Eminent scientist’s bungalow to go to wife’s nephew

Court rejected the argument advanced by the contesting parties that the deceased woman was seriously ill and unable to execute the will.

MUMBAI: The Bombay High Court on Friday validated the will of Rajlaxmi Ayengar, wife of eminent scientist A R Gopal Ayengar, which bequeathed their bungalow in Mysore Colony in Chembur to her nephew, Dr. Govindraja Iyengar, a US-based scientist.

Mumbai, India - September 03, 2021: Bombay High Court at Fort, in Mumbai, India, on Friday, September 03, 2021. (Photo by Anshuman Poyrekar/Hindustan Times) (Anshuman Poyrekar/HT PHOTO)

A single judge bench of Justice NJ Jamadar rejected Dr Ayengar’s nephew’s claim that the will was forged.

Dr Ayengar, who worked as director, bio-medical group, at Bhabha Atomic Research Centre, passed away in September 1992. He had left behind a will, bequeathing certain movable properties to his nephew AR Sampathkumar and their Mysore Colony bungalow to his wife.

Rajlaxmi passed away in February 2002, leaving behind a will dated December 22, 1998, bequeathing her right, title and interest in the bungalow to her nephew, Dr Iyengar.

Dr Iyengar filed a petition in 2011 seeking probate—validation of his aunt’s will—which Sampathkumar contested.

After Sampathkumar’s death, his sons appeared before the high court, contending that at the time of her death, Rajlaxmi had been residing with them in the bungalow for years, and they had been caring for her and her deceased husband during their old age.

The sons claimed that Rajlaxmi was regularly hospitalised for ailments. They asserted that on December 22, 1998—the day she purportedly made the will—she was admitted to the ICCU of the BARC Hospital in an unconscious state. They alleged that Dr Iyengar and others took undue advantage of the situation and created false documents.

The court, however, refused to accept their claims and held that the will was duly prepared, as required by law. The court also rejected the argument advanced by the contesting parties that the deceased woman was seriously ill and unable to execute the will.

The judge also noted that Dr Iyengar categorically asserted that the estate would be used to advance the trust formed in memory of Dr Ayengar, which negated the claims about usurpation of the property.