquired by\nthe biological parents of Ronald James Ringrow on 6/6/1946\nunder a Deed of Sale and was in their peaceful possession,\noccupation and enjoyment till their respective deaths and\nwhen thereafter a portion thereof came to be alienated in\nfavour of a third person by name Elizabeth John and the\nremaining extent allegedly to the Defendants Nos.4 and 5\nherein by two of their above named children. Edward John\nRingrow,(Senior), the biological father of Ronald James Ringrow\nexpired in Bangalore on 13/6/1966 and his spouse Elizabeth\nMay Ringrow appears to have inherited the share of her\naforesaid deceased spouse viz. Edward John Ringrow,(Senior,)\nthough the basis on which the same was inherited by her is not\nforthcoming in the records of the above case. She was however\nregarded as the sole and absolute owner of the aforesaid\nproperty post demise of her husband viz. Edward John Ringrow,28OS No.25227/2009\n\n(Senior). Elizabeth May Ringrow made and executed her last\nWill and Testament on 22/8/1971 and further to her demise on\n22/12/1975 the same came to be probated in P & S.C.\nNo.6/1979 on the file of the Hon'ble District Judge, Bangalore\nCity wherein very strangely in the light of the Sale Deeds in\nfavour of the Defendants 4 and 5 produced in the above case,\nindicated to be by Order dated 31/5/1975, though in reality the\ngrant of representation was actually made in respect thereof\non 31/5/1979. It would appear that under the Will dated\n22/08/1971 of Elizabeth May Ringrow, the property bearing Old\nNo.10 and New No.5, Eagle Street, Langford Town, Bengaluru-\n560 025 came to be bequeathed in equal shares to the\nfollowing persons viz:- Edward James Ringrow, (Junior), Ronald\nJames Ringrow, and Inez May Dunham (nee) Ringrow, by the\nlate Elizabeth May Ringrow, who were none other than her\nbiological   children.   Edward    John   Ringrow,(Junior),   had\napparently moved to England. The said Edward John Ringrow\ndid not have biological issue through Marie and upon return to\nIndia post her demise became resident in the immovable\nproperty referred to herein supra. He then married a lady by\nname Pansy who was the daughter of a person named Kenneth\nNagle. He did not have biological issue through Pansy and\napparently separated from her after some years and became\nresident in the aforesaid property. Pansy Ringrow (nee) Nagle\nexpired several years ago and is not reckoned for in the above29OS No.25227/2009\n\ncase. Edward John Ringrow,(Junior), made and executed his last\nWill and Testament on 28/8/1978 and also executed a Codicil\nthereto under which aforesaid testamentary disposition he\nbequeathed his one third undivided share, right, title, interest\nand claim in Old No.10 and New No.5, Eagle Street, Langford\nTown, Bengaluru-560 025, solely, in favour of his sibling and\nyounger brother Ronald James Ringrow and also predicated\nthat in the event of the latter predeceasing him the said legacy\nwould go to his biological sister Inez May Dunham (nee)\nRingrow. The aforesaid Edward John Ringrow,(Junior), made\nsimilar dispositions vis a vis his movable assets. Aforesaid\nEdward John Ringrow, (Junior), expired on 17-8-1996. Inez May\nDunham (nee) Ringrow the only sister of Edward John Ringrow\n(Junior) and Ronald James Ringrow further to her marriage to\nOswald Edward Dunham migrated to Australia in 1961 and\nbecame resident there at premises bearing No.17/4, Gorge\nRoad, Campbell Town, South Australia 5074. The aforesaid Inez\nMay Dunham (nee) Ringrow expired on 27/6/2014 during the\npendency of the proceedings in the above case. She was the\nSecond Plaintiff herein and now represented therein by her\nheirs, next of kin and Legal Representatives. Ronald James\nRingrow was an educationist and taught French in Baldwin\nBoys High School, Bangalore. He was also the Sports Master of\nthe aforesaid School. He moved to Pune in or about the year\n1958 and taught in the Bishop's School, Pune. When he30OS No.25227/2009\n\nremitted service in Bishop's School, Pune in or about the year\n1985 he was its Vice Principal. He, thereafter, undertook\nemployment in Bangalore as a part time teacher in Baldwin\nBoys High School, Hosur Road, Bangalore. He retired from\nservice therefrom in or about the year 1990. He expired in\nsuspicious circumstances on 25l10/2004 having during his\nlifetime   acquired   movable    and   immovable     assets   by\ninheritance and succession which are particularized in his Last\nWills and Testaments dated 29/1/1998 and the Affidavit of\nValuation filed with the Main Petition (later denoted plaint in\nthe above case), in P & S.C. No. 15022/2005 on the file of the\nHon'ble IVth Additional City Civil and Sessions Judge, Court Hall\nNo. 21, Mayo Hall, Bangalore. Ronald James Ringrow during his\nlifetime and in or about the year 1965 married a lady named\nBonnie and she was known and called Bonnie Ringrow\nthereafter. Ronald James Ringrow who was appointed Vice\nPrincipal of Bishop School and functioning in Pune as such,\nfurther to his retirement therefrom in the year 1985 returned to\nBangalore and became resident at premises bearing Old No.10\nand New No.5, Eagle Street, Langford Town, Bengaluru-560 025\nwith his wife Bonnie. She did not have biological issue through\nRonald James Ringrow and expired some years later. Further to\nthe demise of his brother Edward John Ringrow,(Junior), and\nhis spouse Bonnie, Ronald James Ringrow was the sole resident\nof premises bearing Old No.10 and New No.5, Eagle Street,31OS No.25227/2009\n\nLangford Town, Bengaluru-560 025 though a portion of which\nas stated herein supra had been alienated in favour of one\nElizabeth John. The aforesaid Ronald James Ringrow had during\nthe last years of his life domestic aid and assistance of two\nwomen one known as Ruth and the other Rathnamma,\nrespectively. These aforesaid domestic aides were absolutely\ndevoted to late Ronald James Ringrow and cared for him very\ntenderly. They were greatly trusted by him and he was totally\ndependent on them for his day to day needs and extremely\nsatisfied with the services that they jointly rendered to him.The deceased Ronald James Ringrow had made provision for\nthese women in his Last Wills and Testaments dated 29/1/1998.\nThe Second Plaintiff Inez May Dunham (nee) Ringrow married\nOswald Edward Dunham and had four children through him.\nPlaintiff submits with deep respect that Ronald James Ringrow\nwas a deeply religious person and was a devout and ardent\nconstituent of the Methodist Church located in Richmond Town\nclose to his residence. He had a regular band of friends who he\ninteracted with on a virtually daily basis. He had sought to\ninvolve these persons in almost every facet of his daily life and\nexistence and was particularly close to a former student of his\nby name Mohammed Raza Shirazi who in later years rose to\nthe rank of Wing Commander in the Indian Air Force and was\ndecorated with the Shaurya Chakra Award for gallantry.\nAnnounced during the Republic Day Parade in the year 196832OS No.25227/2009\n\nthe aforesaid Wg. Cdr. M.R Shirazi, SC VM, who is now rated as\nan Eminent Citizen of the State of Karnataka in the Karnataka\nOfficial Gazette was cited for gallantry in the Karnataka State\nGazetteer at Page 198 thereof was hosted to Tea by His\nExcellency the then President of India Zakir Hussain in\nrecognition and honour of his gallant deeds and achievements.\nThe aforesaid award was made pursuant to Item No.28 -\nPRES/68 dated 26/1/1968 published in Section I - Gazetteer of\nIndia on 6/4/1968 and received by him during the Tea Session\nhosted in his honour referred to herein supra. The aforesaid\nWg. Cdr. M.R Shirazi, SC VM, is the duly appointed Power of\nAttorney Holder of the Plaintiffs in the above case and is also\nthe Plaintiffs' Witness No.1 in the above case (P.W No.1).Learned counsel for plaintiffs further argued that      on\n29/1/1998 Ronald James Ringrow made and executed his last\nWill and Testament and the same was made and executed by\nhim whilst he was of sound mind, body, memory and\nunderstanding, which was duly registered. The said Will was\nduly attested when executed and duly registered in the\nmanner mandated in law. The said Will was made and executed\nin three sets all of which were duly made, executed and\nattested and thus in law and in fact constituted independent\nand distinct Wills made by the aforesaid Ronald James Ringrow\nnotwithstanding the fact that only one of the three of them was33OS No.25227/2009\n\nregistered in the office of the Sub Registrar of Assurances,\nShivajinagar, Bangalore on 29/1/1998. Registration of a Will is\nnot a mandatory predication under theIndian Succession Act,\n1925or theIndian Registration Act, 1908. It is an optional\nsafeguard. Since the latter part of the year 1999, Ronald James\nRingrow gradually started deteriorating in mind and body,\nthough his mind was still extremely sound, clear, alert, active\nand formidable in all respects. He was however afflicted by a\nmalignancy in his prostate gland and suffered repeatedly from\nurinary infections and allied ailments and problems. He had\nalso   developed    an   enlarged    libido   as   an   immediate\nconsequence of his prostrate affliction and this later resulted in\nhim becoming amorously disposed towards young women,\nmanifesting debilitation in his intrinsic testamentary capacity\nand the existence of a classical case for exercise of undue\ninfluence and other importunity which took away his free\nagency. Having suffered the removal of his right lung several\nyears prior to the year 1999 Ronald James Ringrow suffered\nextreme difficulty in breathing and from umpteen other\nproblems, too. He suffered from high blood pressure and\nmental depression. He felt insecure and had developed a\nstrange fear that he would be dispossessed of his movable and\nimmovable properties. He desired police protection as a result\nof the same and became unduly suspicious of his friends and\nsoon came under the influence of the Fourth Defendant in the34OS No.25227/2009\n\nabove case who was introduced to him by a close friend of his\nby name B. Augustine, now deceased. The Fourth Defendant\nwho was masquerading as a social worker attached to St.\nJohn's Medical College Hospital, Koramangala, Bangalore and\nthus became a frequent visitor in the home of the aforesaid\nRonald James Ringrow and soon began to exercise undue\ninfluence over him taking advantage of his medical affliction of\nan enlarged libido occasioned by the enlarged prostate gland.\nShe planted her uncle Faustin D'souza in the home of Ronald\nJames Ringrow and began restricting visits of his close friends\nthereto. All these actions were undertaken by the Fourth\nDefendant without the immediate knowledge of the Plaintiffs\nand the other consanguine relatives of the deceased largely\nbeing his natural heirs and next of kin. The Fourth Defendant\naided and abetted by Faustin D'souza and her children the Fifth\nand Sixth Defendants in the above case misrepresented facts\nand circumstances to Ronald James Ringrow and gradually\nassumed total control of his assets. The Fourth, Fifth and Sixth\nDefendant illegally and for inadequate consideration and by\nresort to fraud and subterfuge caused conveyance of the\nvaluable immovable asset of Ronald James Ringrow and his\nsister Inez May Dunham (nee) Ringrow being premises bearing\nOld No.10 and New No.5, Eagle Street, Langford Town,\nBengaluru-560 025 under two deeds of sale, the first being in\nfavour of herself and the other in favour of her daughter the35OS No.25227/2009\n\nFifth Defendant in the above case. Certified copies of the said\ndeeds are marked as Exhibits on behalf of the Plaintiffs as per\nExhibit P-9 and P-10 in the above case. Having ensured\ncomplete appropriation of the only immovable asset of Ronald\nJames Ringrow which incidentally was also partly owned by the\nFirst Plaintiff's mother i.e., the Second Plaintiff herein, the\naforesaid Fourth Defendant now put into play the second part\nof   the   fraud     that   was     conceived    by    her     i.e.   the\ncancellation/revocation of the Last Will and Testament of\nRonald James Ringrow. The revocation of this Will would\nabrogate    and/or     curtail    the   legitimate    claims    of    the\nbeneficiaries thereunder and to be set at sought and would\nalso enable her to appropriate the movable and financial\nassets of Ronald James Ringrow, fully and finally, for her sole\nuse and benefit by resort to other legal gimmicks in this regard\nwhich will be indicated and highlighted hereinafter. A deed of\nCancellation which was allegedly drawn on 5/2/2002 and\nfinalized on stamp paper on 6/2/2002 was registered in the\noffice of the Sub Registrar of Assurances, Shivajinagar,\nBangalore. The aforesaid Cancellation Deed thus came to be\nregistered, created and brought into existence, though, without\nthe desired effect for the reasons stated hereinafter. The said\nDeed of Cancellation was, very strangely, drawn, finalized and\nregistered by Ronald James Ringrow, allegedly by himself, suo\nmotu and significantly, who all through his life had engaged36OS No.25227/2009\n\nand utilised professional services of lawyers to undertake his\nofficial transactions and could not though have done so,\nallegedly by himself and on his own particularly when he was\naged, in poor health and unable to move about freely. It is also\na matter of fact that the Fourth Defendant ensured that some\nof the Bank Accounts of Ronald James Ringrow came to be\nregarded "Either or Survivor" with the Fourth Defendant a\nparty thereto and in respect of which she ensured that she was\nable to collect all the monies standing to the credit of Ronald\nJames Ringrow. Further, in respect of other accounts held by\nthe deceased by deviously incorporating herself as the\nnominee thereto, she further ensured that the same could be\nappropriated by her solely and absolutely. The removal of the\nfurniture and other movables of Ronald James Ringrow at the\ntime of his demise was mere child's play to a person/s as\ndiabolical as the Fourth Defendant herein and her children the\nFifth and Sixth Defendant in the above suit who aided and\nabetted her in this grossly devious fraud obviously with the\nbelief that retribution will not befall them on account of the\nnatural heirs of Ronald James Ringrow being a mere two and\nless than a handful and also being resident in a foreign\ncountry, additionally also in advanced age and precluded from\nspending long years in India, more particularly in Bengaluru in\nthe State of Karnataka seeking justice and recovery of their\njust dues. That by resort to the aforesaid fraudulent legal37OS No.25227/2009\n\ngimmicks she had thereby appropriated and misappropriated\nall the financial assets and securities of the deceased Ronald\nJames Ringrow and had thus been guilty beyond all doubt of\nthe commission of offences punishable under the provisions ofSections 415,418,420,424,463,464,465,467,468and477of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 which are extracted in the\nwritten arguments.Learned counsel for plaintiffs further argues that Ronald\nJames Ringrow expired in his residence at Old No.10 and New\nNo.5, Eagle Street, Langford Town, Bengaluru on 25/10/2004. It\nis significant that the Death Certificate records the "place of\ndeath" of Ronald James Ringrow at Item (7) thereof to be\n"House" and further at Item (8) thereof that his permanent\naddress was No.5, Eagle Street, Langford Town, Bangalore-560025. The said Certificate is also dated 7/4/2005 and obviously\nobtained months after the demise of Ronald James Ringrow.\nThat the mortal remains of Ronald James Ringrow were\nhurriedly disposed of in the Protestant Cemetery situated on\nHosur Road, Langford Town, Bangalore, soon after his demise\non 25.10.2004 under the superintendence, supervision and\ninstance of the Fourth Defendant herein and her family and the\naforesaid Faustin D'Souza. That post demise of Ronald James\nRingrow on 25/10/2004 his natural heirs sought to travel to\nBengaluru, State of Karnataka, India with a view to wind up his38OS No.25227/2009\n\nEstate and give expression to his last Will and Testament dated\n29/1/1998, an unregistered original of which was with the First\nPlaintiff, but were dissuaded from doing so by the Fourth\nDefendant herein who claimed that she had undertaken all\narrangements necessary for the winding up of the Estate of the\ndeceased Ronald James Ringrow and there was thus no need\nfor them to come to India in this regard. The Plaintiffs thus\nbided time being also precluded from undertaking a lengthy\ntrip to India on account of Visa Requirements but nevertheless\nsought information and clarifications with regard to the\ndisposal of his mortal remains and the Estate of the deceased\nRonald James Ringrow from the Fourth Defendant who had by\nthen made out that she was in control and seisin of the Estate\nof the late Ronald James Ringrow, too, and cognizant with the\nvarious facets thereof. After an initial and superficial interaction\nwith the First Plaintiff obviously to determine the nature of the\nstruggle for justice that they would put forth the First\nDefendant remained silent and began to ignore the repeated\nattempts made by the Plaintiffs to get in touch with her for due\ninformation and material relating to the Estate of the deceased\nRonald James Ringrow which by his aforesaid last Will and\nTestament he had confided all his trust to the Defendants 1, 2,\n3 and the First Plaintiff herein to establish and execute with\nattendant preparation of an Inventory in respect thereof and\nthe submission of a Final Statement of Account in respect of39OS No.25227/2009\n\nthe same after disbursement of legacies, as mandated in law\nand more particularly the provisions of the of theIndian\nSuccession Act, 1925relating to the administration of his\ndisposable Estate. The aforesaid efforts of the First Plaintiff\nwere totally ignored and not regarded or responded to in any\nmanner whatsoever by the Fourth Defendant herein. The First\nPlaintiff was thus constrained to visit India more particularly\nBengaluru, for execution of the trust reposed inter alia in her\nby the late Ronald James Ringrow, vide his aforesaid Wills.\nThat upon arrival in Bangalore in the latter part of March 2005\nthe First Plaintiff with the assistance of long standing friends,\nacquaintances, Legal Counsel and members of the religious\nfraternity of the deceased, was able to obtain the information\nand material necessary and those indicated to be in existence\nto determine the nature and far reaching effects of the fraud\nthat had been played on the deceased Ronald James Ringrow\nand which also encompassed and impacted her own mother\nthe Second Plaintiff herein in a way and of the grave injustice\nthat had been done to Ronald James Ringrow and his\ntestamentary heirs being none other than his natural heirs,\nonly, and the need for her to immediately undertake\narrangements to reverse the effect of the fraud played by the\nFourth Defendant in conspiracy with the Defendants 1, 2, 3 and\n5 and 6 in the above case and others associated with her and\nto ensure that the delinquents in this regard were duly40OS No.25227/2009\n\nprosecuted and punished for their criminal conduct and this led\nto the institution of the following legal proceedings viz-(i)     P.& SC No.15022/2005 instituted on 16/4/2005 on\n              the file of this Hon'ble Court IVth Additional City\n              Civil Judge, Court Hall No. 21, Bangalore, now\n              before the Hon'ble Court in O.S. No. 25227/2009 at\n              the stage of Final Arguments.(ii)    P.& SC 79/2005 instituted on 23/4/2005 on the file\n              of the Hon'ble Additional City Civil Judge, CCH\n              No.3, Bangalore City now listed on 27/9/2021 for\n              final arguments.(iii)   PCR No.57420/2005 instituted on 30/4/2005 in the\n              Court   of   the   Hon'ble   XIth   Additional   Chief\n              Metropolitan Magistrate, Mayo Hall Bangalore and\n              now on the file of the Hon'ble 29 th Additional Chief\n              Metropolitan Magistrate, Mayo Hall, Bangalore\n              listed on 16/10/2021 for hearing,(iv)    P.Misc. 31/2005 instituted on 6/5/2005 on the file\n              of the Hon'ble Additional City Civil Judge, CCH\n              No.3, Bangalore City now listed on 27/9/2021 for\n              Cross Examination of P.W. No. 1.41OS No.25227/2009(v)    W.P. No. 14432/2005 instituted by the Fourth\n             Defendant in the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka\n             at Bangalore and disposed off on 15/11/2005, and(vi)   Misc.   No.616/2007    instituted   by   the   Fourth\n             Defendant in the Court of the Hon'ble Principal City\n             Civil Judge, Bangalore City, CCH No.1, dismissed on\n             8/10/2010.That P & SC 15022/2005 was instituted for grant of\nrepresentation to the Estate of the deceased Ronald James\nRingrow and are the proceedings in the above case. P & SC\nNo.79/2006 was instituted underSection 192of the Indian\nSuccession Act, 1925 for protection and preserveration of the\nEstate of the deceased. P Misc 31/2005 was instituted to annul\nthe deeds of Gift allegedly made in favour of the Defendants 4\nand 5 and was so instituted in forma pauperis as the Plaintiffs\nwere not in possession of finances belonging to the Estate of\nthe deceased and which had been wrongfully appropriated and\nheld by the Defendants Nos. 4, 5 and 6. PCR was instituted to\nprosecute the Fourth Defendant for commission of offences\nunder the provisions of theIndian Penal Code, 1860 referred to\nherein above. WP No. 14432/2005 was instituted to set right\nproceedings in P & SC 79/2005 and Misc 616/2007 was\ninstituted by the Fourth Defendant to protract proceedings and\nbring about a transfer of the above case to the Courts seized of\nthe proceedings in P & SC 79/2005 and P Misc 31/2005. That P42OS No.25227/2009\n\n& S.C. No. 15022/2005 was instituted by them on 16/4/2015\nseeking reliefs which were incorporated in the Prayer Column\ntherein   and   reproduced    verbatim   hereunder    for   ready\nreference, viz. :-(a) that the first of them may be allowed to\nprove the said Will dated 29/1/1998 of the late Ronald James\nRingrow in common or solemn form and that probate thereof to\nhave effect through out the whole of India may be granted to\nher, or (b) that Letters of Administration to the Estate of the\ndeceased Ronald James Ringrow be granted to the Second\nPetitioner, and (c) for such further or other reliefs as this\nHon'ble Court deems fit or the nature of the case requires.