Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback High Court of Fiji

Re Suruj Dulari [2001] FJHC 154; HPP38626d.2001s (1 December 2001)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
(AT SUVA)

PROBATE JURISDICTION NO. 38626
CAVEAT NO. 6 OF 2001

IN THE MATTER OF:

SURUJ DULARI deceased
(a.k.a. Suruj Dulari Singh)

P. Howard for the Caveators
A.K. Singh for the Caveatee

DECISION

On 2 February 2001 this Court ordered that a document appearing to be a photocopy of a will of Suruj Dulari deceased be admitted to proof and that probate be granted to be deceased’s niece Shayl Kumari Singh.

On a date unknown to me the deceased’s three sisters entered a caveat in the deceased’s estate. This is an application for that caveat to be removed.

Three affidavits were filed:

(i) Caveators, 24 May 2001;
(ii) Caveatee, 9 June 2001;
(iii) Caveatee, 16 July 2001.

The Caveators claimed in their affidavit that the will was not the true will of the deceased. They averred that the signature on the will was not the same as that on the deceased’s passport, that the deceased “greatly disliked” the Caveatee, that she did not trust Mr. Veretawatini (the barrister and solicitor who prepared the will) and that she had declared that she would give him no further work. In paragraph 3 of the affidavit the sisters averred that:

“In the conduct of our business and personal affairs we consult closely with each other. We are familiar with the ways of each other. We have over the years had very few arguments. We are very close.”

What the caveators did not reveal emerged in the caveatee’s second affidavit. This was that two weeks prior to swearing their affidavit one of the caveators, Shakuntala Devi was indicted on a charge of manslaughter by knifing her sister, the deceased, to death the previous November.

On the third page of her sentencing remarks, following a plea of guilty by Shakuntala Devi to the charge, the presiding Judge said:

“Shiu Dulari is the accused’s and the deceased’s sister. She gave evidence that all the sisters shared a good relationship except for the deceased who was universally disliked. She said that she and the deceased had not spoken since 1966 and that the deceased was trouble maker with a violent propensity who had also stabbed one Akosita Rabuli. She said she had not gone to the deceased’s funeral.”

And later at page 4:

“the evidence before me reveals a long bitter relationship between the deceased and her sisters which culminated in her death.”

In view of the affidavit evidence it was clearly necessary that a trial be held to determine the validity of the will.

On 11 December I heard evidence from Mr. E. Veretawatini and his law clerk Ms. Maureen Gounder.

Both witnesses told me that on the morning of 25 September 2000 the deceased who was well known to them and liked by them arrived at Mr. Veretawatini’s law offices at Nausori. She asked them to prepare a will for her according to her instructions which were then given. About 40 minutes later when the will had been drawn up it was read over and explained to her by Mr. Veretawatini and Ms. Gounder. The deceased then signed the will which was witnessed by Mr. Veretawatini and Ms. Goundar. The deceased then went away taking the original of the will with her.

Both Mr. Veretawatini and Ms. Gounder were cross examined by Mr. Howard.

After Mr. Singh closed his case Mr. Howard indicated that he would not be calling any witnesses. He explained that as he saw it the purpose of the trial and his questioning had been to investigate whether the will had been properly and duly prepared. He conceded that on the evidence placed before the Court it appeared that it had.

I agree. Having heard Mr. Veretawatini, a highly respected member of the Bar and his transparently honest law clerk Ms. Gounder I have no hesitation in accepting their account of what occurred on the morning of 25 September. I reject the affidavit evidence of the Caveators as worthless, misleading and false. The inconsistency between the evidence presented by the Caveators to this Court in their affidavit and that presented to the High Court during the criminal trial is so clear as to leave no doubt that lying on oath gives rise to no compunction on their part.

Caveat 6/2001 is to be removed forthwith.

I will hear counsel on the question of costs and in particular whether this is a proper case for an award on an indemnity basis.

M.D. Scott
Judge

21 December 2001