HC junks man’s inheritance claim of Charini Road property; directs action for forgery

A single judge bench of Justice Kamal Khata, in his judgment dated March 26, listed several circumstances that cast “grave suspicion” on the will

Mumbai: The Bombay High Court recently dismissed a petition seeking probate or legal validation and execution of a 2006 will of Madhaviben Sagar who owned three buildings near Charni Road railway station, and directed the court administration to file a criminal complaint against the man who claimed to be its sole beneficiary.

Mumbai, India - April 1, 2026: Sagar Samarat Building (Madhvan Bhuvan) on Maharshi Karve Road, Charni Road in Mumbai, India, on Wednesday, April 1, 2026. (Photo by Anshuman Poyrekar/Hindustan Times) (Anshuman Poyrekar/HT Photo)

A single judge bench of Justice Kamal Khata, in his judgment dated March 26, listed several circumstances that cast “grave suspicion” on the will. The judge directed the Prothonotary and Senior Master of the court to file a complaint before a magistrate for offences including using false evidence, making false statements, and forgery against Mahesh Trivedi, who had filed the testamentary petition seeking probate of the purported will of 2006.

Madhaviben Sagar died on August 27, 2007, aged 67 years. Her husband Dhirajlal Sagar died in 2004 and the couple had no children. The court was informed that the couple’s estate comprised three buildings opposite Charni Road railway station – three-storey Varsha, one-storey Roshni, and Sagarsamrat that had ground, mezzanine and five upper floors.

Two wills came into the picture after Madhaviben’s death – a will dated December 29, 2006 that Trivedi, her constituted attorney since 2004, wanted probated; and another one dated May 17, 2004, based on which the couple’s nephew and Thane resident Dinesh Soni claimed to be the trustee of the charities that Madhaviben had donated her wealth to. Soni filed a caveat to Trivedi’s probate petition filed in November 2007. Three other nephews also contested Trivedi’s claims – Andheri resident Kishor Vaya and Vile-Parle residents Suresh and Pradeep Vaya.

Soni contended that Trivedi’s petition claiming that Madhaviben had no heirs was filed behind their backs. However, he told the court that he withdrew his caveat after Trivedi filed an allegedly false criminal complaint against him because of which he spent a fortnight in custody.

Trivedi’s lawyer told the court that he had “longstanding business dealings and a close personal association” with the couple. During Dhirajlal’s illness in 2003 and Madhaviben’s hospitalisation in 2004, he had assisted them, and also performed Madhaviben’s last rites. A tenancy agreement for a flat in one of the three buildings had been made in July 2004 in Trivedi’s favour, whereas in 2012, the city civil court had dismissed a petition by the couple’s nephew alleging that Trivedi had encroached on the property.

Soni’s lawyer Aum Kini, however, argued that the will of 2004 was a ten-page handwritten will, signed on each page in Gujarati and English, by which the estate was bequeathed largely to charitable purposes. The will of 2006 was a six-page will in English, signed only on the last page and Trivedi, not related to Madhaviben, was the sole beneficiary.

Kini cited nine things that seemed odd about the 2006 will including a discrepancy in Madhaviben’s date of birth in the will and her income tax returns, inaccurate description of the flats in her building, and no apparent reason for disinheriting relatives and charities mentioned in the will of 2004.

The bequest of the entire estate in Trivedi’s favour was “inherently improbable and contrary to normal human conduct”, Kini said.

The court observed that Madhaviben was an independent “monied lady”. While she may have had reasons to disinherit relatives, excluding the charities altogether and bequeathing everything to one person “certainly raises suspicion”.

Justice Khata said that Trivedi’s claims of Madhaviben having no heirs were “demonstrably false” and “prima facie indicate(d) an attempt to mislead the court”. The suspicious circumstances in the case and Trivedi’s conduct remained wholly unexplained, the court said. “Conduct of this nature cannot be countenanced.”

The court also said that criminal proceedings initiated by Trivedi against trustees and attesting witnesses who supported the will of 2004 “was a blatant attempt to eliminate opposition”.