\nBriefly the case of the Plaintiffs in P & SC No.15022/2005 was\nthat they are Australian Nationals of Indian Origin and\npermanent residents of the City of Adelaide, Australia. They are\nhousewives and close relatives of one Ronald James Ringrow\nwho was the biological son of one Edward John Ringrow,\n(Senior), and resident at Old No. 5 and New No. 10, Eagle\nStreet, Langford Town, Bengaluru - 560025. Whilst the First\nPlaintiff is his niece the Second Plaintiff is his only biological\nsister and sibling. That aforesaid Ronald James Ringrow expired\non the twenty fifth day October, Two thousand and four in the\nCity of Bangalore, State of Karnataka, India and the Certificate\nof Death issued by the responsible authorities in respect of the\nsame has been produced at Exhibit 'B' to the petition in P. &\nS.C. 15022/2005. At the time of his demise they pleaded that43OS No.25227/2009\n\nthe permanent place of abode of the deceased Ronald James\nRingrow was premises bearing Old No. 5 and New No. 10, Eagle\nStreet, Langford Town, Bengaluru - 560025. Further it was the\ncase of the Plaintiffs that the deceased Ronald James Ringrow\nwas an Indian National and Protestant Christian by religious\ndenomination. The said Ronald James Ringrow belonged to the\nMethodist Fellowship, a sub sect of Protestant Christianity. In\nthe matter of inheritance and succession the said Ronald James\nRingrow was governed by the provisions of theIndian\nSuccession Act, 1925, it was specifically contended therein. It is\nfurther argued that late Ronald James Ringrow at the time of his\ndeath owned movable and immovable properties in the City of\nBangalore in the State of Karnataka, India which he sought to\ndispose off in terms of a Will made and executed by him on\n29/1/1998 and which said Will was registered in the office of the\nSub Registrar of Assurances, Shivajinagar, Bengaluru as\ndocument No. 352/1997-98 in Book III, Volume 131, Page 213 to\n220, a Certified Copy of which was produced at Exhibit 'C' to\nthe aforesaid Petition and the identical copies of the same\nwhich were duly made and executed and attested though an\nunregistered one of which, was produced by them at Exhibit 'D'\nto the plaint. Pleading that the Wills of the deceased Ronald\nJames Ringrow were duly made, executed and attested and one\nof which was also duly registered they apprised this Hon'ble\nCourt of the fact that the Verifying Affidavit of one of the44OS No.25227/2009\n\nattesting witnesses to the aforesaid Wills was also appended at\nthe foot of the Petition and sought for a Grant of Probate in\nrespect of the same. The Plaintiffs had also pleaded that the\nWill dated 29.1.1998 which was duly registered was not\ntraceable as on the date of the presentation of the Petition for\nGrant of Probate and other reliefs in respect of the same which\nwas surmounted by the Original Will as per Exhibit "D" to the\nsaid Petition and in the Affidavit of Valuation filed with this\nPetition expressly and precisely set out details of the movable\nand immovable assets and the liabilities attaching with the\nEstate of the deceased Ronald James Ringrow therein. The Nett\nValue of the Estate of the deceased, as on the date of his\ndemise was indicated to be Rs.1,08,01,141.81/- (Rupees one\ncrore eight lakhs, one thousand, one hundred and forty one\nrupees and eighty one paise only). Plaintiffs also pleaded that\nother than the instant Petition they had not made any\napplication to any District Court or District Delegate or to any\nHigh Court for grant of Probate of any Will of the said deceased\nRonald James Ringrow or for a Grant of Letters of Administration\nwith or without the aforesaid Will annexed to his property and\ncredits. In the aforesaid Petition in P & S.C No.15022/2005 the\nPlaintiffs further submitted that in the unlikely event of this\nHon'ble Court adjudging the deed being the original of Exhibit\n"E" i.e. the Deed of Cancellation referred to herein supra, legal,\nvalid binding and justiciable, then the legal consequence of45OS No.25227/2009\n\nsuch a finding would be that the deceased died intestate, in\nwhich event in terms of theIndian Succession Act, 1925the\nentire disposable Estate of the deceased Ronald James Ringrow\nwould devolve on his sole surviving heir and next of kin the\nSecond Plaintiff herein. The Second Plaintiff would thus in law\nand in fact be entitled to a grant of representation to the Estate\nof the deceased Ronald James Ringrow. The Second Plaintiff\nwould thus be entitled to the grant of Letters of Administration\nto the Estate of the said deceased Ronald James Ringrow. The\nSecond Plaintiff had thus joined the First Plaintiff in the\ninstitution of the above Petition as she would be solely entitled\nto the grant of Letters of Administration to the Estate of the\ndeceased Ronald James Ringrow of which she is the universal\nand sole beneficiary in the alternative and the said Petition was\ntherefore instituted by them. That the Plaintiffs as Petitioners in\nP & S.C No.15022/2005 pleaded therein and respectively\nundertook to duly administer the property and credits of the\nsaid deceased Ronald James Ringrow and to make a full and\ntrue Inventory thereof and to exhibit the same in this Hon'ble\nCourt within six month from the date of grant of probate/ letters\nof administration to them as the case may be and also to\nrender to this Hon'ble Court a true account of the said property\nand credits within one year from the said date. That in P & S.C\nNo.15022/2005 they also pleaded that since the latter part of\nthe year 1999, Ronald James Ringrow started deteriorating in46OS No.25227/2009\n\nmind and body and that he was afflicted by a malignancy in his\nprostrate gland and suffered from repeated bouts of urinary\ninfections and problems. He had developed an enlarged libido\nand became amorously disposed towards women. Having\nsuffered the removal of his right lung the deceased had\nextreme difficulty in breathing and suffered from umpteen\nrespiratory problems, too. He suffered from high blood pressure\nand mental depression. He felt insecure and had developed a\nstrange fear that he would be dispossessed of his movable and\nimmovable properties. He desired police protection as a result\nof the same. He became unduly suspicious of his friends and\nsoon came under the influence of the Fourth Respondent in the\naforesaid case who is none other than the Fourth Defendant in\nthe above case. The said Fourth Respondent (Fourth Defendant)\nwas thus a constant and frequent visitor of the deceased and\nshe soon thereby began to dominate him and gradually by this\nundue influence that she wielded over him arranged to\nappropriate his movable and immovable properties for her\nbenefit and that of the members of her family. She ensured that\nthe deceased remained isolated and thus precluded from\ncommunicating with those close to him. She misrepresented\nfacts and circumstances to the Plaintiffs/Petitioners and their\nrelatives and gradually assumed total control of the assets of\nthe   deceased.   She   has   illegally   and   for   inadequate\nconsiderations caused conveyance of valuable immovable47OS No.25227/2009\n\nassets of the deceased and the Second Plaintiff/Petitioner\nsituated at New No.5, Old No.10, Eagles Street, Langford Town,\nBangalore-560 025, to her daughter and herself. At Exhibits "F"\nand "G" to the aforesaid Petition in P & S.C No.15022/2005.\nPlaintiffs/Petitioners have produced xerox true copies of\ncertified copies of the deeds of sale whereby the property\nreferred to herein supra were conveyed by the deceased and\nthe Second Plaintiff to the Fourth Defendant and to her\ndaughter the Fifth Defendant. It was prayed that the same be\nkindly read as part and parcel of this Petition. The said Fourth\nDefendant had inter meddled with the Estate of the deceased\nand had failed to render an account of her dealings in respect\nthereof despite having been called upon to do so. She had\nassumed complete control of the major part of the assets of the\ndeceased and had sought to make payments on behalf of the\nEstate of the deceased which she was not authorized in law to\ndo. She had also thereby made the Sixth Defendant and herself\nas illegal beneficiaries of some of the financial assets of the\ndeceased. The said Fourth Defendant had monitored the health\nof the deceased and had been solely responsible for the\n"medical treatment" which was accorded to the deceased\nwhich the Plaintiffs now learn are of a highly suspicious and\ndubious nature. The bonafides of the alleged physician of the\ndeceased and the Fourth Defendant and her abettor were\ncalled into question in this regard. Plaintiffs had reason to48OS No.25227/2009\n\nbelieve that the demise of the late Ronald James Ringrow was\nnot wholly occasioned by natural circumstances and causes.\nThe complicity of the Defendants 1, 2 ,3 and 5 and one Faustin\nD'souza in the illegal acts of commission and omission of the\nFourth Defendant is a dominant factor in context of the last\ndays of the deceased on Earth and his Estate. The Plaintiffs\nreserved right to plead extensively and elaborately in this\nregard as and when need therefor arose. Plaintiffs also\nundertook measures to ensure that alienations of the movable\nand immovable properties of the deceased made as aforesaid\nand otherwise are reversed and that the same again form part\nof the Estate of the deceased. The Plaintiffs have reason to\nbelieve that via a criminal conspiracy hatched by the Fourth\nDefendant the Estate of late Ronald James Ringrow and the\nSecond Plaintiff herein have been defrauded and unlawful\nlosses caused to them. The Defendants 1, 2 and 3 have failed\nto execute the Will dated 29/1/1998 and neither have they\nmanifested an intention to do so. The First Plaintiff was\ntherefore constrained to institute the aforesaid Petition and duly\ncited the said Defendants as parties thereto for confirmation of\ntheir refusal to propound the aforesaid Will dated 29/1/1998 of\nthe deceased Ronald James Ringrow.         Finally, the Plaintiffs\nsought as reproduced verbatim hereunder in P & SC\nNo.15022/2005 and as indicated herein supra the following\nreliefs : -(a) that the first of them may be allowed to prove the49OS No.25227/2009\n\nsaid Will dated 29/1/1998 of the late Ronald James Ringrow in\ncommon or solemn form and that probate thereof to have\neffect through out the whole of India may be granted to her, or(b) that Letters of Administration to the Estate of the deceased\nRonald James Ringrow be granted to the Second Petitioner, and(c) for such further or other reliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems\nfit or the nature of the case requires. That further to their\ncompliance with all the predicated formalities that attach with a\nPetition for Grant of Probate or Letters of Administration with\nWill annexed or a mere grant of Letters of Administration the\nDefendants in the above case entered appearance and\nDefendants 4, 5 and 6 consciously and effectively sought to\noppose and contest the same on merits.           In context of the\nPetition in P & S.C. No. 15022/2005 wherein relief as per the\nPrayer Column referred to herein supra. was sought for the\nPlaintiffs submit with deep respect that the Defendants 4, 5 and\n6 in the above case sought to appear and contest the\nproceedings in the above said Petition. The Defendants 1, 2, 3,\n4 and 8 did not evince any interest or manifest any intention to\ndo so other merely filing formal and indifferent responses to the\ncase propounded by the Plaintiffs. No effort to oppose and\ncontest the proceedings in the above case was made by them\neither jointly or severally and the same has proceeded without\ntheir active participation therein at all relevant times.50OS No.25227/2009\n\n      It is further argued by the Learned counsel for Plaintiffs\nthat the Defendants 4, 5 and 6 filed an elaborate Written\nStatement in the aforesaid Petition extending to twenty four\npages and manifesting other than prolixity therein absolutely\nno merit. Most importantly these Defendants 4, 5 and 6 have\nadmitted the propriety, validity, making, execution and\nattestation of the Will dated 29/1/1988 registered as document\nNo.352/1997-98 in Book III, Volume 131, Pages 213 to 220 in\nthe Office of the Sub Registrar of Assurances, Shivajinagar,\nBangalore and impliedly the unregistered Will dated 29/1/1988\nbeing the Carbon copy of the Registered Will and duly made\nand executed by the deceased Ronald James Ringrow and duly\nattested by Wg. Cdr. M.R Shirazi, SC VM, (Retired - Indian Air\nForce) and Ms Alice Jesudian, in identical fashion as the\nregistered one. That the Defendants 4,5 & 6 are in effect\nbiological mother and her children. The mother who is the\nFourth Defendant in the above case has been solely\ninstrumental   in   bringing   about   the   involvement    and\nparticipation of the Fifth and the Sixth Defendant in the\nfraudulent appropriation of the movable and immovable assets\nof the deceased Ronald James Ringrow and the consequential\ndeprivation caused to the Plaintiffs of what should have been\nreceived by them without much ado and as a matter of right.\nPlaintiffs will address, establish and prove their contentions\nmade herein supra, hereinafter. However before embarking on51OS No.25227/2009\n\nthis voyage the Plaintiffs consider it necessary and expedient\nfor them to apprise this Hon'ble Court of the nature of their\nopposition to the claims and aspirations of the Plaintiffs in the\nabove case.It is further argued by the Learned counsel for Plaintiffs\nthat the Defendants 4, 5 and 6 in their Written Statement filed\non 2/8/2010 have vaguely and half heartedly admitted the\nprojected antecedents and attributes of the deceased Ronald\nJames Ringrow and have sought to make out that as on the\ndate of his demise i.e. 25/10/2004 the said Ronald James\nRingrow was a person NOT possessed of a disposable or\ntransmissible Estate and that the same vested in her and her\nchildren absolutely and forever. The need for a grant of\nRepresentation or Letters of Administration was thus a non-\nexistent one according to them as there was no Estate to be\nmanaged, administered and controlled under superintendence\nof this Hon'ble Court. The dismissal of the Petition was\ntherefore sought for by them.       In context of what is stated\nherein supra the Defendants 4, 5 and 6 whilst admitting that\nthe deceased Ronald James Ringrow owned, possessed,\noccupied and enjoyed jointly and severally, with the Second\nPlaintiff the immovable property referred to herein supra,\ncontended that the immovable component of the same had\nbeen sold, transferred, conveyed and assigned to the Fourth\nand Fifth Defendants for valuable consideration as far back as52OS No.25227/2009\n\n19/10/2000 under two deeds of Sale particularized hereunder,\nviz:-(i) Deed of Sale dated 19/10/2000 registered in Book I of\nthe Office of the Sub Registrar of Assurances, Shivajinagar,\nBangalore as document No. BNG(U)-SNGR-2397/200-01, Book I-\n2.22 (ii) Deed of Sale dated 19/10/2000 registered in Book I of\nthe Office of the Sub Registrar of Assurances, Shivajinagar,\nBangalore as document No.BNG(U)-SNGR-2398/200-01, Book I-\n2.22. The Estate of Ronald James Ringrow was thus divested of\nits immovable component and thus restricted to his movable\nitems in his residence and his financial securities and assets in\nlocal banks and monies that had been entrusted by him long\nbefore his demise to the Defendants 1, 2 and 3 for undertaking\nand defraying costs attaching with his deathbed illness if any\nand his funeral. That the further case put forward by the\nDefendants 4, 5 and 6 was that the movables in his residence\nwere bequeathed to his domestic aides together with sums of\nmoney to each of them and the financial securities owned by\nhim on an Either or Survivor basis with the Defendant No.4\nwould ennure to her benefit on account of her being the\nnominee allegedly    designated by him in this regard to the\nBanking Institutions wherein the same were held thus rendering\nthe Estate whether movable or immovable to nought. That the\nfurther case of the Defendants 4,5 and 6 was that the deceased\nRonald James Ringrow     on 5/2/2002 drafted and drew in his\nown hand a deed of cancellation of his registered Will dated53OS No.25227/2009\n\n29/1/1988 which was faired and typed the following day and\nultimately registered in the Office of the Sub Registrar of\nAssurances as document No. 301/2002-03 in Book III, Volume\n156, Pages 247 to 248 and which said Will was thus allegedly\nannulled, canceled and revoked absolutely and forever. The\ndeceased Ronald James Ringrow according to them therefore\ndied intestate and in view of the nomination of the Defendant\nNo.4 as the beneficiary of all his financial securities and assets\nthe Fourth Defendant was the sole and absolute owner of the\nsame as a result of this arrangement allegedly made by the\ndeceased Ronald James Ringrow. The Estate of the deceased\nRonald James Ringrow was thus non est and his natural heirs\nthus allegedly divested of any benefit that would have accrued\nto them but for the same. The proceedings instituted by the\nPlaintiffs arising in the now contentious Petition in the aforesaid\ncase according to the Defendant 4,5 and 6 were thus redundant\nand of no consequence and should be dismissed summarily for\nwant of a cause of action they claimed. Plaintiffs in context of\nwhat is stated herein supra further contended that the\nnomination to receive the movable financial securities and\nassets of the deceased held in local Banks was occasioned on\naccount of the disillusionment that the deceased Ronald James\nRingrow felt with regard to his sibling and biological sister the\nSecond Plaintiff herein and her children i.e. the First Plaintiff\nand other siblings of the latter allegedly as also being the cause54OS No.25227/2009\n\nfor the cancellation/revocation of his last Will and Testament\ndated 29/1/1998 referred to in extenso herein supra. The\nimpliedly made disposition of his furniture and other movables\nin his place of abode to his domestic aides thus prompted the\nFourth Defendant to permit these aforesaid domestic aides to\ntake possession of these movables thus resulting in a situation\nwherein the need for an Executor/ Executrix or Administrator\nwas totally excluded and rendered non est. Similarly monetary\npayments of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees two lakhs only), to each of\nthem was effected by the Fourth Defendant allegedly on oral\ninstructions of the deceased. That the Defendants also raised\ncertain technical issues relating to the disposal of the Estate of\nthe deceased Ronald James Ringrow and elaborated at length\non the Sale transaction whereby the immovable asset of the\ndeceased Ronald James Ringrow and the Second Plaintiff came\nto be disposed off and also made reference to his medical\ncondition, alleged soundness and disposing state of mind whilst\nconstantly asserting the propriety of her conduct and also that\nof her uncle vis a vis the deceased Ronald James Ringrow. The\nDefendants 4, 5 and 6 sought to make out that they had acted\nas good Samaritans vis a vis the deceased and also highlighted\nthe role played by Dr.R.Shankar Prasad, Medical Consultant\nattached to St Philomena's Hospital, Bangalore which the\nPlaintiffs were aware questionable and who allegedly featured\nas an attesting Witness to the deed of Cancellation referred to55OS No.25227/2009\n\nherein supra. That the Defendants 4, 5 and 6 expressly denied\nthat they had acted in criminal conspiracy to cheat the\ndeceased of his wealth and sought to make out that the\ndeceased Ronald James Ringrow was well disposed towards the\nfirst of them though contradictory statements were made by\nher in this regard in the prolix Written Statement filed by them.\nFinally whilst asserting that the deceased Ronald James Ringrow\nbreathed his last on 25/10/2004 and that he died without\nleaving behind either movable or immovable properties to be\nsucceeded to by anyone under the Will dated 29/1/1998 and in\nthe absence of the same the Plaintiffs according to them\nallegedly had no right in law to seek for a Grant of Letters of\nAdministration in respect of the revoked Will and therefore\ncontending that the proceedings initiated by the Plaintiffs were\nnot maintainable also contended that they were therefore liable\nto be dismissed and expressly prayed that this Hon'ble Court be\npleased to dismiss the above Petition with exemplary costs to\nmeet the ends of justice. That the proceedings in P & S.C. No.\n15022/2005 on account of contention having arisen therein as a\nresult of all the Defendants and more particularly the Fourth,\nFifth and Sixth Defendant appearing therein with intent to\noppose the grant of reliefs sought for by the Plaintiffs\n(Petitioners), therein, the same as indicated herein supra came\nto be directed to be registered as a Testamentary Original Suit\nby virtue of the Order of this Hon'ble Court and consequently56OS No.25227/2009\n\nregistered as Testamentary       Original Suit No.25227/2009,\nthereafter. That all the aforesaid proceedings are governed by\nthe provisions of theIndian Succession Act, 1925and the Rules\nframed by the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore in\nexercise of powers conferred byArticle 227of the Constitution\nof India and all other powers thereunto enabling, the High Court\nof Karnataka with the previous approval of the Governor of\nKarnataka to make and promulgate Rules governing the\nprocedure for the grant of Probate and Letters of Administration\nby Courts subject to the superintendence of the High Court of\nKarnataka and also by authority and power vested in it underSection 122of the Code of Civil Procedure,1908 to make Rules\nregulating its own procedure and the procedure of the Civil\nCourts subject to its superintendence and may by such Rules\nannul, alter or add to all or any of the Rules in the First\nScheduleof the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 where applicable,\nand copies of which said Rules are at Annexure "E" hereto and\nwhich may kindly be read as part and parcel of this Written\nSubmission.The Learned counsel for plaintiffs argued that the\npayment of the Court Fee prescribed under Schedule II Item\n11(l) of theKarnataka Court Fee and Suits Valuation Act, 1958,\nthe proceedings in P & SC No.15022/2005 were registered as\nT.O.S   No.25227/2009    with   the   Petitioner    in   P   &   SC\nNo.15022/2005 filling the status of the Plaintiffs in T.O.S57OS No.25227/2009\n\nNo.25227/2009 and the Respondents in P & SC No.15022/2005\nfilling the roles of the Defendants 1 to 8 therein. Further to the\nconsequent amendments of the Petition in P & SC 15022/2005\npursuant to the Order of this Hon'ble Court and the filing of the\n"Plaint" arising therefrom the Respondents 1 to 8 have sought\nto oppose the proceedings in OS No.25227/2009 in the capacity\nof Defendants 1 to 8 herein with their Statement of Objections\nfiled in the aforesaid Petition regarded as their Written\nStatements. That on the basis of the pleadings in O.S\nNo.25227/2009 this Hon'ble Court has framed five Issues which\nare as follows:-ISSUES1. Whether the defendants prove the cancellation of the\n          Will dated 29.1.1988 on 5.2.2002 under deed of\n          cancellation?2. Whether the plaintiffs prove that the Will dated\n          29.1.1988 is the last Will of late Ronald James\n          Ringrow?3. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the Letters of\n          administration to the estate of deceased late Ronald\n          James Ringrow?4. Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for the probate of\n          the Will dated 29.1.1988?5. What decree or order?Further it is submitted that the Plaintiffs examined Wg.\nCdr. M.R. Shirazi,SC VM, (Retired - Indian Air Force) as a\nwitness in support of their case in the capacity of their Special\nPower of Attorney Holder and as an attesting witness to the\nWill dated 29/1/1998 of the deceased Ronald James Ringrow.\nExhibits were marked in favour of the Plaintiffs through him.\nDefendants examined the Fourth Defendant, only, in support of\ntheir case and caused the marking of Nine Exhibits.The ADMISSIONS IN THE WRITTEN STATEMENT ISSUES\nGENERALLY:- ISSUE NO.2:-At the very outset and before addressing specifically the\nonus cast on the Defendants and the Plaintiffs vis a vis the\nIssues framed in the above case Plaintiffs submits that as\nPropounders of the Will dated 29/1/1998 the burden lay heavily\non them to prove to the very hilt the authenticity of the same\nand that the said Wills were made and executed whilst the\ndeceased    Ronald    James    Ringrow    was    possessed     of\ntestamentary capacity i.e. that he was of a sound and\ndisposing state of mind and further that the said Will was duly\nattested by the witnesses thereto in the manner predicated bySection 63of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and that all\nsuspicious circumstances if any attaching with the making,\nexecution and attestation of the aforesaid Wills dated\n29/1/1998 of the late Ronald James Ringrow were dispelled and59OS No.25227/2009\n\nnegated and rendered non est. This was the fundamental and\nsole duty of the Propounder/s of a Will before a Court\nexercising Probate and Testamentary Jurisdiction. In the present\ncase the Defendants Nos.4, 5 and 6 as borne out by the\nWritten Statement filed by them in the above case have no\nquarrel with the manner in which Ronald James Ringrow made\nand executed his last Will and Testament dated 29/1/1998 and\nthe due attestation of the same and finally with its registration\nin the office of the Sub Registrar of Assurances, Shivajinagar,\nBangalore as document No.352/1997-98 in Book III, Volume\n131, Pages 203 to 220. In context of what is stated in the\nparagraph immediately herein supra and in continuation\nthereof the Plaintiffs draw the attention of this Hon'ble Court to\nthe pleadings i.e. Written Statement filed by the Defendants 4,\n5 and 6 in the above case. More particularly the said\nDefendants at Pages 4, 5 and 6 of the aforesaid Written\nStatement have pleaded as follows with regard to paragraph\nNo.6 of the Plaint. "WITH REGARD TO PARA NO. 6:- The\ncontention of the Plaintiff that the deceased Ronald James\nRingrow on 29/1/1998 executed a Will and the said Will has\nbeen registered in the Office of the Sub Registrar, Shivajinagar,\nBangalore as Document No.352/1997-98 may be a fact It is\nrelevant to place on record that Ronald James Ringrow during\nhis life time on 6/2/2002 canceled the Will dated 29/1/1998 by\nexecuting a Deed of Cancellation. The said document is60OS No.25227/2009\n\nregistered in the Office of the Sub Registrar, Shivajinagar,\nBangalore. Copy of the said Cancellation Deed is herewith\nproduced for the kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court.     