In the heart of Surat, stood a grand old house, a testament to a bygone era. It had been lovingly
built by Grandmother Laxmi, aged 85 years, a woman of remarkable strength and resilience.
For decades, the house had served as the anchor for the family, its walls echoing with the
laughter of children, the wisdom of elders, and the warmth of shared memories.
Grandmother Laxmi passed away peacefully in her sleep, leaving behind a legacy of love and
a tangible reminder of her existence – the family home. However, the inheritance of this
cherished property ignited a bitter dispute between her two grandchildren, Arjun and Vishwa.
Arjun, the elder grandson, claimed sole ownership of the house, citing a handwritten will
allegedly penned by Grandmother Laxmi herself. The will, dated a few months before her
passing, clearly stated that Arjun was to be the sole inheritor of the property. However, the
authenticity of the will was brought into question by Vishwa, the younger granddaughter.
Vishwa maintained that the will was a forgery, made by Arjun to seize control of the house.
She argued that Grandmother Laxmi had always held the belief in equal inheritance and would
never have favoured one grandchild over the other. To support her claim, Vishwa presented a
series of witness testimonies from neighbours and extended family members, all of whom
attested to Grandmother Laxmi's unwavering belief in fairness and equity.
As the dispute escalated, both Arjun and Vishwa sought legal counsel. Arjun's lawyers argued
that the handwritten will served as irrefutable evidence of Grandmother Laxmi's intentions,
emphasizing the legal sanctity of the document. They further contended that Vishwa's
accusations of forgery were baseless and lacked any substantial proof.
Vishwa's legal team, on the other hand, challenged the validity of the will, pointing out
inconsistencies in the handwriting and questioning the circumstances under which the
document was supposedly created. They also emphasized the testimonies of the witnesses,
showing the consensus of Grandmother Laxmi's belief in equal inheritance.
The case took a dramatic turn when a hidden shelf was discovered in an old almirah in the
house. Inside, a sealed envelope containing a second will was found. This will, dated several
years prior to the one presented by Arjun, clearly stated that the house was to be divided equally
between Arjun and Vishwa.
The discovery of the second will threw the case into disarray, raising questions about the
authenticity of the first will and the true intentions of Grandmother Laxmi. The opposing legal
teams scrambled to analyze the new evidence and formulate their arguments accordingly.
The court proceedings were intense, with each side presenting their arguments with unwavering
conviction. Arjun's lawyers argued that the first will, being the most recent, nullified the second
will, while Vishwa’s team argued that the second will reflected Grandmother Laxmi's true
intentions, considering it was not a handwritten one and was executed when she was in full
possession of her mental faculties.
The case is listed before the respective court with the following issues:
Issues:
1. Is the handwritten will presented by Arjun a valid testamentary document?
2. Is the typed will presented by Vishwa a valid testamentary document?
3. Did Ms. Laxmi possess the necessary mental capacity while executing the second
will?
4. Does the second will revoke the first will?
5. Does the format of a will, handwritten versus electronically typed, impact its validity
or preference in determining testamentary intent when both wills contradict each other?
