Ahmedabad: A statement in a will declaring a woman dead on paper a year before she actually died has, decades later, altered the ownership of a valuable property. Gujarat High Court rejected a grandson’s claim to exclusive ownership of a 4,856 sq m plot in Balasinor, finding serious suspicious circumstances surrounding a 1976 will that had left the property to him while excluding his grandfather’s four sons.The grandson’s exclusive right to his maternal grandparent’s property has now been reduced to a mere share available under the Hindu Succession Act.The dispute revolved around a will allegedly made by Motilal Oswal in 1976 bequeathing a 4,856 sq m plot in Balasinor town, now in Mahisagar district, to his daughter’s son, Sunil Kumar, leaving out his own four sons. Motilal passed away in 1985, and in 1991, his son-in-law and Sunil’s father claimed his son’s ownership of the plot before the revenue authorities based on the will. The authority demanded the original copy of the will, and the civil proceedings began in 1994.When Motilal’s sons came to know about this, they raised an objection. In 1997, Sunil approached a civil court for grant of probate of the will, which was granted in 2000 despite resistance by his uncles. They had contended that their father had bought the property in 1936 with his own money, and as Class 1 legal heirs, they had equal right to the property.The dispute landed in the high court in 2000 with Motilal’s sons challenging the lower court’s decision holding the grandson to be the owner of the plot by virtue of the will.Their counsel questioned the genuineness of the will by raising various issues. One of them was the very first line mentioned in the will that read ‘My wife Chandaben has expired’. They argued that the will was drafted in April 1976, and Chandaben was alive then. She died in 1977. Moreover, Motilal continued to live till 1985, and this information was never corrected, they argued, adding that this information caused legitimate suspicion around the will.The grandson attempted to explain the discrepancy by contending that an elderly advocate who drafted the document was hard of hearing and may have misunderstood what was dictated to him. The HC, however, found the explanation unconvincing.Justice J C Doshi stated in the order, “The will in question fails to satisfy the conscience of the court. Propounder himself does not come forward to rebut the suspicious circumstances. Therefore according to this court the learned trial court has committed serious and grave error in allowing probate application.”HC further said that along with Motilal’s sons, his daughters’ rights still remain in the property. “It is hereby held that class 1 heirs of deceased Motilal Jaiswal have equal share in the suit property and partition has to be effected accordingly,” the court order read.