It     is\nfurther relevant to place on record that Sri Ronald James\nRingrow on 5/2/2002 prepared a Deed of Cancellation of the\nWill dated 29/01/1998 in his own handwriting. On the following\nday he got it typed on the stamp paper and produced the same\nbefore the Sub Registrar. The Sub Registrar accepting the\npresentation of the said document for Registration registered\nthe same on 6/2/2002 thereby the Will dated 29/1/1998 stood\ncancelled/revoked on 6/2/2002. In the view of the matter\nRonald James Ringrow did not die leaving behind any Wills.Even otherwise Ronald James Ringrow did not die leaving any\nmovable or immovable properties to be succeeded by anyone\nin the light of the Sale Deeds dated 10/10/2000 executed by\nhim in favour of Defendant Nos. 4 and 5. The further\ncontention of the Plaintiffs that one of the attesting witness\nnamely Wg Cdr M.R Shirazi is at the foot of this suit and may\nkindly be read as part and parcel thereof is concerned, a\nperson by name Wg Cdr Shiraji had attested the Will dated\n29/1/1998. Perhaps there is no dispute with regard to the\nexecution and registration of the said Will and also the\nattestation of the said Will by Wg Cdr Shirazi. When the Will\nitself was revoked, there is no question of looking into the\nverifying affidavit filed by Wg Cdr Shirazi. The revocation of the61OS No.25227/2009\n\nWill was very much within the knowledge of the Plaintiffs as\nwell as the said attester namely Wg Cdr Shirazi whether he is\nexamined or not which will not alter the nature of the\nproceedings." Further with regard to PARA No.12 at Pages 12,\n13 and 14 of the Written Statement the Defendant Nos. 4, 5\nand 6 have stated as follows:-WITH REGARD TO PARA NO.12:-The Contention of the Plaintiff that the Revocation Deed\nexecuted by deceased Ronald James Ringrow on 6/2/2002 was\na product of fraud, coercion, undue influence and such other\nimportunity exercised on him by Defendants Nos. 1 to 7 is\nhereby denied as false. It is submitted that the deceased\nRonald James Ringrow on his own and voluntarily revoked the\nWill dated 29/1/1998 on 6/2/2002 and nobody has played any\nfraud, nor coercion or undue influence on him to revoke the\nWill dated 29/1/1998, the Plaintiff with the sole intention to\nprejudice the mind of this Hon'ble Court have contended,\nabsolutely there is no truth in it.   The further contention of\nthe Plaintiff that on the date of Revocation of Will that the\ndeceased Ronald James Ringrow was not of sound and\ndisposing state of mind and lacked testamentary capacity as\nsuch could never have executed and registered the said Deed\nof Revocation suo motu is hereby denied as false. It is\nsubmitted that as on 6/2/2002 he was of sound mind and that\nhe had the capacity of disposing state of mind and he had\ntestamentary capacity and has on his own executed and62OS No.25227/2009\n\nregistered the Deed of Revocation. The Plaintiff with the sole\nintention to give a colour to the case on hand have taken a\ncontention that he was not in sound and disposing state of\nmind. It is further material to place on record that on 8.9.2000\nthe Second Plaintiff authorized the deceased Ronald James\nRingrow to dispose of her share in the Item No.1 of the "A"\nSchedule Property by executing a General Power of Attorney, it\nis further relevant to place on record that the deceased Ronald\nJames Ringrow had 2/3rd share in the "A" Schedule Property and\nthat the Second Plaintiff had 1/3 rd share in the "A" Schedule\nProperty. Deceased Ronald James Ringrow by executing two\nSale Deeds dated 19/10/2000 sold the Item No.1 of "A"\nSchedule Property in favour of the Defendants Nos. 4 & 5 for a\ntotal Sale Consideration of Rs.45,00,000/-. That apart James\nRingrow on 2/2/2002 closed the Joint Account No.11880\nopened by him in the name of himself. Dr Gladys Sumitra and\nJohn Charles Karkadia at Bank of India. In view of the said fact\nthe Will dated 29/1/1998, in respect of item No.3 of the "A"\nSchedule Property has become inoperative and lost its\nessence. As such it was necessitated for Ronald James Ringrow\nto revoke the Will dated 29/1/1998. As such there is no point in\nfinding fault with the Revocation Deed dated 6/2/2002. The\nPlaintiffs with the sole intention to mislead this Hon'ble Court\nhave taken a contention that the Defendant Nos. 1 to 7 are\nbehind the revocation of the Will dated 29/1/1998 on 6/2/2002,63OS No.25227/2009\n\nabsolutely there is no truth in it." Additionally the Defendant\nNos. 4, 5 and 6 with regard to Para No.13 have contended as\nfollows:-WITH REGARD TO PARA No.13:-        The    contention   of\nthe Plaintiff that this Hon'ble Court adjudging the Will dated\n29/1/1998 is legal, valid, binding and justifiable thus in such\ncircumstance the entire estate of Ronald James Ringrow would\ndevolve upon the Plaintiffs, they not only succeed to the estate\non the basis of the Will but also they being his legal heirs are\nentitled to succeed to the estate of deceased Ronald James\nRingrow is incorrect for the following reasons:- Deceased\nRonald James Ringrow did not die leaving either movable or\nimmovable properties. Deceased Ronald James Ringrow sold\nthe immovable property by executing two Sale Deeds in favour\nof the Defendants Nos. 4 and 5 on 19/10/2000. Consequently\nas regard movables     (bank accounts) are concerned, he on\n28/1/2002 instructed his banker to enter the name of the\nDefendant No.4 as a Joint Account holder along with him after\ncancelling the nomination made by him earlier. In the light of\nthe said fact on the death of Ronald James Ringrow the\nDefendant No.4 is entitled to operate the bank accounts being\na joint account holder either or survivor. In that view of the\nmatter, deceased Ronald James Ringrow did not die leaving\nany   movable     or    immovable     property.    Under    these\ncircumstances the Plaintiffs are not justified in approaching this\nHon'ble Court for a Letter of Administration of the Will dated64OS No.25227/2009\n\n29/1/1998. It is further material to place on record that\ndeceased Ronald James Ringrow during his life time i.e. on\n6/2/2002 by virtue of a registered document cancelled the Will\ndated 29/1/1998. In the light of the said fact, the Plaintiffs\ncannot contend that there was a Will executed by Ronald James\nRingrow and that they are entitled for a Letters of\nAdministration. Secondly the Plaintiff did not refer the\ndocument dated 6/2/2002 i.e the revocation of the Will dated\n29/1/1998 executed by deceased Ronald James Ringrow. The\nPlaintiffs solely with an intention to confuse the mind of this\nHon'ble Court have approached this Hon'ble Court by\ncontending that the Will dated 29/1/1998 is subsisting and that\nthey are entitled for a Letters of Administration on the basis of\nthe same." Finally WITH REGARD TO PARA No.14 the\nDefendants 4, 5 and 6 have pleaded as follows:-WITH REGARD\nTO PARA No.14:- The contention of the Plaintiff that they\nundertook to administer the property and credits of deceased\nRonald James Ringrow and to make full and true inventory\nthereof and to exhibit the same before this Hon'ble Court\nwithin six months from the date of grant of Probate/Letters of\nAdministration to them and also to render to this Court true\naccount of the said property and credits within one year from\nthe said date is unacceptable for the following reasons. It is\nsubmitted    that   the   Plaintiff   claims   that   they   want\nProbate/Letters of Administration on the basis of the Will dated65OS No.25227/2009\n\n29/1/1998. That can be done if there is a Will subsists left\nbehind by Ronald James Ringrow. Perhaps it is a condition\nprecedent. In the light of the document dated 6/2/2002 the Will\ndated 29/1/1998 had come to an end and revoked. In view of\nthe said fact issuing a Letters of Administration in favour of the\nPlaintiff does not arise. The Plaintiff with the sole intention to\nharass these Defendants have made a frivolous suit before this\nHon'ble Court. " In their final summation of the case put forth\nby the Plaintiffs the Defendants 4, 5 and 6 at page 22 of the\nWritten Statement submit as follows:-It is submitted that\nRonald James Ringrow on 29/1/1998 executed a Will. Under the\nWill he had bequeathed the immovable property in the name of\nthe Plaintiff No.2 and also named the Plaintiff as the nominee\nin respect of some of his bank accounts. He on 19/10/2000 sold\nthe immovable property of himself and also as power of\nattorney holder of the Plaintiff No.2 in favour of the Defendants\nNos. 4 and 5 under the different Sale deeds both dated\n19/10/2000,    thereby   one   of    the   property   which   was\nbequeathed under the Will dated 29/1/1998 had come to an\nend and since he had disposed of during his life time. He had\nnamed the 2nd Plaintiff as the nominee in respect of some of his\nbank accounts. He on 28/1/2002 voluntarily went before the\nbank authorities and gave a letter to include the name of the\nDefendant No.4 as a joint account holder (either or survivor)\nbefore which he had cancelled the nomination made earlier.66OS No.25227/2009\n\nThis was a voluntary act of the deceased Ronald James\nRingrow. Ronald James Ringrow was an educated person. He\nwas having very good health till his death and he was\nconscious about his dealings and when he was mentally sound\nwhen he revoked the Will dated 29/1/1998 on 6/2/2002. He was\npersonally operating his bank accounts by going physically to\nthe bank. He was not depending on any body till his death.\nAfter the Will was effected by Ronald James Ringrow the\nPlaintiff No.2 took her due share from him (the sole trustee).\nDeceased Ronald James Ringrow had no love and affection\ntowards the Plaintiffs and that was one of the reasons made\nhim to revoke the Will dated 29/1/1998 on 6/2/2002. It is\nfurther submitted that deceased Ronald James Ringrow\nbreathed his last on 25/10/2002. On the day when he died he\ndid not leave behind either any movable or immovable\nproperties to be succeeded by any one under the Will dated\n29/1/1998. In the absence of the same the Plaintiffs had no\nright under law to seek for a letters of administration in respect\nof the revoked Will. In the view of the matter the proceedings\nthat are initiated by them before this Hon'ble Court is not\nmaintainable and the same is liable to be dismissed.\nSignificantly in context of what is extracted from the Written\nStatement filed by the Defendants 4, 5 and 6 and reproduced\nhereunder these Plaintiffs draw the attention of this Hon'ble\nCourt to the second paragraph thereof in Page 21 wherein the67OS No.25227/2009\n\nDefendant Nos.4, 5 and 6 have contended as follows:-" The\nlast and the least allegations made by the Plaintiffs against the\nDefendant Nos. 1 to 3 that they being Executors of the Will\nthey did not execute the Will and they failed to execute the Will\nand neither of them have manifested an intention to do so is\nhereby denied as false. The Defendant Nos 1 to 3 were quite\nright in not acting for execution of the Will dated 29/1/1998 for\nthe reason that deceased Ronald James Ringrow during his life\ntime revoked the Will dated 29/1/1998 on 6/2/2002. Perhaps\nthat was the reason for the Defendant Nos.1 to 3 not to go for\nexecution of a revoked Will. What the Plaintiffs want to do by\nvirtue of filing this suit is that they want to enforce a Will which\nwas revoked on 6/2/2002 which is impermissible in law."\nWithout adverting to the other material on record the\nauthenticity and justifiability and most of all the validity of the\nWill dated 29/1/1998 Plaintiffs submit with respect is laid\nbeyond the realm of dispute and controversy by these very\nDefendants 4, 5 and 6 themselves in their pleadings i.e.\nWritten Statement and the onus of the proof of the Will dated\n29/1/1998 of the late Ronald James Ringrow cast as per Issue\nNo.2 on them in the above case could impliedly be held to be\ndischarged by virtue of the provisions ofSection 58of the\nIndian Evidence Act, 1872 which are extracted and reproduced\nhereunder for ready reference.68OS No.25227/2009Section 58-Indian Evidence Act, 1872Facts admitted need not be proved. --No fact need be\n     proved in any proceeding which the parties thereto or\n     their agents agree to admit at the hearing, or which,\n     before the hearing, they agree to admit by any writing\n     under their hands, or which by any rule of pleading in\n     force at the time they are deemed to have admitted by\n     their pleadings: Provided that the Court may, in its\n     discretion, require the facts admitted to be proved\n     otherwise than by such admissions.Notwithstanding what is stated herein supra the Plaintiffs\ndraw the attention of this Hon'ble Court to the provisions ofSection 41of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 which are also\nextracted and reproduced hereunder for ready referenceSection 41of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872\n Relevancy   of   certain judgments    in probate, etc.,\njurisdiction.--A final judgment, order or decree of a\ncompetent Court, in the exercise of probate, matrimonial\nadmiralty or insolvency jurisdiction which confers upon\nor takes away from any person any legal character, or\nwhich declares any person to be entitled to any such\ncharacter, or to be entitled to any specific thing, not as\nagainst any specified person but absolutely, is relevant\nwhen the existence of any such legal character, or the\ntitle of any such person to any such thing, is relevant.\nSuch judgment, order or decree is conclusive proof-- that\nany legal character, which it confers accrued at the time\nwhen such judgment, order or decree came into\noperation; that any legal character, to which it declares\nany such person to be entitled, accrued to that person at\nthe time when such judgment, 1[order or decree]\ndeclares it to have accrued to that person; 3[order or\ndecree] declares it to have accrued to that person;" that\nany legal character which it takes away from any such\nperson ceased at the time from which such judgment,\n1[order or decree] declared that it had ceased or should\ncease; 3[order or decree] declared that it had ceased or\nshould cease;" and that anything to which it declares any\nperson to be so entitled was the property of that person\nat the time from which such judgment, 1[order or70OS No.25227/2009\n\n      decree] declares that it had been or should be his\n      property. 3[order or decree] declares that it had been or\n      should be his property."The operation of a decree of a Court of Testamentary\nJurisdiction being one in rem and not one in persona\nmanifested by the procedural formalities mandated under the\nProbate Rules applicable to such proceedings and the\nprovisions ofSections 59,61and63of the Indian Succession\nAct, 1925 which mandate subjective satisfaction of the\nTestamentary Court vis a vis the propriety and authenticity of a\nWill propounded before it by an applicant and which inter alia\nalso mandates subjective satisfaction of the said Hon'ble\nProbate Court to determine and appreciate is the presence of\nthe following legal requirements before pronouncement of\nauthenticity is made by it, viz.(i)     Presence of Testamentary capacity i.e. sound and\n              disposing state of mind as mandated inSection 59of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.(ii)    Absence of vitiating factors- enumerated inSection\n              61of the Indian Succession Act, 1925(iii)   Execution and attestation of the said Will as\n              mandated inSection 63of the Indian Succession\n              Act, 1925.71OS No.25227/2009\n\n         A duty thus lies on the Plaintiffs to establish\nnotwithstanding admission of the propriety of the Will dated\n29/1/1998 of the deceased Ronald James Ringrow by the\nDefendants herein, independently thereof, and in the manner\npredicated by law viz. theIndian Succession Act, 1925andSections 68of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 to establish and\nprove the making, execution and attestation of the aforesaid\nWill of the late Ronald James Ringrow by him and the absence\ntherefrom the presence of any suspicious or vitiating\ncircumstances. Issue No.2 was thus duly framed and the\nburden on the Plaintiffs thereunder it is submitted by them has\nalso been duly discharged. The Defendants in their contention\nof Cancellation of the same have themselves unilaterally and\nvoluntarily conceded unconditionally the validity of the Wills\ndated 29/1/1998 of the deceased Ronald James Ringrow.Learned counsel for plaintiffs further argued that in\ncontext of what is stated herein supra, the Plaintiffs submit\nthat they have examined Wg.Cdr. M.R Shirazi, SC VM, (Retired -\nIndian Air Force), as P.W No.1 in support of their case for grant\nof Probate of the Will dated 29/1/1998 of the late Ronald James\nRingrow referred to herein supra for greater effect and detail.\nWg. Cdr. M.R Shirazi,SC VM (Retired - Indian Air Force) has been\nexamined in a dual capacity, first as the Special Power of\nAttorney Holder of the Plaintiffs in the above case and secondly\nas one of the attesting witnesses to the aforesaid last Will and72OS No.25227/2009\n\nTestament of the deceased Ronald James Ringrow. He has filed\nhis Evidential Affidavit in the case wherein he has manifested\nthe existence of a long standing relationship with the deceased\nRonald James Ringrow arising out of his being a student of the\ndeceased whilst in Baldwin Boys High School, Hosur Road,\nBangalore and on account of his being a residential neighbour\nand close associate of the deceased virtually during the latter\npart of the lifetime of the deceased Ronald James Ringrow\nwhich spanned several years. The said Wg.Cdr. M.R Shirazi, SC\nVM, (Retired - Indian Air Force ), has effectively in his\ndeposition before this Hon'ble Court as P.W.No.I established\njurisdictional relationship between the Plaintiffs and himself\nand the deceased and the proximity of his residence with that\nof the deceased is borne out by his address projected in his\nEvidential Affidavit and also pleadings and documents and\nmost of all his competency to tender and adduce evidence in\nthe above case on behalf of the Plaintiffs on account of his\npersonal interaction with the Plaintiffs and the deceased\nspanning a virtual life time.Section 68of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 provides as\nfollows:-Section 68of Indian Evidence Act, 1872\n\n      Proof of execution of document required by law to be\n      attested.--If a document is required by law to be73OS No.25227/2009\n\n      attested, it shall not be used as evidence until one\n      attesting witness at least has been called for the purpose\n      of proving its execution, if there be an attesting witness\n      alive, and subject to the process of the Court and\n      capable of giving evidence: 1[Provided that it shall not\n      be necessary to call an attesting witness in proof of the\n      execution of any document, not being a Will, which has\n      been registered in accordance with the provisions of theIndian Registration Act, 1908(16 of 1908), unless its\n      execution by the person by whom it purports to have\n      been executed is specifically denied.Learned counsel for Plaintiffs further argued that they have\nby examination of Wg. Cdr. M.R Shirazi, SC VM, (Retired -\nIndian Air Force), who was one of the attesting witnesses to the\nWill dated 29/1/1998 of the deceased Ronald James Ringrow,\nduly discharged entirely, the burden cast on them by the\nprovisions ofSection 68of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 as\nalso the provisions ofSection 59,60and63of the Indian\nSuccession Act, 1925. In context of their aforesaid assertions\nthe Plaintiffs draw the attention of this Hon'ble Court to the\ncontents of paragraphs 1 to 12 of the Evidential Affidavit filed\nby him and the oral evidence adduced by him wherein apart\nfrom stressing his past and ongoing association with the\ndeceased till the demise of the latter and the Plaintiffs herein74OS No.25227/2009\n\ntherein, he identified the Will dated 29/1/1998 of the deceased\nRonald James Ringrow being another original thereof, the\nsignatures of the deceased thereon and his very own. He has\nalso verified the Petition/Plaint in the above case and he has\nalso spoken of attestation of the Will dated 29/1/1998 by Alice\nJesudian the other attesting witness. In legal effect the\ndepositions of P.W No.1 have proved the Will of the deceased\nRonald James Ringrow. The Issue No.2 framed by this Hon'ble\nCourt which is as follows:-ISSUE 2: Whether the Plaintiff proves that the Will dated\n      29/1/1998 is the Last Will of late Ronald James Ringrow?has been duly proved and established by the Plaintiffs through\ntheir Power of Attorney Holder Wg. Cdr. M.R Shirazi, SC VM,\n( Retired - Indian Air Force) and being also the attesting witness\nof the aforesaid Last Will dated 29/1/1998 of the late Ronald\nJames Ringrow. The propriety of the Will in question and its\nvalidity was never impugned and its justifiability established by\nadmission in the Written Statement and specific proof vide oral\nand documentary evidence adduced through him in the course\nof the proceedings in the above case. Plaintiffs have addressed\nIssue No.2 first and not sequentially as framed with a view to\nset at rest any lurking doubts that this Hon'ble Court may have\nwith regard to the propriety and validity of the said Wills and75OS No.25227/2009\n\nwith    a   view     to   stress     the   need     for   a    due\nCancellation/Revocation of the same to be established the\nburden of which has been cast on the Defendants as per Issue\nNo.1 in the above case.Further, Learned counsel for plaintiffs argued regarding\nIssue No.1 framed in the case that in the context of what is\nstated herein supra submit with deep respect that the Cross\nExamination of P.W No.1 by the Defendants was superficial in\nnature obviously in view of their own personal acceptance of\nthe validity and justifiability of the Will dated 29/1/1998 of the\nlate Ronald James Ringrow. The onus cast by this Hon'ble Court\nvide Issues No.2 on the Plaintiffs having been duly discharged\nby them, they have proved the authenticity of the Will dated\n29/1/1998 made and executed by the deceased Ronald James\nRingrow and are thus entitled to a grant of Probate of the same\nto the First Plaintiff herein. It is reiterated that the Defendants\n4, 5 and 6 have admitted the validity of the said Will in all\nrespects. The next question that would arise would be the one\n"Whether the same was duly revoked?" Plaintiffs at the very\noutset submit that this is not so. The Defendants 4,5 and 6 are\nasserting Cancellation/ Revocation of the same and must\ndischarge the burden cast on them by Issue No.1. That at this\njuncture and stage of the proceedings in the above case they\nclosed their side of the evidence reserving right to themselves76OS No.25227/2009\n\nto lead rebuttal evidence on Issue No.1 and were granted such\nreservation. The case then came to be listed for the evidence\nof the Defendants with regard to the establishment of Issue\nNo.1 casting the burden on them to prove due revocation of\nthe Will dated 29/1/1998 of the late Ronald James Ringrow.\nDefendants examined Defendant No.4 as D.W No.I in support\nof their case. The said D.W No.1 filed an elaborate Evidential\nAffidavit in lieu of oral examination which in effect was a\nreplication with required amendments and alterations of the\nWritten Statement filed by her and the Defendants Nos.5 and6. She was Cross Examined at length and despite default in\nfurnishing a Witness List sought permission to adduce further\nevidence which she was summarily granted by this Hon'ble\nCourt and which opportunity she failed to take advantage of\nand thus forfeited her right to lead such evidence though in\nreality she had also orally submitted that she had no intention\nof doing so. Defendants have also not pleaded revocation of\nthe Will dated 29/1/1988 in the manner predicated for the\nmaking, execution and attestation of an unprivileged Will. No\nevidence can thus be adduced in this regard and context on\naccount of the lack of a pleading by the Defendants Nos.4, 5\nand 6 resulting in the formulation of Issue No.1. The Issue is\nthus irrevocably closed.   