Severe physical illness or paralysis does not automatically invalidate a testator’s mental capacity unless cognitive impairment is firmly established by medical evidence-Bombay High Court.

⚖️Case Study: Rajkumar Assudomal Gurbani v. Vijay Gulab Gurbani & Anr.

📌Case No. : TESTAMENTARY SUIT NO. 74 OF 2006.

📅 Decided on: 17.09.2026

The Dispute: The Plaintiff (nephew of the deceased) filed a Testamentary Suit seeking probate of the last Will and Testament dated 30th November 2004 of his late uncle, Mr. Gulab Hukumatrai Gurbani, who passed away on 16th April 2005.
The Estate & Bequests: The Will named the Plaintiff as the sole executor and principal beneficiary, notably bequeathing the deceased’s share in an immovable property at Jaipur and the residue of the estate.
Opposition: The petition was opposed by the deceased’s wife and two sons (Defendants No. 1 and 2), who filed identical caveats, converting the matter into a testamentary suit.

Whether the Plaintiff was entitled to the probate of the last Will and Testament of the deceased?
Whether the Plaintiff proved that the deceased left a duly executed Will dated 30th November 2004?
Whether the Defendants/Caveators proved that the deceased had not signed the Will?

Plaintiff’s Contentions:
- The Will was duly executed and attested under Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, supported by direct evidence from attesting witnesses (PW-2, the deceased’s physician of 35 years, and PW-3, a family acquaintance).
- The deceased had strained relations with the Defendants, whereas the Plaintiff and his family physically and financially cared for him during his battle with prostate cancer.
- The physical ailment only affected movements below the waist and did not impair his mental faculties or testamentary capacity.
Defendants’ Contentions:
- The signatures on the Will were forged and fabricated, supported by a handwriting expert’s report (DW-3).
- The deceased suffered from severe physical infirmity, cancer, and chemotherapy, raising doubts about his mental capacity and free will.
- The exclusion of the natural heirs (wife and sons) and the active involvement of the Plaintiff constituted grave suspicious circumstances.

Sridevi v. Jayaraja Shetty, (2005) 2 SCC 784 — On the requirements for proving a Will and handling suspicious circumstances.
Purushottam Vishandas Raheja v. Asha Shrichand Raheja, Appeal No. 598 of 2011 (Bombay High Court, decided on 26th July 2016) — On the rule that objections to probate must be set out in the affidavit supporting the caveat.
Kattinokkula Murali Krishna v. Veeramalla Koteswara Rao & Ors., (2010) 1 SCC 466 — Regarding pleadings and evidence traveling beyond the scope of the caveat.
Ganpatrao Khandero v. Vasantrao, AIR 1932 Bom 588 — Establishing that physical infirmity does not equate to a lack of testamentary capacity.
Ramabai Padmakar Patil v. Rukminibai Vekhande, (2003) 8 SCC 537 — On the legality of unequal or exclusionary testamentary dispositions.
Pentakota Satyanarayana v. Pentakota Seetharatnam, (2005) 8 SCC 67 — On a testator’s right to depart from natural intestate succession.
Leela Rajagopal v. Kamala Menon Cocharan, (2014) 15 SCC 570 — Holding that a beneficiary’s participation does not automatically constitute a suspicious circumstance.
Hoshang Pesi Hodiwala v. Bonny Behramshah Bhathena, (2014) 6 Mah LJ 656 — On the fallibility of handwriting expert evidence and the need for judicial caution.
Krishna Kumar Birla v. Rajendra Singh Lodha, (2010) 1 SCC 466 — Addressing caveatable interests and claims adverse to the testator’s estate.

The direct, unimpeached testimony of the attesting witnesses (PW-2 and PW-3) conclusively established due execution and attestation under Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act.
The plea of unsoundness of mind or coercion raised by the Defendants could not be entertained as it was never pleaded in their Affidavit in Support of the Caveat.
Physical illness (prostate cancer) restricted movement below the waist but did not impair mental capacity, a position reinforced by the Defendants’ own self-contradictory stance regarding a subsequent Will.
The handwriting expert’s report (DW-3) lacked evidentiary value as it was based on scanned photocopies, unproved comparison standards, and digitally altered images.

The High Court held that the Plaintiff successfully proved the due execution, attestation, and validity of the Will dated 30th November 2004.
The Testamentary Suit was decreed, and the Prothonotary and Senior Master was directed to issue a grant of Probate in favor of the Plaintiff expeditiously, with no orders as to costs.

Pleadings Matter: Objections against a Will, such as lack of capacity or coercion, must be strictly pleaded in the affidavit in support of the caveat; evidence cannot travel beyond pleadings.
Physical vs. Mental Capacity: Severe physical illness or paralysis does not automatically invalidate a testator’s mental capacity unless cognitive impairment is firmly established by medical evidence.
Evidentiary Standard for Experts: Handwriting expert opinions rely heavily on the authenticity of foundational comparison materials and primary source documents; analysis based on scanned photocopies carries little weight.