Archive · 21 Sep 2026
Bombay High Court Upholds Will Excluding Wife and Sons
The Bombay High Court considered whether a man’s Will was valid.
The man, Gulab Hukumatrai Gurbani, left his property to his nephew instead of his wife and sons.
His sons said the signatures on the Will were forged.
They also said his serious illness meant he could not properly understand the document.
The court heard two witnesses who said Gurbani read and understood the Will.
A doctor who had treated him also said he was mentally able to make decisions.
The court said being physically sick does not automatically mean someone cannot make a Will.
It therefore upheld the Will and ordered that probate be issued to the nephew.
The Bombay High Court upheld Gulab Hukumatrai Gurbani’s 2004 Will.
The Will left his estate to nephew Rajkumar Assudomal Gurbani.
Gurbani’s wife and two sons were excluded from the inheritance.
The sons alleged forgery and questioned their father’s testamentary capacity.
The court found witnesses credible and said physical illness alone does not prove mental incapacity.
- Who
- The Bombay High Court, Gulab Hukumatrai Gurbani’s sons, and his nephew Rajkumar Assudomal Gurbani.
- What
- The court upheld Gurbani’s Will, which excluded his wife and sons and left his estate to his nephew.
- When
- The Will was signed on November 30, 2004; Gurbani died on April 16, 2005, and the judgment followed the contested probate proceedings.
- Where
- The Bombay High Court in Mumbai.
- Why
- The court found that witnesses established the Will’s proper execution and that Gurbani had understood its contents; the sons did not prove forgery or lack of testamentary capacity.
Sons’ Challenge
Court and Beneficiary’s Position
Signature authenticity
Sons’ Challenge
The sons alleged that their father’s signatures on the Will were forged and relied on handwriting-expert evidence.
Court and Beneficiary’s Position
The court found that the handwriting evidence did not establish forgery because the comparison signatures were not independently proven genuine and the expert examined scanned photocopies.
Mental capacity
Sons’ Challenge
The sons argued that advanced prostate cancer, paralysis from the waist down, and chemotherapy showed that Gurbani lacked testamentary capacity.
Court and Beneficiary’s Position
The court distinguished physical illness from mental incapacity and relied on the treating doctor’s evidence that Gurbani remained of sound disposing mind.
Execution of the Will
Sons’ Challenge
The sons contested the probate proceedings and challenged whether the Will had been properly executed.
Court and Beneficiary’s Position
The court accepted the evidence of two attesting witnesses, concluding that the requirements under the Indian Succession Act and Evidence Act had been met.
- Will date
- November 30, 2004
- Deceased
- Gulab Hukumatrai Gurbani
- Principal beneficiary
- Rajkumar Assudomal Gurbani, Gurbani’s nephew
- Excluded heirs
- Gurbani’s wife, Savitri Gulab Gurbani, and sons Vijay and Ram Gurbani
- Court finding
- Physical illness alone does not establish a lack of mental capacity to make a Will
- Witness evidence
- Two attesting witnesses said Gurbani read, understood, and voluntarily signed the Will
- Probate result
- The court directed the Prothonotary and Senior Master to issue probate