Plaintiffs submit with deep respect\nthatSection 70of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 provides as\nfollows:77OS No.25227/2009Section 70of Indian Succession Act, 1925\n\n     Revocation    of   unprivileged    Will   or   codicil.--No\n     unprivileged Will or codicil, nor any part thereof, shall be\n     revoked otherwise than by marriage, or by another Will\n     or codicil, or by some writing declaring an intention to\n     revoke the same and executed in the manner in which an\n     unprivileged Will is herein before required to be\n     executed, or by the burning, tearing, or otherwise\n     destroying the same by the testator or by some person\n     in his presence and by his direction with the intention of\n     revoking the same. Illustrations(i) A has made an unprivileged Will. Afterwards, A makes\n     another unprivileged Will which purports to revoke the\n     first. This is a revocation.(ii) A has made an unprivileged Will. Afterwards, A being\n     entitled to make a privileged Will makes a privileged Will,\n     which purports to revoke his unprivileged Will. This is a\n     revocation.In context of the aforesaid provisions the Plaintiff draws\nthe attention of this Hon'ble Court to the fact that the Will\ndated 29/1/1998 was an unprivileged one. If revoked by some\nwriting declaring an intention to revoke the same, the said\nwriting must be executed in the manner in which an\nunprivileged Will is required to be executed in terms of the78OS No.25227/2009Indian Succession Act, 1925. The provisions ofSection 68of\nthe Indian Evidence Act, 1872 would thus have application to\nthe aforesaid Deed of Revocation/Cancellation, a procedure\nand important formality which the Defendants 4, 5 and 6 have\nfailed to undertake to prove and establish in the Trial in the\nabove case. This contention of the Plaintiffs is also subjectively\nadvanced and without prejudice as the Defendants have also\nnot pleaded material to facilitate the same. The Defendants 4,\n5 and 6 have thus failed to discharge the burden of proof cast\non them by Issue No.1 in the above case. The Will dated\n29/1/1998 has thus NOT been revoked or cancelled and thus\nremains in full force and effect. A conspectus of the aforesaid\nprovision mandates that if the drawing and execution of a deed\nof revocation of a specific Will is resorted to it must be so made\nand executed in the like manner as applicable to an\nunprivileged Will. Hence the Cancellation Deed that was\nallegedly executed by the deceased Ronald James Ringrow\nwhich did not project or portray and most importantly did not\npossess the necessary ingredients of a Deed of Revocation of a\nWill, in the light of the provisions ofSection 70of the Indian\nSuccession Act, 1925 and the attaching and prevailing laws\ndoes not assume the mantle, feature or ingredients of a Deed\nof Revocation. The Deed of Cancellation as per Ex D-5 and Ex\nD-6 is void ab initio and not justiciable in any manner\nwhatsoever. The Defendants have failed to prove due79OS No.25227/2009\n\nRevocation of the Will dated 29/1/1998 of the late Ronald\nJames Ringrow registered as document No.352/1997-98 in\nBook III Volume 131 Pages 213 to 220 in the office of the Sub\nRegistrar of Assurances Shivajinagar, Bangalore. The Will dated\n29/1/1998 is thus valid and justiciable and a grant of Probate\nthereof to the First Plaintiff in the above case is an imperative\nnecessity and a longstanding need for this relief must thus be\nsummarily granted to the First Plaintiff in the above case\ntogether with the consequential reliefs that also attached with\nsuch a grant. The above Testamentary Original Suit must thus\nbe decreed as initially prayed for and not in the alternative it is\nsubmitted with deep respect. Notwithstanding what is stated\nherein supra, that even if one were to assume for purposes of\nargument without conceding the same that the Deed of\nRevocation (in the instant case termed a Deed of Cancellation)\nis not a document to be proved within the meaning ofSection\n68of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 extracted and reproduced\nherein above and hereunder too, the said Deed of Cancellation\nnow regarded as a Deed of Revocation by the Defendants\nthemselves has not been proved in the manner predicated by\nthe provisions ofSection 68of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872\nwhich said legal provision is extracted and reproduced\nhereunder for ready referenceSection 68of the Indian Evidence Act, 187280OS No.25227/2009\n\n      Proof of execution of document required by law to be\n      attested.--If a document is required by law to be\n      attested, it shall not be used as evidence until one\n      attesting witness at least has been called for the purpose\n      of proving its execution, if there be an attesting witness\n      alive, and subject to the process of the Court and\n      capable of giving evidence: 1[Provided that it shall not\n      be necessary to call an attesting witness in proof of the\n      execution of any document, not being a Will, which has\n      been registered in accordance with the provisions of theIndian Registration Act, 1908(16 of 1908), unless its\n      execution by the person by whom it purports to have\n      been executed is specifically denied.]\n\n\n    Neither the maker of the documents as per Exhibit D-1 and\nD-2 has been examined as a witness in support of the\ndocuments and most of all neither has either or both the\nalleged witnesses of the same been examined as witnesses in\nconfirmation of their alleged signatures and alleged fact of\nattestation of the said deed within the meaning ofSection 3of\nthe Transfer of Property Act, 1882 which is extracted and also\nreproduced hereunder for ready referenceSection 3of the Transfer of Property act, 1882\n\n      "attested", in relation to an instrument, means and shall\n      be deemed always to have meant attested by two or81OS No.25227/2009\n\n      more witnesses each of whom has seen the executant\n      sign or affix his mark to the instrument, or has seen\n      some other person sign the instrument in the presence\n      and by the direction of the executant, or has received\n      from the executant a personal acknowledgement of his\n      signature or mark, or of the signature of such other\n      person, and each of whom has signed the instrument in\n      the presence of the executant; but it shall not be\n      necessary that more than one of such witnesses shall\n      have been present at the same time, and no particular\n      form of attestation shall be necessary;and the provisions ofSection 70of the Indian Succession\nAct,1925. In the light of what is stated herein it is more than\napparent that the Defendants have failed to establish that the\nWill dated 29/1/1998 registered as document No.352/1997-98\nin Book III, Volume 131, Pages 213 to 220 in the Office of the\nSub Registrar of Assurances, Shivajinagar, Bangalore has been\nrevoked absolutely and forever and that the said Will subsists\nand is valid and justiciable in all respects is the only inference\nthat this Hon'ble Court must necessarily reach mandating inter\nalia the grant of Probate of the aforesaid Will dated 29/1/1998\nto the First Plaintiff in the above case. Additionally and again\nnotwithstanding what is stated herein supra Plaintiffs submit\nwith deep respect that if this Hon'ble Court was pleased to\nreject the contentions of the Plaintiffs vis a vis issue of82OS No.25227/2009\n\nRevocation of the Will dated 29/1/1998 particularized herein\nsupra by the Deed of Cancellation as per Exhibit D-1 and D-2\nwith the consequential inference that the aforesaid Will is non\nest with effect from 6/2/2002 these Plaintiffs submit with deep\nrespect that the said Revocation/Cancellation of the Will dated\n29/1/1998 by the Deed of Cancellation/Revocation dated\n5/2/2002 and 6/2/2002 respectively as per the Originals of\nExhibit D-1 and D-2, on an examination of those aforesaid\nCancellation Deeds/Revocation Deeds as per Exhibits D-1 and\nD-2 from the stand point of the same being the explicit product\nof fraud, undue influence, coercion and other importunity that\nrenders them void ab initio manifests that they are thus neither\nenforcible or justiciable and the plethora of negative evidence\nprojected by the very Defendants 4, 5 and 6 in the above case\nmay thus be utilised by this Hon'ble Court to conveniently and\nwithout much ado arrive at the aforesaid findings which the\nPlaintiffs will highlight hereunder and enable cognizance of the\ncrimes and injustice occasioned by the Defendants 4, 5 and 6\nagainst the deceased Ronald James Ringrow and most\nparticularly the Plaintiffs themselves. The deed of Cancellation\nis undoubtedly the product of fraud, coercion, undue influence\nand such other importunity as took away the free agency of\nthe Executant/Testator and is therefore void ab initio. It is a\nfabricated, concocted and fraudulent piece of work and\nmanifests to the very hilt the fraud played and exercised by the83OS No.25227/2009\n\nDefendants 4, 5, and 6 on the deceased Ronald James Ringrow.Section 61of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 which has\nintrinsic application to the making, execution and attestation of\nthis document being mandated by the provisions ofSection 70of the Indian Succession Act,1925 provides total support to the\ncontentions of the Plaintiffs in this regard.Section 61of the\nIndian Succession Act, 1925 is extracted and reproduced\nhereunder for ready reference.Section 61of the Indian Succession Act,1925.\n      61 Will obtained by fraud, coercion or importunity. --A\n      Will or any part of a Will, the making of which has been\n      caused by fraud or coercion, or by such importunity as\n      takes away the free agency of the testator, is void.In context of what is stated in the paragraph (73)\nimmediately herein supra these Plaintiffs submit with deep\nrespect that on her own admission the Defendant No.4 became\nacquainted with the deceased Ronald James Ringrow a short\nperiod of time before premises bearing Old No.5 and New\nNo.10, Eagle Street, Langford Town, Bangalore-560 025 came\nto be allegedly sold, transferred, conveyed and assigned to her\nand her daughter the Defendant No.5- Sharon Mascarenhas in\none half undivided shares. These sales were concluded in their\nfavour on 19/10/2000. The material on record manifests that\nthe alleged Agreements of Sale that came to be concluded in84OS No.25227/2009\n\nthis regard on 31/08/2000 against payment of a token advance\nof Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) each, in cash by the\nDefendants 4 and 5 to the deceased Ronald James Ringrow and\nthat further thereto a Public Notice of intent to purchase the\nimmovable property referred to herein came to be issued by\nthe aforesaid intending Purchasers immediately prior thereto\ni.e. on 30/8/2000 which action undertaken by the Defendants\n4, 5 and 6 is an unconventional one and points to the lack of\nprobity in the Defendants 4, 5 and 6 vis a vis the alleged sale\nand conveyance of the composite property at Old No.5 and\nNew No.10, Eagle Street, Langford Town, Bangalore-560 025 in\ntheir favour more particularly the Defendants 4 and 5. The\ndate on which the Agreements to Sell were allegedly entered\ninto between the deceased Ronald James Ringrow and the\nDefendants 4 and 5 is also not forthcoming in the recitals of\nthe Sale Deed as per Exhibits D-3 and D-4 and the shifty and\nsuspicious nature of the said Sales thus rears its vicious head.\nThe association of the deceased Ronald James Ringrow and the\nDefendants 4, 5 and 6 could thus safely be assumed to have\ncommenced in mid August 2000 by virtue of the recitals in\nExhibit D-3 and D-4 both dated 19/10/2000. That as in mid\nAugust 2000 the deceased had made and executed his last\nWills and Testaments on 29/1/1998 one of which said\ntestamentary documents came to be registered in the office of\nthe Sub Registrar of Assurances, Shivajinagar, Bangalore at85OS No.25227/2009\n\nNo.352/1997-98 in Book III, Volume 131 Pages 213 to 220. The\naforesaid Will dated 29/1/1998 which was made, executed and\nattested in severalty was an explicit declaration and exposition\nof the financial status of the deceased Ronald James Ringrow\nand manifested his assets and liabilities in all respects and also\npredicated the manner in which he desired disposition of the\nsame solely in favour of his near and dear ones and surviving\nconsanguine relatives and those who had been of assistance\nand support to him during his last phase of life. Every asset,\nmovable and immovable was documented therein and the\ndeceased Ronald James Ringrow had also made reasonable\nprovisions therein for discharge of any costs attaching with his\ndeath bed medical treatment and for his funeral and attaching\nreligious obsequies. The fore-sightedness of the deceased and\nhis deep appreciation of what his Executrices and Executors\nwould be confronted at the time of his death and the provisions\nhe made in his Will to mitigate the same and thus reduce the\nhardships and burdens his Executrices and Executors would\nface, proved him to be a person of exceptional stature and\npropriety and acumen and his "stable" was duly cleaned up\nand readied for entry thereto by his testamentary heirs, mainly\nbeing his natural heirs. A comprehensive, fair, just and all\nencompassing last Will and Testament was thus made by the\ndeceased Ronald James Ringrow and most significantly and in\nkeeping with his precision for detail in severalty. There were86OS No.25227/2009\n\nthus in effect more than one original of the Will dated\n29/1/1998 of the late Ronald James Ringrow. The aforesaid Will\ndated   29/1/1998    notwithstanding    the   meticulous    and\ncomprehensive manner in which it was drawn very regrettably\nproved to be the "Road Map" for the Defendants 4, 5 and 6 and\nthe very key to the treasures of "Ronald Baba" for by 6/2/2002\nless than eighteen months after the same was made it was\nsought to be nullified and rendered unenforcible and of no\nconsequence to anybody on this earth other than the\nDefendants 4, 5 and 6 who had just come on the scene\npregnant with criminal intents and motives. This was definitely\nnot what Ronald James Ringrow would ever have wanted or\ncontemplated and were factors which point solely at exercise\nof fraud, coercion, undue influence and other importunity\nwhich took away the free agency of the Testator Ronald James\nRingrow and which results came to be achieved via the\nmedium of the Deeds of Cancellation on 5/2/2002 and\n6/2/2002 the latter of which came to be registered in the office\nof the Sub Registrar of Assurances, Shivajinagar, Bangalore at\ndocument No.301/2001-02 in Book III, Volume No.156, Pages\n247 to 248 though not in accordance with law and enforcible\nthereunder. In the humble and considered opinion of the\nPlaintiffs and borne out by the evidence and documentary\nmaterial on record, the aforesaid Deed of Cancellation was\nnothing more than the culmination of a fraud exercised by the87OS No.25227/2009\n\nDefendants 4, 5 and 6 on the deceased Ronald James Ringrow\ncontaining a series of such nefarious and unjust transactions of\ndifferent hues though with the same intent and purpose\nengineered by the Defendants 4, 5 and 6 herein. The\nparticipants in this string of frauds are obviously also the other\nDefendants in the above case and their participation and the\nnature thereof will be highlighted at the relevant and\nappropriate stage hereinafter.The Learned counsel for plaintiffs further argued that the\nDeed of Cancellation dated 6/2/2002 particularized herein\nsupra is void ab initio and cannot therefore revoke absolutely\nand forever either in part or in entirety the Will dated\n29/1/1998 of the late Ronald James Ringrow is thus the sole\nfeature of the aforesaid deed of Cancellation dated 6/2/2002\nbeing the product of fraud, coercion, undue influence and other\nimportunity which vitiated the same and could not therefore in\nlaw or in fact be deemed to have cancelled and/or revoked the\nWill dated 29/1/1998 of the deceased Ronald James Ringrow\nreferred to herein supra. A grant of Probate of the aforesaid Will\nto the First Plaintiff herein is thus an imperative necessity and\nmandates the decreeing of the above Testamentary Original\nSuit as prayed for initially. In continuation of what is stated\nherein supra the Plaintiffs submit with deep respect that\npremises bearing Old No.5, New No.10, Eagle Street, Langford88OS No.25227/2009\n\nTown, Bangalore-560 025 was the ancestral home of the\nRingrows from the year 1946. The older generation of Ringrows\nhad passed on together with the sibling Edward John Ringrow\n(Junior), of the deceased Ronald James Ringrow. Only the late\nRonald James Ringrow was the occupant of the aforesaid\nproperty a portion of which had been alienated several years in\nthe past. His sibling the Plaintiff No.2 had migrated to Australia\nand was resident there with her family having also acquired\nAustralian Nationality. She had virtually nothing to do in the\nmatter of the sale of the aforesaid property to the Defendants\n4 and 5 herein. She blindly trusted the deceased without then\nrealizing that he was under the evil and undue influence and\noverwhelming domination of the Defendant No. 4 and her\nchildren. In the year 2000 Ronald James Ringrow was aged\neighty years and more and being resident and domiciled in his\nancestral home for almost six decades and in frail health there\nwas obviously no need or requirement for him to vacate his\nancestral home and move elsewhere. He was not under a\nthreat of eviction and going by the material and evidence on\nrecord was happily cocooned in his home. His then recently\nmade last Wills and Testaments manifested Ronald James\nRingrow was comfortably placed on all counts and most of all\nthat he was debt free and not in dire financial straits was\nmanifested by the aforesaid Will. The need to sell his home and\ngo elsewhere was never a feature present in the mental frame89OS No.25227/2009\n\nwork of the deceased Ronald James Ringrow. Hence Exhibits D-\n3   and D-4     fraudulently recorded    at   Page   4, thereof,\nrespectively, as follows, viz. -" WHEREAS the Vendors are in urgent need of funds for\n       their legal necessities offered to sell an undivided share,\n       title and interests in the Schedule "A" Property which is\n       more fully described in the Schedule "B" hereunder,\n       free from encumbrances, to the purchaser herein for a\n       total sale consideration of Rs.22,50,000/- (Rupees\n       twenty two lakhs fifty thousand only). The Purchasers\n       agreed to purchase the Schedule "B" Property, for the\n       said price free from all encumbrances"That the aforesaid similar recitals in the Deeds of Sale as\nper Exhibits D-3 and D-4 are absolutely fraudulent and\nfictitious is borne out by the Wills dated 29/1/1998 which\nexplicitly manifested that the deceased Ronald James Ringrow\ndid not have any undue financial commitments and further the\nPlaintiff No.2 who was resident in Australia was enjoying\nhappily her retirement benefits and life in retirement and also\ndid not have any undue financial commitments. On the home\nfront too, the deceased was comfortable and happily placed.90OS No.25227/2009\n\nThe need to sell the immovable property in question to the\nDefendants 4 and 5 was thus not a factor that could be alleged\nto have prompted the Sale of the property at New No.5, Old\nNo.10, Eagle Street, Langford Town, Bangalore-560 025 to the\nDefendants 4 and 5 herein. Further the Defendants Nos. 4 and\n5 were also without the funds necessary to purchase the\naforesaid property and had to admittedly secure a Loan from\nthe Karnataka Bank, Madikeri Branch, Kodagu District in a sum\nof RS.54 lakhs (Rupees fifty four lakhs only), to meet the costs\nattaching with the two Sales as per Exhibits D-3 and D-4 which\ncompositely are as follows:-a)    Sale Price                      Rs.45,00,000/-\n     b)    Registration Charges            Rs. 1,39,900/-\n     c)    Stamp duty paid                    Rs.59,900/-\n     d)    Deficit Stamp Duty              Rs. 8,00,000/-\n           Total                           Rs.5499,800/-The aforesaid financial aspects of the Sales as per Exhibit D-3\nand D-4 are manifested by the very Exhibits as per D-3 and D-4. The recitals in the Wills dated 29/1/1998 of the deceased\nmust thus be regarded and considered with extreme care and\nprecision by this Hon'ble Court for they will reveal the truth\nand establish the long term fraud and conspiracy played on the\ndeceased by the Defendants 4,5 and 6 and presumably others\nherein. A minute consideration of the demand drafts issued by91OS No.25227/2009\n\nthe Karnataka Bank, Madikeri Branch, Kodagu District to meet\nthe costs referred to herein supra unquestionably manifest the\nsame to have been drawn and issued by the Karnataka Bank,\nMadikeri Branch, Kodagu District on 18/10/2000. The deeds as\nper Exhibit D-3 and D-4 were presented for registration on\n19/10/2000 on which very day/date the deficit stamp duty of\nRs.8,00,000/- was levied, paid and collected by the Deputy\nCommissioner, State of Karnataka who at Appendix CA-1491\nand Appendix CA 1492 has certified in respect of each of the\naforesaid Exhibits that he has recorded that underSection 41of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957 for the purposes ofSection\n34-39of the Karnataka Stamp Act, 1957, determined that a\nsum of Rs.4,00,000/- (Rupees four lakhs only) being the\ndeficit/proper stamp duty payable by the Fourth Defendant and\nFifth Defendant respectively in respect of each of the aforesaid\ntransactions and that the same has been remitted to the\nRBI/SBI by the Defendants 4 and 5 respectively in respect of\nDocument Nos. 2397/2000-20001 and No. 2398/2000 - 2001\nestablishing the prior knowledge thereby in the minds of the\nDefendants 4 and 5 that the sale transactions in question were\ngrossly undervalued and was known to them for they\npurchased the said Demand drafts to defray these deficit\npayments a day before the determination of the Market Value\nof the immovable property constituting the subject matter of\nthese sales were made which was compositely in the region of92OS No.25227/2009\n\nRs.90,000,00/- as on a conservative basis projected by the\nOfficial Authorities on the Karnataka Guideline Market Values.\nPreparation for this eventuality was manifested by these\naforesaid acts of the Defendants 4,5 and 6 and clearly\nestablishes the fraudulent manner in which the aforesaid\nDefendants were dealing with the deceased Ronald James\nRingrow all through their association with him. For no apparent\nreason a lifetime of love and affection for his own very near\nand dear was "supplanted" with that allegedly for the Fourth\nDefendant herein a contention extremely hard to believe in the\nlight of the facts and circumstances attaching with the\ndeceased and admittedly without provocation for the allegedly\nhostile disposition towards them and more so in the light of the\ncontentions   of   the   Fourth        Defendant    herself   who    in\ncontradiction of terms has also contended that her association\nof   the   deceased   was   nominal        and     extended   to    and\nencompassed merely the commercial transaction that was\nconcluded by her and daughter with him. That the aforesaid\nCertification manifests that the Market Value of the property\nconveyed under the aforesaid documents respectively was not\nRs.22,50,000/- (Rupees twenty two lakhs fifty thousand only),\neach and Rs.45,00,000/- (Rupees forty five lakhs only)\ncompositely but in excess of Rs. 22,50,000/- ( Rupees twenty\ntwo lakhs and fifty thousand only ), each, and at Rs.\n45,00,000/- each as deficit stamp duty in respect of each of the93OS No.25227/2009\n\ntwo deeds at Ex D-3 and D-4 was required to be paid by the\nPurchasers thereunder, viz the Defendant No.5 and Defendant\nNo.5 herein. The deficit Stamp Duty payable on each of the two\ntransactions was Rs.4,22,950/- ( Rupees for lakhs, twenty two\nthousand nine hundred and fifty only) and compositely\nRs.8,45,900/- (Rupees eight lakhs, forty five thousand nine\nhundred only). The Market Value of the transaction at\nRs.22,50,000/- in each of the documents as per Ex D-3 and D-4\nwas thus wholly inadequate and the ultimate amount of\nstamped duty paid manifests the real and official Market Value\nof the properties conveyed and must be in the region of\nRS.45,000,00/- ( Rupees forty five lakhs only ), each and\ncompositely RS.90,000,00/- ( Rupees Ninety lakhs only). The\nproperties conveyed as per Ex D-3 and D-4 were thus\n"purchased" for value far below the accredited Market Value of\nthe said properties as on the date of the conveyance of the\nsame to the Defendant Nos.4 and 5 and is a suspicious\ncircumstance and points to criminality and fraud in the overall\nscenario of the facts and circumstances attaching with the\nliving and existence of the deceased Ronald James Ringrow\nand the revocation and cancellation of his Last Wills and\nTestament     and     the    wrongful     appropriation    and\nmisappropriation of his financial securities and Bank Accounts.\nAn elderly man, isolated, lonely, feeble and without proper\nlegal advice or assistance was cheated and taken undue94OS No.25227/2009\n\nadvantage of by sheer fraud. That the Defendants 4 and 5\nwere fully aware of the Market Value of the property that they\nwere arranging to have conveyed to themselves and that the\nsame was well within their knowledge and that they were in\neffect knocking of the same far below the Market Value thereof\nis borne out by the purchase of the Demand Drafts/Bankers\ncheques towards deficit stamped duties a day before the\nexecution and registration of the deeds as per Exhibit D-3 and\nD-4 were actually presented for registration thus investing\nknowledge in the Defendants that the transaction in question\nwere grossly undervalued which was obviously known to them\nlong before then and that the transactions in question were in\neffect absolute shams and blatant acts of fraud and criminality.\nFurther at Page (8) of each of the aforesaid deeds as per Ex D-\n3 and D-4 the following recital is incorporated therein, viz:-"The Vendors have this day delivered the vacant\n          possession of the Schedule "B" Property to the\n          Purchaser and Purchaser acknowledges the receipt\n          of the vacant possession of the Schedule "B"Property."Plaintiffs submit that the aforesaid recital in the aforesaid\ndeeds as per Ex D-3 and D-4 was entirely fraudulent in\nnature and far from the truth. Ronald James Ringrow never\nvacated the property in question and neither did he deliver\nvacant possession thereof to the Defendants 4 and\nrespectively. The Death Certificate manifested that he on\n25/10/2004 died in his home which is the Schedule "A"\nProperty as per Ex D-3 and      D-4. The sales as per Ex D-3\nand D-4 are thus null and void and their nullity, respectively,\nis manifested on the very face of these documents and the\nattaching facts of the case. That the need for Ronald James\nRingrow to sell the property dated Old No.5, New No.10,\nEagle Street, Langford Town, Bangalore-560 025 was a non\nexistent fact is borne out by the very deeds of sale as per Ex\nD-3 and D-4. More importantly the aforesaid Exhibits\nmanifest that the deceased Ronald James Ringrow was\nunder the overwhelming and overreaching domination of\nthe Defendants 4, 5 and 6 and the victim of fraud, undue\ninfluence, coercion and other importunity exercised upon\nhim and establishes unquestionably that the Deed of\nCancellation (Revocation) was the product of fraud, undue\ninfluence, coercion and such other importunity that\nrendered the same void ab initio and of no consequences or\nlegal effect vis a vis the Will dated 29/1/1998. The document\nwas created to buttress and enable the commission of the96OS No.25227/2009\n\nfraud that was conceived by the Defendants 4, 5 and 6.\nPlaintiff further submits that the following recital was also\nincorporated in each of the deeds as per Ex D-3 and D-4,\nviz:-" The Vendors further covenant with the\n               Purchasers that in case the Purchasers is\n               deprived of the whole or any part of the\n               Schedule "B" Property hereby sold         by the\n               reason of any defect found in the title of the\n               Vendors or any encumbrances or any charges\n               in the same of which this sale is not subjected\n               the Vendors shall pay to the purchaser by way\n               of damages or otherwise the whole of the sale\n               price or such part of it as shall the same\n               proportion of the which or such part of the\n               schedule property as the case may be and\n               also all consequential losses and damages"It is further submission of the Learned counsel for plaintiffs\nthat the Defendants 4 and 5 were brazenly making provisions\nin the aforesaid deeds to ensure that they got their money\nback in the event of the discovery of the fraud played on the\ndeceased Ronald James Ringrow and the Plaintiffs by them.\nThough the deceased Ronald James Ringrow lived for more\nthan four years after the properties referred to herein supra97OS No.25227/2009\n\ncame to be sold by him, allegedly, he did not take any steps to\nmove into alternate accommodation or acquire an alternate\nresidence. He continued there as though nothing had\nhappened clearly manifesting the fraud played on him and his\ndeteriorating state of mind. Also the Defendants 4, 5 and 6 did\nnot take any steps to actually appropriate their property for\nacquisition of which they had taken a massive loan. This was\nanother suspicious circumstance in the aspect of the case\nrelating to the making and execution of the Cancellation /\nRevocation Deed. It is also to be noted that the accredited\nposition of law, particularly in Hindu Law, the purchaser of\nimmovable property alienated to him on account of legal\nnecessity is required to follow up this issue post completion of\nthe transaction and confirm for himself that the legal necessity\nin question was duly eradicated, liquidated and nullified with\nthe funds provided by him as Sale consideration. No such\nfeature appears in the instant case. Most significantly it is to be\nnoted that the proceeds of the Sales in question were invested\nin Capital Gain Exemption Schemes once more underlying the\nfact that there was no need for the Sales as per Exhibit D-3 and\nD-4 which were in reality sham transactions to enable\nconveyance of the properties forming the subject matter of the\naforesaid sales in favour of the Defendants 4 and 5 herein.\nThat the Deed of Cancellation dated 6/2/2002 is fraudulent is\nestablished by this fact and manifests the total lack of98OS No.25227/2009\n\nadvertance of his actions on the part of the deceased Ronald\nJames Ringrow vis a vis the same. The Will dated 29/1/1998 of\nthe deceased Ronald James Ringrow was thus neither in fact or\nin law revoked by the Deed of Cancellation dated 6/2/2002\ninter alia on account of its fraudulent nature. That the Deed of\nCancellation (Revocation) was brought into existence for the\nsole purpose of negating the legacies to the testamentary heirs\nof the deceased Ronald James Ringrow under his last Will and\nTestament dated 29/1/1998 and to ensure that his entire\ndisposable Estate accrues to the benefit of the Defendants 4, 5\nand 6 under the Machiavellian and diabolical scheme of fraud\nthat they had created and fabricated in this regard. Further it\nwas conceived to preclude controversies post the demise of\nthe deceased Ronald James Ringrow. Ademption of legacies\nwas secured by fabrication of life time transfers via the\nconveyances as per Exhibits D-3 and D-4 and by fraudulent\nappropriation of monies of the deceased Ronald James Ringrow\nrendered joint as a result of Either or Survivor Accounts and by\nalleged testamentary succession thereto on account of alleged\nnomination of these other Bank Accounts in favour of the\nFourth Defendant and her children that has not in law "flowed"\nto them in terms of the aforesaid nominations allegedly\ndevised to benefit her. The need for testamentary disposition\nvis a vis the Estate of the deceased was thus attempted to be\nlegally nullified by the Defendants 4, 5 and 6 undoubtedly for99OS No.25227/2009\n\ntheir joint and several benefits and the criminal intent of the\nDefendants 4, 5 and 6 manifested expressly in their Written\nStatement and in the last paragraph of Page 16 concluding on\nthe succeeding page thereof wherein they have jointly and\nseverally stated as follows:-"It is submitted that the Plaintiffs claim that they\n            want probate/letter of administration on the\n            basis of the Will dated 29/1/1998. That can be\n            done if there is a Will subsists left behind by\n            Ronald James Ringrow. Perhaps it is a condition\n            precedent. In the light of the document dated\n            6/2/2002 the Will dated 29/1/1998 had come to\n            an end (revoked). In view of the said fact issuing\n            a letter of administration in favour of the\n            Plaintiffs does not arise. The Plaintiffs with the\n            sole intention of harass these Defendants has\n            made a frivolous suit before this Hon'ble Court"It is further argued that the dominance exercised over the\ndeceased by the Fourth Defendant manifested by her in the\nWritten Statement and in her Examination in Chief and the\nextensive Cross Examination effected by the Plaintiffs projects\nand confirms her interference and participation in virtually\nevery aspect of the day to day life of the deceased confirming\nexercise of fraud, coercion, undue influence and such other100OS No.25227/2009\n\nimportunity which vitiated these aforesaid acts and as the free\nagency of the deceased was totally absent and the said\ndeceased merely featured as a puppet of the Fourth\nDefendant, her children and uncle Faustin D'Souza. The\nevidence on record manifests and establishes that the Fourth\nDefendant aided and abetted by the Defendants 1, 2, 3, 5, 6\nand 7 inter meddled with the Bank Accounts and finances of\nthe deceased, ensured that she had control over them and\nfinally under impression that she could lay hands on them by\nvirtue of nominations fraudulently processed also went to the\nextent of hastily, in the very lifetime of the deceased\nwithdrawing large sums of money therefrom which she\ntransferred to and parked in her private accounts in other\nBanks. The admissions of the Fourth Defendant in this regard\nmade during the very initial part of the Cross Examination\neffected on her on 22/10/2019 manifests this blatant,\nemboldened fraudulent, unwarranted and dishonest conduct of\nthe Fourth Defendant which goes to the very root of the matter\nand exposes the guilty mind/ mens rea of the said Defendants\n4 to 6. The very Exhibits marked by her and also produced by\nher manifest fraudulent removal of monies from the Bank\nAccounts of the deceased. {See Exhibit D- 6}. The Will dated\n29/1/1998 was drawn under the very instructions of the\ndeceased Ronald James Ringrow. The Plaintiffs had no hand or\nparticipation of any nature in this regard. Hence to accuse the101OS No.25227/2009\n\nPlaintiffs of not being properly acquainted with Ronald James\nRingrow for allegedly being unaware as to who the recipient of\nthe sum of Rs.10,000/- deposited with the Methodist Church by\nlate Ronald James Ringrow is a perverse accusation made in\nsheer ignorance of Christian rites and religious practices. A\nmere cursory consideration of the Will, will manifest the use to\nwhich this sum of money was to be put and was certainly not a\nlegacy payable to an undisclosed beneficiary. Plaintiffs in\ncontinuation of what is stated herein submit that the\nhospitalization and medical treatment accorded to the\ndeceased in his last year was entirely monitored and\nsupervised by the Fourth Defendant and his funeral and burial\nwere organized by her. She also ensured that the First and\nSecond Plaintiff remained out of the loop by causing the\ncancellation of the Joint Accounts created by the deceased with\nthem to ensure that he was isolated in every manner. Her\nuncle Faustin D'souza who the deceased had absolutely no\nassociation with all through his long life was now in the picture\nand besides the deceased at all relevant times to ensure that\nthe deceased did not reveal the facts of the fraud played on\nhim or provide leads and clues that could expose the same\nduring his lifetime. All former friends and acquaintances were\nbanned visits to the deceased and a false plea that the\ndeceased was unhappy with his close relatives was sought to\nbe urged fraudulently without documentation or proof of the102OS No.25227/2009\n\nsame. It is the mere ipsi dixit of the Fourth Defendant, totally\nbereft of merit and truth. No details of the legal necessity\nallegedly predicating the Sales of the properties as per Exhibit\nD-3 and D-4 were placed before this Hon'ble Court during the\ntrial and arrangements for payment of the necessary Capital\nGains Taxes or a feature vis a vis the Sale proceeds under\nExhibit D-3 and D-4. Four years had elapsed since the sales in\nquestion were concluded without resort to Income Tax Capital\nGains issues. Why the deceased wanted a change in the\npersons who were to act vis a vis his Bank Accounts was not\nplaced before this Hon'ble Court. None of the maid servants\nwere examined to establish removal of the furniture of the\ndeceased from his home post his demise and as per his alleged\ninstructions clearly establishing the falsity of these claims. That\nDr R.Shankar Prasad was a collaborator of the Fourth\nDefendant is more than apparent by his conduct of allegedly\nattesting the Cancellation Deed on 5/2/2002 and 6/2/2002. The\nFourth Defendant was obviously putting into play the Golden\nRule which is as follows:-"The Golden Rule in England for making a doctor as a\n      witness to Wills of extremely old and sick"- In England\n      it was thought to be a golden rule that when a\n      solicitor was drawing up a Will for an aged testator or\n      one who has been seriously ill, it should be witnessed\n      or approved by a medical practitioner, who ought to103OS No.25227/2009\n\n      record his examination of the testator and his\n      findings, as evidence of capacity should the matter be\n      challenged later. This is no more than a useful guide\n      but not a substitute for the established tests for\n      mental capacity.The Cancellation of the Will dated 29/1/1998 vide the Deed\ndated 5/2/2002 and 6/2/2002 being unsustainable and\nuntenable in law is thus an irresistible inference that is\noccasioned   by   what   is    stated   herein   supra.   Plaintiffs\nnotwithstanding   what    is   stated   herein   supra    and    in\ncontinuation thereof submits with deep respect that the Fourth\nDefendant during the course of her Cross Examination has\napprobated and reprobated on innumerable occasions and has\nprojected blanket denials or lack of knowledge of crucial details\nand loss of memory to evade coming out with the truth. This\nstyle of deposition leads to the irresistible and sole inference\nthat the Fourth Defendant was prevaricating or being evasive\nwith a view to preclude explicit self incrimination and exposure\nof the truth which was even otherwise self evident. The oral\nevidence adduced by the Fourth Defendant must thus be\nexamined minutely and sifted with great care as it was the\nproduct of an untrustworthy witness and projects mens rea at\nevery stage of the way thereof. Her evasive answers and\nvoluntary explanations recorded from time to time during the104OS No.25227/2009\n\ncourse of her evidence is also proof of the shifty and devious\nnature and disposition of the Fourth Defendant inter alia, as\nD.W No.1 and the obvious attempt on her part to cover her\ntracks. The Deed of Cancellation did not manifest in any\nmanner an intent in the deceased to revoke the Will dated\n29/1/1998   registered   as   document    No.352/1997-98     and\nparticularized herein supra, of the said deceased Ronald James\nRingrow which was merely termed a Deed of Cancellation and\nnot one of Revocation. It is also to be noted that in the Written\nStatement the Defendants 4, 5 and 6 have not pleaded the\nnecessary ingredients of a Revocation of a Will when\nundertaken by a Written document and thus cannot be heard\nin this regard at this stage of the proceedings. None of the\ningredients ofSection 70of the Indian Succession Act, 1925\nattach with the Deed of Cancellation dated 5/2/2002 and\n6/2/2002. A mere bald assertion that the Will dated 29/1/1998\nof the late Ronald James Ringrow was cancelled, revoked by\nthe said Ronald James Ringrow on 6/2/2002 vide the registered\ndeed of Cancellation as per Exhibit D-1 and D-2 will not suffice\nto revoke his aforesaid Will in the manner predicated in law i.e.Section 70of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. There cannot be\nvariance between pleadings and proof is a fundamental aspect\nand principle of the procedural law known asthe Code of Civil\nProcedure, 1908 and the Defendants 4, 5 and 6 inter alia other\nDefendants cannot thus be heard in support of the Revocation105OS No.25227/2009\n\nof the Will dated 29/1/1998 in any manner whatsoever. They\ncannot seek to create a case at this stage which was\nsignificantly not pleaded by them either explicitly or impliedly.\nThis Hon'ble Court is thus bound in law and in fact to hold and\nfind in favour of the Plaintiffs that the Will dated 29/1/1998 of\nthe late Ronald James Ringrow was never revoked in law and in\nfact and thus subsists as on date with the consequential right\nto a grant of Probate in respect thereof to the First Plaintiff\nherein. That inter alia the fraud, coercion, undue influence and\nother importunity that was exercised on the deceased Ronald\nJames Ringrow, the said deceased was also subjected to undue\ninfluence by the Fourth Defendant and her collaborators of the\nsevere medical condition that he was afflicted with viz the\nenlarged Prostate Gland which on account of its said\nenlargements and irritation of the deceased's urethra caused\nhim to manifest an enlarged sexual libido and which largely\nprompted the deceased to manifest in large extents a condition\nknown as "Satyriosis" which the Fourth Defendant is known to\nhave taken advantage of and which said undue influence is\naccepted   in   law   to   constitute   loss   or   diminution   of\ntestamentary capacity an absolutely necessary ingredient for\nexecution of a Revocation of the Will and Testament of the\ndeceased Ronald James Ringrow dated 29/1/1998. The deeds\nof Cancellation dated 5/2/2002 and 6/2/2002 are thus void ab\ninitio and have absolutely no legal or other effect vis a vis the106OS No.25227/2009\n\nWill dated 29/1/1998 of the deceased Ronald James Ringrow.\nThe suit as instituted by the Plaintiffs must thus be decreed as\nprayed for. That on her own admission whether in the pleading\nor in the course of her oral examination before this Hon'ble\nCourt or in the documentary Exhibits marked by her the Fourth\nDefendant has clearly and explicitly manifested that she was in\na position of active confidence with the deceased Ronald James\nRingrow notwithstanding his medical condition and in other\nwords in a fiduciary relationship with him in the light of the\nprovisions ofSection 111of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and\nthe good faith of the transaction that she had jointly entered\ninto with him, through him, for him on his behalf and in his\ninterests and in law and in fact had be established by the\nFourth Defendant and Fifth Defendant which they have\nblatantly and patently failed to do so in the case before this\nHon'ble Court. The provisions ofSection 111of the Indian\nEvidence Act, 1872 are extracted and reproduced hereunder\nfor ready reference.Section 111of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872\n\n      Proof of good faith in transactions where one party is in\n      relation of active confidence.--Where there is a question\n      as to the good faith of a transaction between parties, one\n      of whom stands to the other in a position of active\n      confidence, the burden of proving the good faith of the107OS No.25227/2009\n\n      transaction is on the party who is in a position of active\n      confidence. Illustrations(a) The good faith of a sale by a client to an attorney is in\n      question in a suit brought by the client. The burden of\n      proving the good faith of the transaction is on the\n      attorney.(b) The good faith of a sale by a son just come of age to\n      a father is in question in a suit brought by the son. The\n      burden of proving the good faith of the transaction is on\n      the father.For assessing the mental capacity vis a vis the Deed of\nCancellation the Fourth Defendant is required to prove(i)     Understanding that makes the Cancellation and\n              Revocation,(ii)    Reasons and its effect,(iii)   Appreciation of the extent of his assets and\n              liabilities if any, and(iv)    Consideration of the potential beneficiaries as a\n              fact and objective way and condition that may\n              effect his or her judgment.The Fourth Defendant has failed to prove mental capacity in\nthe deceased Ronald James Ringrow as on 5/2/2002 and\n6/2/2002 when he allegedly made and executed the Deed of\nCancellation. In the light of what is stated in the foregoing two108OS No.25227/2009\n\nparagraphs the Plaintiffs submit with deep respect that the\nFourth Defendant has miserably failed to prove that the Will\ndated 29/1/1998 of the deceased Ronald James Ringrow was\ncancelled/ revoked by him in the manner predicated in law. The\nWill dated 29/1/1998 of the deceased Ronald James Ringrow\nregistered as document No.352/1997-98 in Book III, Volume\n131 Pages 213 to 220 if the Office of the Sub Registrar of\nAssurances, Shivajinagar, Bangalore thus subsists and was\nnever affected in any manner by the Deed of Cancellation\ndated     5/2/2002   (allegedly    in   draft)   and    at   document\nNo.301/2002-2003 in Book III, Volume 156, Pages 247 to 248 in\nthe Office of the Sub Registrar of Assurances, Shivajinagar,\nBangalore as the same was a nullity. The above suit must thus\nbe decreed as prayed for. In context of what is stated\nimmediately herein supra the Plaintiffs draw the attention of\nthis Hon'ble Court once more to the provisions ofSection 70of\nthe Indian Succession Act, 1925 which are again extracted and\nreproduced hereunder for ready referenceSection 70of the Indian Succession Act, 192570. Revocation of unprivileged Will or codicil.--No unprivileged Will or codicil, nor any part thereof,\n        shall be revoked otherwise than by marriage, or by\n        another Will or codicil, or by some writing declaring an\n        intention to revoke the same and executed in the109OS No.25227/2009\n\n   manner in which an unprivileged Will is herein before\n   required to be executed, or by the burning, tearing, or\n   otherwise destroying the same by the testator or by\n   some person in his presence and by his direction with\n   the intention of revoking the same and the judgment of\n   the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Indian in AIR 1977\n   Supreme Court Page 74 in the case of Jasmeet Kaur\n   Versus Amrit Kaur, the Head Note of which is as follows:-Succession Act(1925),S. 70- Will - Revocation.\n  The revocation of an unprivileged will is an act only a\n  little less solemn than the making of the will itself and\n  has to comply with statutory requirements contained inS. 70of the Succession Act. (Para 5)\n  There is a long line of decisions bearing on the nature\n  and standard of evidence required to prove a will. Those\n  decisions have been reviewed in an elaborate judgment\n  of this Court in R. Venktachala Iyengar v. B. N.\n  Thimmajamma, (1959) Supp (1) SCR 426 = (AIR 1959 SC443). The Court, speaking through Gajendragadkar J. laid\n  down in that case the following propositions:-1. Stated generally, a Will has been proved like any other\n  document, the test to be applied being the usual test of\n  the satisfaction of the prudent mind in such matters. As\n  in the case of proof of other documents, so in the case of110OS No.25227/2009\n\n   proof of Wills, one cannot         insist   on proof with\n   mathematical certainty.2. SinceSection 63of the Succession Act requires a Will to\n   be attested, it cannot be used as evidence until, as\n   required bySection 68of the Evidence Act, one attesting\n   witness at least has been called for the purpose of\n   proving its execution, if there be an attesting witness\n   alive, and subject to the process of the court and capable\n   of giving evidence.3. Unlike other documents, the will speaks from the death\n   of the testator and therefore the maker of the will is\n   never available for deposing as to the circumstances in\n   which the will came to be executed. This aspect\n   introduces an element of solemnity in the decision of the\n   question whether the document propounded is proved to\n   be the last Will and testament of the testator. Normally\n   the onus which lies on the propounder can be taken to be\n   discharged on proof of the essential facts which go into\n   the making of the will.4. Cases in which the execution of the will is surrounded by\n   suspicious circumstances stand on a different footing. A\n   shaky signature, a feeble mind, an unfair and unjust\n   disposition of property, the propounder himself taking a\n   leading part in making of the Will under which he\n   receives   a   substantial    benefit   and    such   other\n   circumstances raise suspicion about the execution of the111OS No.25227/2009\n\n   Will. That suspicion cannot be removed by the mere\n   assertion of the propounder that the will bears the\n   signature of the testator or that the testator was in\n   sound and disposing state of mind and memory at the\n   time when the Will was made, or that those like the wife\n   and children of the testator who would normally receive\n   their due share in his estate were disinherited because\n   the testator might have had his own reasons for\n   excluding    them.     The     presence     of    suspicious\n   circumstances makes the initial onus heavier and\n   therefore, in cases where the circumstances attendant\n   upon the execution of the Will excite the suspicion of the\n   Court, the propounder must remove all legitimate\n   suspicions before the document can be accepted as the\n   last Will of the testator.5. It is in connection with Wills, the execution of which is\n   surrounded by suspicious circumstances that the test of\n   satisfaction of the judicial conscience has been evolved.That test emphasis that in determining the question as to\n   whether an instrument produced before the court is the\n   last Will of the testator, the court is called upon to decide\n   a solemn question and by reason of suspicious\n   circumstances the court has to be satisfied fully that the\n   Will has been validly executed by the testator.6. If a Caveator alleges fraud, undue influence, coercion\n   etc. in regard to the execution of the Will, such pleas112OS No.25227/2009\n\n      have to be proved by him, but even in the absence of\n      such pleas, the very circumstances surrounding the\n      execution of the Will may be raise a doubt as to whether\n      the testator was acting of his own free will. And then it is\n      a part of the initial onus of the propounder to remove all\n      reasonable doubts in the matter.The Learned counsel for plaintiffs argues that the citation\nmanifests the prevailing position of law vis a visSection 70of\nthe Indian Succession Act, 1925 which mandates that the\nRevocation of a Will must be effected in the very manner in\nwhich a Will of a Testator must be made, executed and\nattested. A consideration of the facts and circumstances\nattaching with the above case will manifest the failure on the\npart of the Defendants 4, 5 and 6 to establish making,\nexecution and attestation in draft or in reality and effect to be\nin accordance with the accredited and laid down law of the\nHon'ble Supreme Court of India also manifested by the\nfollowing decisions :-a) AIR 1959 SC 443b) AIR 1979 SC 145c) AIR 1941 Madras 612d) AIR 1977 SC 74\n\n     The Deed of Cancellation of the Will dated 29/1/1998 is\ntherefore void ab initio and not enforceable in law and in fact.113OS No.25227/2009\n\nThe above suit must thus be decreed as prayed for.\nNotwithstanding what is stated herein supra, Plaintiffs submit\nwith deep respect thatSection 62of the Indian Evidence Act,\n1872 is as extracted and reproduced hereunder for ready\nreference:-Section 62of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872\n\n      Primary   evidence.--Primary    evidence    means     the\n      document itself produced for the inspection of the\n      Court. Explanation 1.--Where a document is executed\n      in several parts, each part is primary evidence of the\n      document;    Where   a    document   is   executed    in\n      counterpart, each counterpart being executed by one\n      or some of the parties only, each counterpart is\n      primary evidence as against the parties executing it.\n      Explanation 2.--Where a number of documents are all\n      made by one uniform process, as in the case of\n      printing, lithography, or photography, each is primary\n      evidence of the contents of the rest; but, where they\n      are all copies of a common original, they are not\n      primary evidence of the contents of the original.\n      Illustration A person is shown to have been in\n      possession of a number of placards, all printed at one\n      time from one original. Any one of the placards is\n      primary evidence of the contents of any other, but no114OS No.25227/2009\n\n      one of them is primary evidence of the contents of the\n      original.A consideration of the facts and circumstances of the\naforesaid case will manifest that in addition to EX D-8, the\ndeceased had immediately thereafter made and executed\nanother Will as per EX P-2 which was drawn, executed and\nattested in the very manner in which Ex D-8 was made,\nexecuted and attested. The parties to the transaction as per Ex\nP-2 are the same as per Ex D-8 and have executed/ attested Ex\nD-8 and by the same process. The Will as per Exhibit P-2 is thus\nan original and having been made post Ex D-8 as borne out by\nthe word "copy" thereon is in law and in fact the last Will and\nTestament of the deceased Ronald James Ringrow which was\nalso never revoked by the deceased Ronald James Ringrow. In\nthis regard, the Plaintiffs draw the attention of this Hon'ble\nCourt to the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad\nreported in AIR 1983 Allahabad Page 90 in the case of Smt\nKamala Rajamanikham, Appellant Versus Smt. Sushila Thakur\nDass and others, Respondents, and more particularly Head\nNote (B) thereof which is extracted and reproduced hereunder\nfor ready reference;-(B) Evidence Act (1 of 1872/S.62)\n\n      The Wills in identical language prepared by process of\n      typing and obtaining copy of putting Carbon- Each Will115OS No.25227/2009\n\n      executed by testator and attested by witnesses- Each\n      one is original Will.Two Wills in identical language prepared by the process\n      of typing in which the second copy was obtained by a\n      carbon impression. Both these will having identical\n      language were duly executed by the testator and also\n      attested by the attesting witnesses in accordance with\n      law.Held, none of them can be said to be a copy of the other\n      within the meaning ofS.62and both of them must be\n      treated as original wills. Merely because the contents of\n      one of such wills was obtained through the use of carbon\n      paper, the one prepared on the carbon impression and\n      will not become a copy and either of them could be used\n      as primary evidence. Nor the fact that on one of such\n      original   wills   the   words   "true   copy"   had   been\n      subsequently appended by the testator (after the same\n      had been executed in accordance with law) would turn it\n      into a mere copy of the original. AIR 1937 Mad 807 and\n      AIR 1958 Cal 517 Distinguished.(Paras 6, 8)\n\n\n   Learned counsel for Plaintiffs also draw the attention of this\nHon'ble Court to the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of\nIndia (Civil Appellate Jurisdiction) Civil Appeal No.(s) 6706/2013\nin the case of Mohinder Singh, Appellant Versus Jaswant Kaur116OS No.25227/2009\n\n(D) the LRS- Respondent, which is reproduced hereunder for\nready reference:-ORDER\n\n       This appeal is directed against the judgment dated\n      15/01/2009 passed by the Punjab and Haryana High\n      Court dismissing the appeal holding that there is no\n      substantial question of law involved. The High Court\n      held that a carbon copy of a document which carbon\n      copy is signed by both the parties cannot be termed\n      as an original document underSection 62of the\n      Evidence Act. This finding of the High Court is\n      absolutely incorrect and against the provisions ofSection 62of the Evidence Act. This carbon copy was\n      prepared in the same process as the original\n      document and once it is signed by both the parties, it\n      assumes the character of the original document.On this short ground, we allow this appeal and remit\n      the matter to the High Court. We make it clear that\n      we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of\n      the dispute. It is for the High Court to decide whether\n      any substantial question (s) of law arises and the\n      appellant before us is entitled to any relief or not.With these observations, the civil appeal is disposed\n      of. Pending applications if any, stand disposed of.117OS No.25227/2009\n\n\n      Sd/-(Deepak Gupta)\n\n      (Aniruddha Bose)\n\n      NEW Delhi\n      September, 11, 2019\n\n\n      Learned counsel for Plaintiffs further argues that Ex D-8\nand Ex P-2 were made and executed successively. Ex D-8\npreceding Ex P-2, Ex P-2 would thus in law, in reality and in\neffect be the last Will and Testament of the deceased\nirrespective of its execution on 29/1/1998 and non registration.\nRegistration of a Will under the provisions of theIndian\nRegistration Act, 1908is not a mandatory requirement of a Will\nand is an option open to the deceased Testator. Hence even if\nthe Will as per Exhibit D-8 were deemed to have been revoked\nby Ex D-1 and D-2, the original Will as per Ex P-2 would still\nsubsist and stand unrevoked being created long after Ex D-8\nborne out by the endorsement "copy" thereon. Hence even if\nEX D-8 is held to be revoked/ cancelled by this Hon'ble Court,\nthe last Will and Testament of the deceased Ronald James\nRingrow as per Ex P-2 must be held to be valid, authentic and\nsubsisting. The above suit must thus be decreed as prayed for\nwith the consequential direction and prayers considered fit and\nappropriate by this Hon'ble Court. Plaintiffs submit with deep\nrespect that the Defendants seek to make out that the118OS No.25227/2009\n\nproceedings in the above case are redundant, futile and will be\ninfructuous for the reasons that the Will and Testament of the\ndeceased Ronald James Ringrow dated 29/1/1998 registered as\ndocument No.352/1997-98 in Book III, Volume 131 Pages 213\nto 220 in the office of the Sub Registrar of Assurances,\nShivajinagar has been cancelled/revoked on 6/2/2002 and as\nall the assets constituting the disposable Estate of the\ndeceased Ronald James Ringrow are adeemed within the\nmeaning of theIndian Succession Act, 1925the grant of\nProbate in respect of the Will dated 29/1/1998 referred to\nimmediately herein supra cannot be made and in the absence\nof an Estate to administer, manage and control a grant of\nLetters of Administration is also not warranted. In this regard\nPlaintiffs submit with deep respect that by an unwarranted and\nunsustainable plea that the Fourth Defendant projected and\nwas propounded by the Defendant 4,5 and 6 having been\nregarded by the deceased Ronald James Ringrow as a\nNominee- Beneficiary or Nominee- Survivor in respect of his\nseveral Bank Accounts of whatever nature and by disposal of\nhis movables as allegedly predicated in his lifetime, all the\naforesaid financial assets accrue and belong to her in her\naforesaid capacities of Nominee- Beneficiary and Nominee-\nSurvivor. The Estate of the deceased Ronald James Ringrow\nwas therefore a "bankrupt" one excluding and precluding the\nneed for a grant of Letters of Administration or possibly a119OS No.25227/2009\n\nSuccession Certificate and consequently that the proceedings\nin the above case be dismissed summarily was thus mooted\nand urged by the contesting Defendants in this regard.\nPlaintiffs in context of what is stated immediately herein supra\nsubmit with deep respect that the Defendants contention vis a\nvis aforesaid "inheritance" by the Fourth Defendant of the\nfinancial assets of the deceased Ronald James Ringrow, is a\ngrossly perverse, criminal and legally unsustainable one.\nPlaintiffs submit that the Defendants 4, 5 and 6 have falsely\nand incorrectly represented to this Hon'ble Court with regard to\nthe inheritance allegedly received by the Fourth Defendant on\naccount of being a Nominee- Beneficiary and/or a Nominee-\nSurvivor. Plaintiffs submit these contentions in this regard are\nabsolutely untenable and unsustainable in law and must be\nrejected summarily. The questionable and unacceptable\nnomenclature even if assumed to be valid and justiciable for\npurpose of argument without conceding the same do not\npredicate, facilitate and warrant appropriation of the said\nassets when such aforesaid Nominations are made by the very\nnominee/s therein. The nomination merely indicates the hand\nthat may receive the benefit/proceeds payable under the\nrelevant Deposit wherein the same are made BUT the Nominee\ndoes not derive any benefit thereunder and always remains a\nTrustee of these assets for and on behalf of the testamentary\nor natural heirs of the deceased Testator. Hence the Fourth120OS No.25227/2009\n\nDefendant and her children have wrongfully appropriated the\nvaluable financial assets of the deceased Ronald James\nRingrow rightfully payable to the Plaintiffs and wrongfully\ndeprived them of their just dues thereby and must also be\nprosecuted       for   forgery,    breach   of   trust,   criminal\nmisappropriation, etc. The suit of the Plaintiffs must thus be\ndecreed as prayed for and in the status as initially prayed for\nwith consequential relief in the absolute discretion of this\nHon'ble Court.Learned counsel further argued that in substantiation of\nthese contentions vis a vis "nomination" referred to herein\nsupra the Plaintiffs draw the attention of this Hon'ble Court to\nthe judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, other\nHigh Courts in India and the Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka,\nitself. They are as follows:-a) AIR 1984 Supreme Court 346b) AIR 1985 Andhra Pradesh 321c) (1917) ILR 40 Mad. 233d) AIR 1956 Calcutta 275\n\n\n      In the light of what is stated herein supra, the above suit\nmust be decreed with exemplary costs and the Fourth\nDefendant directed to render accounts and repay the nominees\nof the deceased Ronald James Ringrow what was rightfully\nowned by the Plaintiffs together with compensation and121OS No.25227/2009\n\ndamages that must be duly determined by this Hon'ble Court.That the Sales of the immovable property of the deceased\nRonald James Ringrow and the Second Plaintiff herein are void\nab initio as the General Power of Attorney as per Exhibit D-7\nhas not been attested or authenticated or adjudicated within\nthe meaning ofSection 32and33of the Indian Registration\nAct, 1908 and the Rules framed thereunder by the State of\nKarnataka titled the Karnataka Registration Rules, 1965. The\nDefendants 4, 5 and 6 at Pages 3 and 4 and Page 16 of their\nWritten Statement have scandalized this Hon'ble Court and are\nliable to be proceeded against for commission of criminal\ncontempt of Court. Plaintiffs have extracted and reproduced\nhereunder the offending remarks of the Defendants 4, 5 and 6\nin this regard.(a) Page 3 and Page 4 of the Written Statement\n\n         "The Plaintiffs with the sole intention to grab the\n         property of Defendants Nos. 4 and 5 have\n         approached this Hon'ble Court with this frivolous\n         suit seeking the aid of this Hon'ble Court for\n         preservation and possession of the said property\n         which was sold by him long prior to his death that\n         too for value."122OS No.25227/2009\n\n     The aforesaid remarks have lowered the prestige of this\nHon'ble Court manifesting that it aids and assists wrong doers.\nThe remarks are libelous and contemptuous in nature.(b) Page 16 in Paragraph (1)\n\n         " The Plaintiffs solely with an intention to confuse\n         the mind of this Hon'ble Court have approached\n         the Hon'ble Court by contending that the Will\n         dated 29/1/1998 is subsisting and that they are\n         entitled for a Letters of Administration on the\n         basis of the same"The aforesaid remarks have lowered the prestige of this\nHon'ble Court by manifesting that it is weak minded, prone to\nmental confusion and improper appreciation of facts and law.\nThe remarks are libelous and contemptuous in nature. The\nDefendants Nos.4,5 and 6 must be called upon to tender an\nunconditional apology for these aforesaid remarks and\nprosecuted for the same if they fail to do so. Notwithstanding\nanything herein contained Plaintiffs draw the attention of this\nHon'ble Court to the provisions ofSections 415,418,420,424,463,464,465,467,468and477of the Indian Penal Code,\n1860 which are extracted and reproduced hereunder for ready\nreference. The same manifest commission of offences by the\nFourth Defendant and her children and possibly other\nDefendants in the above case and which warrant their123OS No.25227/2009\n\nprosecution and punishment for the same. The Complaint to\nthe Hon'ble 29th ACMM, Mayo Hall, Bangalore is still pending\ndisposal. Notwithstanding what is stated herein supra Plaintiffs\nsubmit that the entire extent of Evidence adduced by the\nDefendants has been a manifestation of the manner in which\nthe movable and immovable assets of the deceased Ronald\nJames Ringrow were appropriated by them and the wealth of\nevidence adduced by the Defendants in this regard serve only\nto establish their improper and questionable conduct vis a vis\nthe deceased. The evidence both in examination in chief as\nwell as cross examination must be considered in entirety for\nthe same manifests the complete scenario of fraud exercised\non the deceased. Plaintiffs have therefore to avoid prolixity in\nthese written submissions have not adverted to particular\nextracts thereof and pray that this Hon'ble Court consider the\nsame in totality as each and every aspect of this evidence\nestablishes improper and illegal conduct of the Defendants 4, 5\nand 6.Learned counsel for plaintiffs further argues that in\nrespect of Issue Nos.3 and 4, are concerned the Plaintiffs\nsubmit with deep respect that these Issues as manifested by\ntheir very content are to be addressed by this Hon'ble Court in\nthe light of its findings on Issues Nos.1 and 2 in the above\ncase.Plaintiffs submit that if this Hon'ble Court were to hold124OS No.25227/2009\n\nthat the Will dated 29/1/1998 of the late Ronald James Ringrow\nregistered in the Office of the Sub Registrar of Assurances,\nShivajinagar, Bengaluru as document No.352/1997-98 in Book\nIII, Volume 131, Pages 213 to 220 was duly revoked by the\ndeed of Cancellation dated 5/2/2002- 6/2/2002 registered in\nthe Office of the Sub Registrar of Assurances, Shivajinagar,\nBangalore, the Nett effect of this finding would be that the\ndeceased died intestate and his disposable Estate would flow\nand devolve as per the provisions ofSection 47of the Indian\nSuccession Acct, 1925 predicating the Grant of Letters of\nAdministration in respect thereof in favour of the Second\nPlaintiff who is a natural heir of his and in view of her claims\nduring the pendency of the above case and the fact that her\nbiological daughter the First Plaintiff who is a natural heir of his\nand in view her demise during the pendency of the above case\nand the fact that her biological daughter the First Plaintiff is on\nrecord in her favour by application of the principles laid down\nby the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in its judgment\nreported in AIR 1976 Supreme Court Page 49 in the case ofRameshwar v. Jot Ram, the Head Note "B" of which is as\nfollows:(B) Civil P .C - Right to relief - To be determined as on\n      date of institution of proceedings - Court's procedural\n      delays cannot affect rights crystallized in initial cause of125OS No.25227/2009\n\n     action - Power of Court to take note of subsequent\n     events.It is basic to our processual jurisprudence that the\n      right to relief must be judged to exist as on the date a\n      suitor institutes the legal proceedings. This is an\n      emphatic statement that the right of a party is\n      determined by the facts as they exist on the date the\n      action is instituted. Granting the presence of such\n      facts, then he is entitled to its enforcement. Later\n      developments cannot defeat his right. The Court's\n      procedural delays cannot deprive him of legal justice\n      or rights crystallized in the initial cause of action.Courts can, however, take note of subsequent\n      events and mould the relief accordingly, but this can\n      be done only in exceptional circumstances. Rights\n      vested by statute cannot be divested by this equitable\n      doctrine. AIR 1927 PC 252 and AIR 1966 Punj 374(FB),\n      Approved.The Defendants who are strangers and would by no stretch\nof imagination be regarded as natural heirs of the deceased\nRonald James Ringrow would thus have no locus standi to\noppose the Grant despite being in wrongful possession of the\nmovable and immovable assets of the deceased Ronald James\nRingrow in the manner indicated herein supra. Issue No.3 must126OS No.25227/2009\n\nbe held in favour of the Plaintiffs in the light of the findings of\nthis Hon'ble Court on Issue No.1 against the Defendants and in\nfavour of the Plaintiff. In the event of a finding on Issue No.1\ngoing against the Defendantsinthe above casethe Will dated\n29/1/1998 registered in the Office of the Sub Registrar of\nAssurances,     Shivajinagar,     Bengaluru      as     document\nNo.352/1997-98 in Book III, Volume 131, Pages 213 to 220, will\nbe deemed to be the Last Will and Testament of the deceased\nRonald James Ringrow and the First Plaintiff herein being one of\nthe Executrices appointed thereunder would be entitled to a\ngrant of Probate in respect of the same.In the light of the\njudgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India reported in AIR\n1954 Supreme Court Page 280 in the case ofIshwardeo Narain\nSingh Vs Kamta Devi and Others, which is as follows:-(a)Succession Act(1925),S. 222- Jurisdiction of\n      Probate Court.The Court of Probate is only concerned with the\n      question as to whether the document put forward as\n      the last will and testament of a deceased person was\n      duly executed and attested in accordance with law\n      and whether at the time of such execution the\n      testator had sound disposing mind. The question\n      whether a particular bequest is good or bad is not\n      within the purview of the Probate Court. (Para 2)\n      Anno : Succ. Act,S. 222N. 1,5.127OS No.25227/2009(b)Succession Act(1925), Ss 63, 222 - Due execution\nof will - Proof of _ Effect of non- registration.\nA testator had no male issue but had only one minor\ndaughter. His wife had predeceased him and he had\nnot married a second wife. By his Will he made\nprovision for the marriage of his daughter out of\ncertain specified part of his estate. The rest of his\nproperties he gave to Thakurji. The Will was not\nregistered. It was also objected that it was an\nunnatural Will:Held (1) that there was nothing unnatural or unofficious\nabout the Will.(2) That as there was nothing in law which requires the\nregistration of a Will and as Wills are in a majority of\ncases not registered at all, to draw any inference against\nthe genuineness of the Will on the ground of its non -\nregistration was wholly unwarranted.(3) That the Will in question was duly executed and\nprobate should be issued.The Defendantinthe above casewould have no locus\nstandi to intervene in the matter as the Probate Court is\nsolely   concerned   with     the   propriety   of   the   Will\npropounded in a case before it and not the properties\nforming the Estate of the deceased.128OS No.25227/2009\n\n       The citations recorded hereunder also advance this\nproposition of law and will substantiate the action of this\nHon'ble Court in observance of the same. MFA No.6652/2016\n(ISA) dated 5/1/2017 in the case of A.Ramamurthy and three\nothers, Appellants Versus Nil, Respondent, which is reproduced\nhereunder in entirety:-JUDGMENT\n\n\n              The appellant has filed a petition underSection\n      222and229read withSection 270of the Indian\n      Succession Act for grant of probate and letters of\n      administration in favour of the appellant No.1\n      (Petitioner No.1 before the Trial Court) in respect of\n      the schedule property more fully described in the\n      petition. After registration of the case, it appears that\n      joint notices were ordered by the Court by way of\n      paper    publication   in    two   news   papers.   After\n      compliance of all the legal requirements, the Trial\n      Court proceeded to examine the petitioners and\n      witnesses, who were examined as PWs.1 to 3 and got\n      marked Exs.P1 and P2 as no persons entered\n      appearance as respondents, the Trial Court after\n      hearing the petition dismissed the petition on the\n      sole ground that the petitioners have not produced\n      any piece of document to show that deceased was129OS No.25227/2009\n\nowning six immovable properties as shown in the\npetition as well as shown in the alleged will.2.    The learned counsel strenuously contends before\nthis Court that so far as the probate proceedings are\nconcerned the production of title deeds does not arise\nfor consideration, though relied upon the decision of this\nCourt reported in the case ofM.A. SREENIVASAN Vs. H.V.\nGOWTHAMA AND ANOTHERreported in ILR 2005 KAR\n1138 wherein this Court has observed as follows:-"INDIAN   SUCCESSION      ACT,   1925    -   SECTION    263\nREVOCATION OF PROBATE UNDER - PROBATE MAY BE\nREVOKED OR ANNULLED FOR JUST CAUSE - HELD - The\nProbate Court cannot go into the question of title to the\nproperty which is bequeathed under the will - The grant\nof probate do not divest any person of his title to the\nproperty nor vest title in the beneficiary under the Will -\nthe scope of enquiry in a probate proceedings is only to\nfind out whether the Will sought to be probated has\nbeen duly executed by the testator and is proved in\naccordance with law and the statutory requirements\nunder the Act have been complied with."And another ruling inDELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY\nVs. MRS. VIJAYA C. GURSHANEY AND ANOTHERreported130OS No.25227/2009\n\nin AIR 2003 SC 3669, the Apex Court has also observed\nwith regard to the proof of title in the probate\nproceedings in the following manner:-"It is settled law that a testamentary court, whilst\ngranting probate or letters of administration does not\neven consider particularly in uncontested matters, the\nmotive behind execution of a testamentary instrument.\nA testamentary court is only concerned with finding out\nwhether or not the testator executed the testamentary\ninstrument of his free will. It is settled law that the grant\nof a probate or letters of administration does not confer\ntitle to property. They merely enable administration of\nthe estate of the deceased. Thus, it is always open to a\nperson to dispute title even though probate or letters of\nadministration have been granted."3. In view of the above said decision, the Trial Court has\ncommitted a serious error in insisting upon proving by\nproduction of title deeds pertaining to the properties\nmentioned in the petition. The Trial Court except this has\nnot at all considered any other relevant records and\nmaterial produced by the petitioners before this Court.\nTherefore, it is just and necessary to set aside the\njudgment of the Trial Court and remit the matter to the131OS No.25227/2009\n\n      Trial   Court   with   certain   observations.     Hence    the\n      following:-ORDER\n\n\n         The appeal is allowed. The judgment passed by the\n      Trial Court in P AND S.C.               No. 11/2016 dated\n      17.09.2016 is hereby set aside. The matter stands\n      remitted to the Trial Court with a direction that\n      without insisting the proof of title of the testator with\n      regard to the property is concerned, the Court shall\n      proceed to appreciate the material on record to\n      consider the issuance of succession certificate or\n      probate and letters of administration in favour of\n      petitioner No.1. It is made clear that both before the\n      Trial   Court   and    before    this    Court,   the   legal\n      requirements of issuance of notice have already been\n      complied with. Therefore, there is no need for the Trial\n      Court to further insist for issuance of notice once\n      again. The Trial Court is hereby directed to dispose of\n      the petition within one month from the date of receipt\n      of a copy of this order.Chiranjilal Shrilal Goenka, Deceased through LRS- Appellant\nVersus Jasjit Singh and Others- Respondents reported in (1993)\n2 SCC 507 has held as follows:-132OS No.25227/2009Succession Act, 1925- Ss. 211(1), 217, 222, 223, 224,\n227, 273, 276, 280, 294, 295 and 299 - Grant of probate- Court of probate has exclusive jurisdiction - Civil court\nin original side or arbitrator, even on consent of parties,\nhas no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon proof or validity of\nwill propounded by the executor - Unless grant of\nprobate is revoked, it operates as a judgment in rem - It\nconclusively establishes appointment of executor and\nvalid execution of will - Probate court does not decide\nany question of title, or the existence of the property\nitself - While executor expressly nominated in the will,\nbeing legal representative of the deceased testator,\nentitled to grant of probate, heirs are not entitled to it\nThe executor/executrix nominated expressly in the will is\na legal representative entitled to represent the estate of\nthe deceased but the heirs cannot get any probate\nbefore the probate court. They are entitled only to resist\nthe claim of the executor/executrix of the execution and\ngenuineness of the will. The grant of probate gives the\nexecutor/executrix the right to represent the estate of\nthe deceased, the subject matter in other proceedings.\n(Para 20)The Succession Actis a self-contained code insofar as the\nquestion of making an application for probate, grant or133OS No.25227/2009\n\n      refusal of probate or an appeal carried against the\n      decision of the probate court. The probate proceedings\n      shall be conducted by the probate court in the manner\n      prescribed in the Act and in no other ways. The only\n      issue in a probate proceeding relates to the genuineness\n      and due execution of the will and the court itself is under\n      duty to determine. The grant of probate with a copy of\n      the will annexed establishes conclusively as to the\n      appointment of the executor and the valid execution of\n      the will. Thus it does no more than establish the factum\n      of the will and the legal character of the executor.\n      Probate court does not decide any question of title or of\n      the existence of the property itself.    (Paras 15 and 20)(i)   Kanwarjit Singh Dhillon Versus Hardyal Singh Dhillon\n      reported in (2007) 11 SCC 357, the Hon'ble Supreme\n      Court of India has explicitly held as follows:A. Family Law -Succession Act, 1925- Ss. 63, 65, 66,\n      222, 227, 273 & 276 - Jurisdiction of Probate Court -\n      Extent of -Testator if had the authority to dispose of\n      the properties bequeathed by him, if title to such\n      properties or whether such properties were joint\n      ancestral properties or acquired properties - Held, said\n      questions do not fall under jurisdiction of Probate134OS No.25227/2009\n\nCourt -The title of the testator in the properties\nbequeathed can be decided only by civil court on\nevidence - Albeit the probate could be admitted into\nevidence by the civil court to decide title suit but it\nwould not be decisive for that purpose - Hence, a suit\nseeking declaration of title to certain properties on the\nallegations that the same were joint properties of HUF\nof which the plaintiff was a member and that SK was\nthe karta of the HUF and had by utilizing the income\nfrom    the   ancestral   properties   acquired   various\nproperties including the suit properties, held, not\nrendered non-maintainable merely because probate of\na will executed by SK bequeathing the said properties\nto the appointed executor had already been granted\nto that executor and had attained finality - Civil\nProcedure Code, 1908 -S. 9- Title suit filed\nsubsequent to grant of probate of will in respect of the\nsuit properties -- Maintainability -Specific Relief Act,\n1963,S. 34The title of the testator in the suit properties can\nonly be decided by the civil court on evidence. It is true\nthat the probate of the will granted by the competent\nProbate Court would be admitted into evidence that may\nbe taken into consideration by the civil court while\ndeciding the suit for title but grant of probate cannot be135OS No.25227/2009\n\n        decisive for declaration as to whether at all the testator\n        had any title to the suit properties or not. (Para 12)(ii)    1989 Supp (2) SCC 646 rendered in the case of M.S\n        Premanand Versus M.R Purushotam and others wherein\n        the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has explicitly held as\n        follows:-Will - Letters of administration - Suit for grant of - Court\n        in the proceedings not entitled to go into the question of\n        title to the properties bequeathed (conceded)\n\n\n\n       Learned counsel further submitted that in the light of what\nis stated herein supra the Plaintiffs submit with deep respect\nthat Issue No.3 and 4 are in the realm of speculation and in the\nsole discretion of this Hon'ble Court to address on all counts.\nNotwithstanding the same, Plaintiffs submit that in either of the\ntwo situations referred to herein and encompassed by the\nfindings on Issue Nos. 1 and 2 they would be entitled to relief\nof a substantive nature and a grant of representation whether\nin the nature of Letters of Administration or in the Grant of a\nProbate in respect of the Will dated 29/1/1998 is an eventuality\nor relief that cannot be refused by this Hon'ble Court to the\nPlaintiffsinthe above case.136OS No.25227/2009\n\n      Learned counsel for Plaintiffs further argued in respect of\nIssue No.5 that in the light of what is stated herein supra the\nPlaintiffs submit that this Hon'ble Court is duly bound to decree\nthe suit either by issue of Letters of Administration to the\nEstate of the deceased Ronald James Ringrow or in the\nalternative for a grant of Probate of the Last Will and Testament\ndated 29/1/1998 of the deceased Ronald James Ringrow\nreferred to in detail herein supra. The Plaintiffs would also be\nentitled to the costs of the above suit and such further or other\nreliefs as this Hon'ble Court deems fit or the nature of the case\nrequires. Plaintiffs notwithstanding what is stated herein supra\nsubmit that the Prayer for grant of Probateinthe above caserelates to the unregistered original of the registered Will dated\n29/1/1998 bearing No.352/1997-98 in Book III, Volume 131,\nPages 213 to 220, in the Office of the Sub Registrar of\nAssurances, Shivajinagar, Bangalore identical in all respects to\nthe registered Will dated 29/1/1998 and duly made, executed\nby the deceased whilst of sound and disposing state of mind\nand duly attested in the manner indicated by the provisions of\ntheIndian Succession Act, 1925. The said Wills have been\nproved in accordance withSection 68of the Indian Evidence\nAct, 1872 and have not been seriously opposed or impugnedinthe above case. The Defendants more particularly the actively\ncontesting ones have admitted the propriety and validity of the\nsame. In the light of the legal pronouncements of the Hon'ble137OS No.25227/2009\n\nSupreme Court of India and the Hon'ble High Court of\nAllahabad referred to herein supra and cited hereunder for\nready reference the same will explicitly provide authority and\njurisdiction to this Hon'ble Court to grant Probate in respect of\nthe same to the First Plaintiff herein particularly since this\noriginal Will dated 29/1/1998 has been duly established and\nproved in all respects indicated and mandated in law. The\nPlaintinthe above caserelating to the same must thus be\ndecreed with exceptional costs and a grant of representation to\nthe Estate of the deceased in context of the same must thus be\nmade by this Hon'ble Court.PRAYER\n\n      In the light of what is stated herein and for all the\n  reasons stated and the documentary material placed before\n  this Hon'ble Court forming part of the recordsinthe above\n  case, the Plaintiffs jointly and severally and most humbly\n  pray that this Hon'ble Court be pleased to decree the above\n  suit as prayed for with exemplary costs".7. On behalf of the defendants 4 to 6 their\n\ncounsel argues that plaintiffs have not mentioned any\n\nschedule in the petition, plaintiffs state that the Will138OS No.25227/2009\n\ndtd.29.01.1998 has been registered, but has not\n\nrevealed as to in whose custody the original Regd. Will\n\nis; but on the other hand, defendants 4 to 6 have\n\nproduced original Regd. Will and it is marked at Ex.D.8\n\nwhich had been handed over to defendants 4 to 8 by\n\nthe Testator/vendor after sale deeds in their favour\n\nand the same shows that the Will dtd. 29.01.1998 has\n\nbeen    revoked.   Defendants       have   also   produced\n\nmanuscript of deed of revocation of Will and also Regd.Deed of revocation of Will as per Ex.D.1 and 2. There is\n\nclear   pleading   in   the    written   statement    about\n\nrevocation of Will by the Testator. In view of production\n\nof original Regd. Will by the Defendants 4 to 6 and\n\nalso Deeds of revocation of Will, plaintiffs contention\n\nthat revocation deeds are fraudulent, cannot be\n\naccepted. Said defendants have filed caveat petition\n\nand PW.1 has admitted signatures of the Testator in139OS No.25227/2009\n\nthese revocation deeds. After plaintiffs preferred the\n\npetition for probate and letter of administration, the\n\nsame was converted to a regular suit as there was\n\nalready caveat entered in the case. Even after the\n\npetition was converted into suit and it was contested,\n\nplaintiffs are seeking same relief and they have not\n\nsought the relief of declaration or cancellation of sale\n\ndeeds.Sec.286of the Indian Succession Act, 1925\n\nprovides the circumstances under which Probate\n\ncannot be granted. Until the sale deeds in favour of\n\ndefendants 4 and 5 are set aside they stand against\n\nthe whole world and therefore, when the plaintiffs\n\nhave not sought for cancellation of the Sale deeds,\n\nthey cannot be granted the reliefs for probate or letter\n\nof administration. Undersec.34of the Specific Relief\n\nAct, if parties are entitled to seek further relief they\n\nare supposed to seek the same. Suit immovable140OS No.25227/2009\n\nproperty is in the possession of the defendants 4 and\n\n5 and plaintiffs have not sought the relief of\n\npossession as well. The relief for Probate or Letter of\n\nAdministration cannot be granted on the basis of the\n\ncopy of the Will produced in the case. Since the\n\nTestator has executed the sale deed in respect of\n\nimmovable property covered under the Will before his\n\ndeath, same has also resulted in revocation of the Will\n\ndtd. 29.01.1998. As the testator has himself sold the\n\nsaid   immovable     property    during    his   lifetime,\n\nimmovable property covered under the Will is not in\n\nexistence at all     and hence, probate or letter of\n\nadministration cannot be issued in respect of the said\n\nproperty in favour of the plaintiffs. Further, counsel for\n\ndefendants 4 to 6 has placed reliance on the following\n\ndecisions:-141OS No.25227/20091. LAWS (APH) 2001 9 1702. 2003 (7) Kar.L.J. 383. AIR 1982 Kar. 219.On the above grounds, Learned counsel for\n\ndefendants 4 o 6 has prayed for dismissing the suit.8. In view of the above, following Issues have\n\nbeen framed for consideration:-1) Whether the defendants prove the\n     cancellation of the Will dtd. 29.01.1998\n     on    5.2.2002     under      a   Deed   of\n     Cancellation?2)   Whether the plaintiffs prove that the\n     Will dated 29.01.1998 is the last Will of\n     Late Ronald James Ringrow?3) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for\n     the Letters of Administration for the142OS No.25227/2009\n\n     estate   of   deceased     Ronald   James\n     Ringrow?4) Whether the plaintiffs are entitled for\n     the probate of the Will dtd. 29.01.1998?5) What decree or order?9. For the reasons stated in the subsequent\n\nparagraphs, I answer above Issues as follows:-Issue No.1 :-   In the negative\n\n          Issue No.2 :-   In the affirmative\n\n          Issue No.3 :-   As per final order\n\n          Issue No.4 :-   As per final order\n\n          Issue No.5   :- As per final order\n                          for the following:-REASONS10. Issue No.2:-     Plaintiffs have produced a\n\ncopy of the Will dtd.29.01.1998 which is actually143OS No.25227/2009\n\nbearing original signatures of the Testator deceased\n\nRonald James Ringrow and attesting witnesses which\n\nhas been marked at Ex.P.4. In fact, the defendants 4\n\nto 6 have produced original Regd. Will dtd. 29.01.1998\n\nat Ex.D.8 thereby contending that the said Will copy of\n\nwhich has been produced by the plaintiff as per Ex.P.4\n\nhas been cancelled by the Testator and hence\n\ndefendants   4   and   5   being   purchasers   of   the\n\nimmovable property covered under the said Will, they\n\nhave been handed over possession of the original Will\n\nby the Testator- Ronald James Ringrow. That apart,\n\nDefendants have actually not disputed the execution\n\nof Ex.P.4, original of which is at Ex.D.8, by the\n\ndeceased Ronald James Ringrow. Whether the Will has\n\nbeen duly cancelled by the Testator is another\n\nquestion which will be decided under Issue No.1. For\n\nthe present, to decide this issue, the question is144OS No.25227/2009\n\nwhether the deceased Ronald James Ringrow had\n\nexecuted Ex.P.4-Will; Ex.P.4 is an unregistered original\n\ncopy of Ex.D8. Since the contesting defendants during\n\nthe submissions made by their counsel have taken\n\nexception to production of copy of the Will as per\n\nEx.P.4, law in that regard requires to be considered.Plaintiffs counsel on this point has relied upon a\n\ndecision of Allahabad High Court reported in AIR 1983\n\nA 90 in the case of Smt.Kamala Rajamanikkam Vs.\n\nSmt. Sushila Thakur Dass and Ors wherein at Head\n\nNote 'B' law has been laid down that when the Will in\n\nidentical language prepared by process of typing and\n\nobtaining copy with each Will executed by the Testator\n\nand attested by the witnesses, each one constitutes\n\noriginal. Thus the Learned counsel for plaintifs has\n\nargued that Ex.P.4 has to be considered as original Will.145OS No.25227/200911. In this regardSec. 237of the Indian\n\nSuccession Act, 1925 requires to be noted. It deals\n\nwith Probate of copy or draft of last will.Sec. 237of\n\nthe Indian Succession Act, 1925 reads as under:-"237. Probate of copy or draft of lost Will.--When\n     a Will has been lost or mislaid since the testator's\n     death, or has been destroyed by wrong or accident and\n     not by any act of the testator, and a copy or the draft of\n     the Will has been preserved, probate may be granted of\n     such copy or draft, limited until the original or a\n     properly authenticated copy of it is produced".Similarly, Sec.239 of the Indian Succession Act, is\n\nrelevant on the point, which reads as below:-"239. Probate of copy where original exists.--\n    When the Will is in the possession of a person residing\n    out of the state in which application for probate is\n    made, who has refused or neglected to deliver it up, but\n    a copy has been transmitted to the executor, and it is\n    necessary for the interests of the estate that probate\n    should be granted without waiting for the arrival of the\n    original, probate may be granted of the copy so146OS No.25227/2009\n\n    transmitted, limited until the Will or an authenticated\n    copy of it is produced".The above said provisions lay down that when a\n\nWill has been lost or mislaid since the testators death\n\nor destroyed by wrong or accident, if copy of the will\n\nor draft of the Will is available, Probate may be\n\ngranted of such copy or draft. Similarly it is laid down\n\nthat when the Will has not been delivered up, copy has\n\nbeen given to the Executor, Probate should be granted\n\nto guard the interest of the Testator.12.     Crucial point to be considered here is\n\nwhether the Will as per Ex.P.4 has been duly executed\n\nby the deceased Ronald James Ringrow. As far as this\n\naspect is concerned, in the written statement itself\n\nthe contesting defendants 4 to 6 have categorically147OS No.25227/2009\n\nadmitted that the deceased Ronald James Ringrow had\n\nexecuted     the said Will. Relevant averment of the\n\nwritten statement filed by the Defendants 4 to 6 is at\n\nPage-22 of the written statement             which reads as\n\nunder:-"It is submitted that Ronald James Ringrow on\n    29.1.1998 executed a Will. Under the Will he had\n    bequeathed the immovable property in the name of the\n    plaintiff No.2 and also named the plaintiff no.2 as the\n    nominee in respect of some of his bank accounts".Thus, defendants 4 to 6 have categorically\n\nadmitted that the deceased Ronald James Ringrow had\n\nexecuted the above said Will. Of-course, they contend\n\nthat thereafter, the Testator had sold the immovable\n\nproperty covered under the Will by executing the\n\nRegd. Sale Deed dtd. 19.10.2000 in favour of\n\ndefendants 4 and 5. That is a different question which148OS No.25227/2009\n\nis to be   decided later under Issue No.1 and other\n\nissues. Here, in this issue question is whether the\n\ndeceased Ronald James Ringrow had executed will as\n\nper Ex.P.4 or not?13. The above said written statement admission\n\napart, plaintifs in order to prove the Will marked at\n\nEx.P.4 have examined PW.1 on their behalf as their\n\nPower of Attorney Holder as well as attesting witness\n\nof Ex.P.4 Will. In the cross examination PW.1 who is an\n\nattesting witness to the Will marked at Ex.P.4,\n\nexecution of the said Will by the testator being in\n\nsound disposing state of mind, body and capacity has\n\nnot been questioned. Neither the execution nor the\n\ncapacity to execute the Will has been questioned in\n\nthe cross examination of PW.1. Whereas Ex.P.4 will has\n\nbeen duly attested by two witnesses in conformity149OS No.25227/2009\n\nwithSec. 63of Indian Succession Act, 1925 and in\n\naccordance withSec. 68of the Indian Evidence Act,\n\none attesting witnesses (PW.1) has been examined to\n\nprove the Will. Therefore, the admission apart in the\n\nwritten statement, plaintifs have adduced evidence\n\nby examining one attesting witnesses as PW.1 to prove\n\nthat the deceased Ronald James Ringrow had executed\n\nthe said Will. Hence, I am of opinion that the plaintiffs\n\nhave duly proved the Will dtd.29.01.1998 marked at\n\nEx.P.4. Consequently, Issue No.2 is answered in the\n\naffirmative.14. Issue No.1:- Contesting defendants have\n\nproduced manuscript deed of cancellation of the Will\n\nsaid to have been executed by the deceased Ronald\n\nJames Ringrow as per Ex.D.1 and also registered deed\n\nof cancellation of the Will as per Ex.D.2. Contesting150OS No.25227/2009\n\ndefendant    Nos.4 to 6 thereby contend that the\n\ntestator has cancelled the Will marked at Ex.P.4/D.8 by\n\nexecuting the Deed of Cancellation of the said last Will\n\nas per Ex.D.1 and 2. Ex.D.1 has been executed on\n\n5.2.2002 and Ex.D2 has been executed on 6.2.2002.On behalf of the said defendants, defendant No.4 has\n\ntestified as DW.1 stating that under Ex.D.1 and 2\n\nearlier Will dtd. 29.1.1998 has been cancelled by the\n\nTestator Ronald James Ringrow. Ex.D.1 and 2         bear\n\nsignatures of two attesting witnesses namely R.\n\nShamaprasad and R.Augustine. Execution of the said\n\nDeed is of-course meets the conditions laid down inSec.70of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 which deals\n\nwith the manner in which testamentary document can\n\nbe cancelled.Sec.70of the Indian Succession Act,\n\n1927 reads as under:-151OS No.25227/2009\n\n     "70. Revocation of unprivileged Will or codicil.--No unprivileged Will or codicil, nor any part thereof,\n     shall be revoked otherwise than by marriage, or by\n     another Will or codicil, or by some writing declaring an\n     intention to revoke the same and executed in the\n     manner in which an unprivileged Will is herein before\n     required to be executed, or by the burning, tearing, or\n     otherwise destroying the same by the testator or by\n     some person in his presence and by his direction with\n     the intention of revoking the same"It is the contention of the Learned counsel for\n\nplaintifs that the Deed of Revocation of the Will,\n\nwill have to be proved in the same manner as a Will\n\nshould be proved by examining atleast one attesting\n\nwitness of the deed of cancellation of Will and since\n\nthe above defendants have not examined any\n\nattesting witnesses to the said deed of cancellation of\n\nWill, same has not been proved in accordance with law\n\nand in view of the strong suspicious circumstances\n\nsurrounding the said Deed of Revocation of Will, in the152OS No.25227/2009\n\nabsence of examination of the attesting witnesses\n\nthereto it cannot be held that the Will marked at Ex.P.4\n\nhas been cancelled by the Testator. In this connection,\n\ndecision of the High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru\n\nreported in ILR 2008 Kar. 87 in the case ofS.\n\nJagadish Vs. Dr. S.Kumaraswamy, since dead by\n\nL.Rs' S.K.Lingaraju and Ors' requires to be noted. In\n\nthe Head note 'A' ofthe said decision, law laid down\n\non the subject is stated which is as below:-(A) INDIAN SUCCESSION ACT, 1925 - SECTION 63-Execution of unprivileged Wills -Section 70- Revocation\n    of unprivileged Will or Codicil - Duly executed WIN-Deed\n    of cancellation of Proof of - The mode of revocation -\n    HELD, If the revocation is by some writing declaring an\n    intention to revoke the Will, the said writing should be\n    executed in the manner in which an unprivileged Will\n    requires to be executed as contemplated underSection\n    63of the Act - FURTHER HELD, The deed of revocation\n    also should be duly signed by the testator, with the\n    intention to cancel the Will and it shall be duly attested\n    by two or more witnesses - The testator should be in a153OS No.25227/2009\n\n    sound state of mind at the time of execution of the deed\n    of revocation - The propounder of the said deed of\n    revocation,     should   dispel         all   the     suspicious\n    circumstances    surrounding      the     execution    of   such\n    writing. Only then the said deed or revocation of Will has\n    the effect of revoking a duly executed Will - ON FACTS,\n    HELD, Plaintiff's evidence shows that before death, the\n    testator was in a State of Coma- The evidence on record\n    do not prove due execution of Ex.P2 as required underSection 63of the Act. The Courts below without proper\n    application of mind have misread the evidence on\n    record, ignored the material evidence on record - The\n    Courts below have not kept in mind the provisions ofSection 70andSection 63of the Act which warrants the\n    standard of proof that it is required for due execution of\n    Ex.P2 is the same as Ex.D.1".Therefore, in respect of Deed of Revocation of\n\nWill,Sec. 63of the Indian Succession Act will have to\n\nbe satisfied and as a corollary, it will have to be\n\nproved in accordance withSec.68of the Indian\n\nEvidence     Act,1872.       Document              which        requires\n\nattestation under Law as perSec.68of the Indian154OS No.25227/2009Evidence Act, 1872can be proved only by examination\n\nof atleast one of the witnesses to the document or if\n\nno witnesses are available by examining some one\n\nwho knows the signatures of the Testator and attesting\n\nwitnesses to prove that the signatures have been\n\naffixed by the Testator and attesting witnesses therein.In this case, it is not the defendants version that the\n\nattesting witnesses to Ex.D.1 and 2 revoked the deed\n\nof will are not available. However, defendants have not\n\nchosen to examine any of the attesting witnesses to\n\nEx.D.1 and 2 before this court. They have also not\n\nexamined any witnesses to prove the signatures of the\n\nattesting witness. Of-course the signatures of Testator\n\nin Ex.D.1 and 2 have been admitted by PW.1 during his\n\ncross examination. That, per-se will not satisfy the\n\nrequirement ofSec.68of the Indian Evidence Act,\n\n1872. When it is not the case of the defendants that155OS No.25227/2009\n\nthe attesting witnesses to Ex.D.1 and 2 are not\n\navailable, it was mandatory on their part to examine\n\natleast one of the attesting witnesses to prove Ex.D.1\n\nand 2. Said requirement of law is to remove suspicious\n\ncircumstances   which    possibly   surrounded    such\n\ntestamentary documents. Here, in this case, Plaintiffs\n\nhave raised strong and very serious suspicious\n\ncircumstances surrounding the execution of Ex.D.1\n\nand 2 revocation deed of will by the testator by\n\ncontending that the testator at that time did not\n\npossess disposing state of mind, body and memory\n\nand understanding. Plaintiffs have contended that the\n\ntestator apart from having undergone surgery to the\n\nlung had later suffered malignancy in the prostate and\n\nhad undergone surgery for the same, and because of\n\nthe same, he had enlarged libido and was amorously\n\nattracted to young woman and did not possess sound156OS No.25227/2009\n\ndisposing state of mind, body and memory and\n\ndefendant No.4 and 5 taking advantage of the same\n\nhave got the above said documents concocted. In\n\nthis background mere production of Ex.D1 and 2-\n\ndeeds of revocation of Will is not sufficient to accept\n\ndefendants version that the Will at Ex.P.4 has been\n\ncancelled by the Testator being in sound disposing\n\nstate of mind, body, memory and understanding.15. Main contention of the Learned counsel for\n\nthe contesting defendants is that the Testator has sold\n\nthe immovable property which is the subject matter of\n\nEx.P.4/D.8- Will to defendants 4 and 5 under Regd. Sale\n\nDeeds dtd. 19.10.2000 marked at Ex.D.3 and 4\n\nsubsequent to the execution of Ex.P.4 Will and\n\ntherefore, the Will marked at Ex.P.4 is no longer in\n\nforce. Learned counsel has also argued that the fact157OS No.25227/2009\n\nthat the original Regd. Will is in the custody of\n\ndefendants 4 and 5 who are purchasers of the\n\nimmovable property which shows that the Will at\n\nEx.P.4/D.8 has been duly cancelled by the Testator. In\n\nthis connection, I would like to refer to a decision of\n\nthe Apex court in regard to presumptions which can be\n\ndrawn on the point.In the case ofDurga Prasad Vs.\n\nDevi Charan, reported in 1979 (1) SCC. 61. In para-31 ofthe said judgmentlaw has been laid down as\n\nfollows:-"The correct legal position may therefore be stated as\n     follows:-1. That where a will has been properly executed and\n     registered by the testator but not found at the time of death the\n     question whether the presumption that the testator had revoked\n     the will can be drawn or not will depend on the facts and\n     circumstances of each case. Even if such a presumption is\n     drawn it is rather a weak one in view of the habits and\n     conditions of our people.158OS No.25227/20092. That the presumption is a rebuttable one and can be\nrebutted by the slightest possible evidence, direct or\ncircumstantial. For instance, where it is proved that a will was\na strong and clear disposition evincing the categorical intention\nof the testator and there was nothing to indicate the presence of\nany circumstance which is likely to bring about a change in the\nintention of the testator so as to revoke the will suddenly, the\npresumption is rebutted.3. That in view of the fact that in our country most of the\npeople are not highly educated and do not in every case take\nthe care of depositing the will in the bank or with the Solicitors\nor otherwise take very great care of the will as a result of which\nthe possibility of the will being stolen, lost or surreptitiously\nremoved by interested persons cannot be excluded, the\npresumption should be applied carefully.4. That where the legatee is able to prove the circumstances\nfrom which it can be inferred that there could be absolutely no\nreason whatsoever for revoking the will or that the act of\nrevoking the will was against the temperament and inclination\nof the testator, no presumption of revocation of the will can be\ndrawn.5. That in view of the express provision ofsection 70of the\nAct the onus lies on the objector to prove the various\ncircumstances, viz., marriage, burning, tearing or destruction of\nthe will.6. When there is no obvious reason or clear motive for the\ntestator to revoke the will and yet the will is not found on the159OS No.25227/2009\n\n     death of the testator it may well be that the will was misplaced\n     or lost or was stolen by interested persons".Inthe above decisionit has been held that when\n\nthe cancellation of the Will is done by way of executing\n\nwritten documents then it will have to be in conformity\n\nwith the law which deals with execution of the Will and\n\nproof of the same. Therefore, if revocation is by way of\n\nwritten document, then it will have to be in compliance\n\nofsection 63of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 andSec. 68of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The other\n\nmode of cancellation of Will is by burning, tearing or\n\ndestroying the Will. But, at the same time it has been\n\nobserved in the above decisions that possibility of the\n\nWill being surreptitiously stolen or lost must also be\n\ntaken into consideration.160OS No.25227/200916.   In   this     case,    certain     strong     suspicious\n\ncircumstances      have     been    elicited   in   the   cross\n\nexamination       of Defendant No.4/DW.1. This is not a\n\ncase where Sale deed has been executed in the\n\nnormal course in favour of defendants 4 and 5. If it\n\nwere the sale deeds executed in the normal course\n\npossibility of defendants contention that in view of the\n\nsale of the immovable property covered under the Will\n\nby the testator during his life time Will at Ex.P.4 has\n\nimpliedly stood revoked could have been accepted.But, the facts elicited in the cross examination             of\n\nDW.1 show that the Testator had got a Joint Account\n\nopened in the Bank with Defendant No.4. Sale\n\nconsideration is said to have been paid by defendants\n\n4 and 5 has been deposited into the Joint account and\n\nthen defendant Nos.4 and 5 have allegedly withdrawn\n\nRs.10,00,000/- lakhs each. Hence, Sale Deeds in161OS No.25227/2009\n\nquestion are not in favour of some third parties. The\n\nDefendant No.4/D.W.1 had Joint Account in Bank with\n\nthe Testator. In the cross examination, DW.1 states\n\nthat in the year 2002 joint account was opened by the\n\nTestator with her, but when it was later suggested that\n\nthe joint account had been opened much earlier to the\n\nsaid date she states that she does not remember the\n\nsame. Apart from the same, Defendant No.4 has been\n\nnamed as 'nominee' to the Bank Account of the\n\nTestator.   These raises suspicion    as to    whether\n\ndefendant No.4 and 5 could have exerted undue\n\ninfluence over the testator in getting the deed of\n\nrevocation of the Will   and also sale deeds in their\n\nfavour. Also, contrary to recital in the Sale Deeds\n\npossession of the immovable property had not been\n\ngiven to defendants 4 and 5 as admitted in D.W.1's\n\ncross examination. Plaintiffs contend that the property162OS No.25227/2009\n\nwas worth Rs.1.00 Crore, but sale consideration\n\nshown to have been paid only Rs.45.00 lakhs. Also\n\nmedical condition of the Testator is questioned. When\n\nthat is so, the Law is well settled that Testamentary\n\nCourt has no jurisdiction to decide any question of title\n\nto the immovable property in a Probate Proceedings. If\n\natleast one witness to the sale deeds had been\n\nexamined to prove that the deceased Ronald James\n\nRingrow was in sound disposing state of mind and\n\nconsciously executed the Sale Deed, same could have\n\nalso been considered for the limited purpose of\n\nholding that the earlier Will of the Testator marked at\n\nEx.P.4/D.8 has impliedly stood cancelled. Sale deeds\n\ndo not require attestation, but in the case on hand,\n\nSale Deeds marked at Ex.D.3 and 4 have been\n\nattested by two witnesses. Hence, if one witness\n\natleast had been examined to prove the mental163OS No.25227/2009\n\ncapacity of the vendor/testator, that would have also\n\nbeen sufficient to hold that the testator being in\n\npossession of the sound and disposable state of mind\n\nrevoked his last will marked at Ex.P.4/D.8. In the\n\nabsence of the same, having regard to the facts and\n\ncircumstances, it is not possible to accept the\n\ndefendants case that the testator has duly revoked\n\nEx.P.4 Will. Further, in the case of Vitthal Rao @\n\nPandarinath    S/o   Athmaram      Mokaddam       Vs.\n\nDomaji Panduranga Kokate & Ors., reported in\n\n2018 (2) Maharastra Law Journal 52, Bombay High\n\nCourt has held that in the absence of examination of\n\nattesting witnesses to the revocation deed of will,\n\nrequirements of revocation of will are not complied\n\nwith and same is not proved and hence, beneficiaries\n\nunder the Will continued to be owners of the subject\n\nmatter of the Will. Requirement of Probate is a Court164OS No.25227/2009\n\nprocedure and in the said proceedings when the Will in\n\nquestion has been proved, opposite party who claims\n\nrevocation of the Will has to prove the revocation in\n\naccordance with law. But, the defendants have though\n\nproduced Ex.D.1 and 2 - Deeds of Revocation and also\n\nSale deeds as per Ex.D.3 and 4, they have not chosen\n\nto examine attesting witnesses to the Deed of\n\nrevocation of Will. But, there are a number of\n\nsuspicious circumstances pointed out by the plaintiffs\n\nwith respect to deed of revocation and also sale deeds\n\nobtained   by   Defendants      4   and   5.   In   these\n\ncircumstances, I am of opinion that the contesting\n\ndefendants 4 to 6 have not proved Ex.D.1 and 2-Deed\n\nof Revocation of last Will of the Testator-Ronald James\n\nRingrow. Consequently, Issue No.1 is answered in\n\nthe negative.165OS No.25227/200917. Issue Nos.3 and 4:- Plaintiffs have proved\n\nEx.P.4 Will dtd. 29.01.1998. Contesting defendants\n\nhave failed to prove the deed of revocation marked at\n\nEx.D.1 and 2 in as much as they have not chosen to\n\nexamine the attesting witnesses even though a\n\nnumber of suspicious circumstances have been\n\npointed out by the plaintiffs with respect to the deed\n\nof revocation. Defendants have mainly relied on the\n\nsale deeds marked at Ex.D.3 and 4 said to have been\n\nexecuted by the testator in favour of defendants 4\n\nand 5 respectively. Since the defendants have failed to\n\nremove the suspicion regarding they obtaining the\n\ndeed of revocation of Will and Sale Deeds by exerting\n\nundue influence, I am of opinion that even the sale\n\ndeed marked at Ex.D.4 and 5 in favour of defendants\n\n4 and 5 are not of any help to them. In a probate\n\nproceedings, neither the title to the immovable166OS No.25227/2009\n\nproperty nor existence of immovable property which is\n\nthe subject matter of the Will can be decided. Only\n\nquestion     which     can     be      decided     in   a    Probate\n\nproceedings is genuineness or otherwise of the Will\n\npropounded in the petition. In this regard it would be\n\napt to note a decision of the Apex court referred to by\n\nthe plaintiffs counsel reported in (1993) 2 Supreme\n\nCourt Cases 507 in the case of Chiranjilal Shrilal\n\nGoenka (deceased) through L.Rs. Vs. Jasjit Singh\n\nand ors. Head note of the said decision reads as\n\nfollows:-"Succession   Act, 1925- Ss. 211(1), 217, 222, 223,\n     224, 227, 273, 276, 280, 294, 295 and 299 - Grant of\n     probate - Court of probate has exclusive jurisdiction\n     Civil court in original side or arbitrator, even on consent\n     of parties, has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon proof\n     or validity of will propounded by the executor - Unless\n     grant of probate is revoked, it operates as a judgment167OS No.25227/2009\n\n    in rem - It conclusively establishes appointment of\n    executor and valid execution of will - Probate court\n    does not decide any question of title, or the existence\n    of   the   property   itself   While   executor   expressly\n    nominated in the will, being legal representative of the\n    deceased testator, entitled to grant of probate, heirs\n    are not entitled to it".It is admitted fact that plaintiffs have filed\n\nanother suit by way of P.Misc.Petition No.31/2005\n\nwhich is pending for the relief of cancellation of the\n\nSale Deeds marked at Ex.D.4 and 5. Probate may be\n\nnecessary for the plaintiffs who have filed the said suit\n\nfor cancellation of the Sale Deeds for vindicating their\n\nrights in the said suit. Granting of probate will not\n\nper-se amount to declaring title to the property in\n\nfavour of plaintiffs. Plaintiffs will only have right of\n\nrepresentation in respect of Will and based on the\n\nsame, they may pursue their rights in the pending suit.168OS No.25227/200918. Defendants counsel has placed reliance        on the\n\ndecisions reported in Laws (APH) 2001 9 170 in the\n\ncase of Kudupudi Subba Rao Vs. Kudupudi\n\nSatyanarayanamma; 2007 (7) Kar.L.j. 38 in the\n\ncase ofKrishna Vs. Sanjeev; and AIR 1982 Kar.219 in the case ofRanajit Kanungo Vs. Ibcon Pvt.Ltd., Bombay. In the first mentioned case two\n\nbrothers being co-plaintiffs had produced documents\n\nbefore the court, but afterwards they had difference of\n\nopinion   between   them    and   one   brother    made\n\napplication for return of the original document and\n\nsame was granted, but the other brother being co-plaintiff took objection to the return of documents to\n\nhis brother and went in Revision and in the said case,\n\nmatter was remanded with a direction to decide the\n\nmatter afresh. Said decision has no application to the\n\nfacts of this case. In the second mentioned decision,169OS No.25227/2009\n\nlaw has been stated as to how the documents\n\nconfronted in the cross examination but not admitted\n\nby the witness should be marked. In the last decision,\n\nit has been held that the document intended to be\n\nused during cross examination of witness need not be\n\nproduced at the stage of production of documents, but\n\nthey must satisfy the relevancy and admissibility.These decisions in my opinion, do not aid the\n\ndefendants defence in the suit in any manner. Also,\n\nSec.286 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 which is\n\nrelied on by the defendants counsel has no application\n\nto the present case, in as much as the said provision\n\ndeals with the jurisdiction of District deligate and not\n\nthat of District Judge.19. The Will in favour of Plaintiff no.2 as per\n\nEx.P.4 original of which has been produced as per170OS No.25227/2009\n\nEx.D.8, is not in dispute and additionally plaintiffs have\n\nexamined one of its attesting witnesses as PW.1 and\n\nproved the same. The contesting defendants have\n\nthough produced manuscript of the revocation deed as\n\nper Ex.D.1 and registered deed of revocation of will as\n\nper Ex.D.2, they have not chosen to examine the\n\nattesting witnesses to the said deed of revocation of\n\nWill and therefore, they have not proved the same.Their sale deed marked at Ex.D.4 and 5 have not been\n\ntaken into consideration for the reasons that the same\n\nhave not been executed in the normal course in as\n\nmuch as defendant no.4 had been included as joint\n\naccount holder with the vendor/Testator in his Bank\n\nAccount and she has been nominated to his Bank\n\naccount and suspicion lingers around the same as\n\nwell. The Sale Deeds have not been executed in favour\n\nof outsiders, instead the facts show that there was171OS No.25227/2009\n\npossibility for defendants 4 and 5     to exert undue\n\ninfluence on the Testator/vendor. When that is so,\n\nplaintiffs have challenged the Sale deeds marked at\n\nEx.D.4 and 5 seeking cancellation of the same by filing\n\nP.Misc.No.31/2005. Also in Ex.P.4-Will it is mentioned\n\nthat the Testator had 2/3rd share in the immovable\n\nproperty and Plaintiff   no.2 herein had 1/3rd share\n\ntherein. However, Sale deeds have been executed in\n\nrespect of the whole property in favour of defendants\n\n4 and 5.20.Considering all these facts and circumstances,\n\nI am of opinion that the plaintiff no.1 who has been\n\nnominated as Executrix in the Will Ex.P.4, may be\n\nissued as sought for. In view of granting probate in\n\nfavour of plaintiff no.1 who has been appointed as an\n\nExecutrix in the Will marked at Ex.P.4 there would not172OS No.25227/2009\n\nbe any need for issuing Letter of Administration in\n\nfavour of Plaintiff No.2. Consequently, Issue Nos.3 and\n\n4 are answered to the effect that plaintiff           no.1 is\n\nentitled to issue of Probate in respect of Ex.P.4-Will\n\ndated 29.01.1998 with the Will annexed thereto.21. Issue No.5:- For the reasons stated above, I\n\nproceed to pass the following :-ORDER\n\n\n          Suit    of   the   Plaintiffs   is   hereby\n\n      decreed.Issue Probate in the name of\n\n      Plaintiff No.1 in respect of Will dated\n\n      29.01.1998 marked at Ex.P.4, with said\n\n      Will annexed thereto.173OS No.25227/2009\n\n              The Plaintiff No.1 shall file inventory\n\n      in six months and accounts within one\n\n      year.1St plaintiff shall furnish administration\n\n      bond and two sureties for Rs.50,00,000/-.No order as to cost.Draw decree accordingly.--(Dictated to the Stenographer, transcript thereof, is\ncorrected and then pronounced by me in the open\ncourt on this the 11th day of January, 2022)--(D.S.VIJAYA KUMAR)\n                          XXVI Addl. City Civil Judge\n                         & C/c IV ACC & SJ., Mayo Hall,\n                                 Bengaluru.174OS No.25227/2009\n\n                     ANNEXURE1. List of witnesses examined for the Plaintiffs:P.W.1           Wg.Cdr.M.R.Shirazi, GPA Holder2. List of witnesses examined for Defendants:-D.W.1           Mrs.Alice Marcarenhas3. List of documents exhibited for the Plaintiffs:Ex.P1           General Power of Attorney executed\n                   by Jennifer Susan\n\n   Ex.P2           General Power of Attorney executed\n                   by Jennifer Susan\n\n   Ex.P3           Death Certificate\n\n   Ex.P4-5         Will and Counter\n\n   Ex.P4(a)(b)     Signature\n\n   Ex.P6           Cancellation Deed\n\n   Ex.P7&8         True copy of Case Sheet\n\n   Ex.P9 & 10      Certified copy of the Sale Deeds175OS No.25227/2009\n\n   Ex.P11 & 12    Certified copy of the Sale Deeds\n\n   Ex.P13         Warrant in SC No.75/2005.4. List of documents exhibited for Defendants:-Ex.D.1         Letter\n\n   Ex.D.1(a)      Signature\n\n   Ex.D.2         Documents executed by Late Ronald\n                  James Ringrow\n\n   Ex.D.2(a)      Signature\n\n   Ex.D.3 & 4     Sale Deeds\n\n   Ex.D.3(a) to   Signatures\n   (o)\n   Ex.D.4(a) to   Signatures\n   (n)\n   Ex.D.5         Document bearing signature of 2 nd\n                  plaintiff\n\n   Ex.D.5(a)      Signature of 2nd Plaintiff\n\n   Ex.D.6         Pass Book\n\n   Ex.D.7         General Power of Attorney\n\n   Ex.D.8         Will176OS No.25227/2009\n\nEx.D.9      Newspaper Publication\n\nEx.D.9(a)   Public Notice\n\n\n\n\n                     (D.S.VIJAYA KUMAR)\n                 XXVI Addl. City Civil Judge\n                & C/c IV ACC & SJ., Mayo Hall,\n                         Bengaluru.177OS No.25227/2009\n\n\n\n(Judgment pronounced vide separate\n            Judgment)\n\n                    ORDER\n\n     Suit of the Plaintiffs is hereby decreed.Issue Probate in the name of Plaintiff No.1 in\nrespect of Will dated 29.01.1998 marked at Ex.P.4,\nwith said Will annexed thereto.The Plaintiff No.1 shall file inventory in six months\nand accounts within one year.1St plaintiff shall furnish administration bond and\ntwo sureties for Rs.50,00,000/-.No order as to cost.Draw decree accordingly.(D.S.VIJAYA KUMAR)\n                XXVI Addl. City Civil Judge\n                & C/c IV ACC & SJ., Mayo Hall,\n                       Bengaluru.178\n      OS No.25227/2009