Khatun v Hasan & Anor (Re Estate of Mr Monir Jaman Shaikh (Deceased)(Probate)) [2025] EWHC 1658 (Ch) (01 July 2025)

Khatun v Hasan & Anor (Re Estate of Mr Monir Jaman Shaikh (Deceased)(Probate)) [2025] EWHC 1658 (Ch) (01 July 2025)

The court found that, although there were procedural deficiencies and the expert handwriting evidence was not tested in cross-examination, the evidence as a whole did not arouse sufficient suspicion to displace the presumption of due execution. Both attesting witnesses gave evidence and the original will was produced and inspected. The burden remained on the Defendants to prove the will's validity, which they discharged on the balance of probabilities. The application for adjournment to obtain further expert evidence was refused as unjustified and too late. The claim of forgery was not made out and the will was upheld.

Citation
[2025] EWHC 1658 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: Mrs Mosammat Shapna Khatun; First Defendant: Mr Shamim Hasan; Second Defendant: Mr Rajesh Kumar Singh Pathania
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
01 July 2025
Procedural Posture
Probate Claim (challenge to Will) / Post Trial Judgment
Outcome
Claim dismissed; will upheld as valid.
Legal Topics
Forgery of Will, Burden of Proof in Probate, Due Execution of Wills, Admissibility of Expert Evidence, Procedural Compliance Under CPR 57, Adjournment Applications, Testamentary Capacity, Knowledge and Approval, Public Interest in Upholding Testamentary Dispositions
Probate Wills and Estates Civil Procedure Forgery of Will Burden of Proof in Probate Due Execution of Wills Admissibility of Expert Evidence Procedural Compliance Under CPR 57 +4 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mrs Mosammat Shapna Khatun

Claimant

Mr Shamim Hasan

First Defendant

Mr Rajesh Kumar Singh Pathania

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Probate Claim (challenge to Will) / Post Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the will dated 19 September 2019 was a forgery and not executed by Mr Shaikh
  2. 2 Whether the will was duly executed in accordance with s.9 Wills Act 1837
  3. 3 Whether the burden of proof lies on the party propounding the will or the challenger in cases of alleged forgery

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that, although there were procedural deficiencies and the expert handwriting evidence was not tested in cross-examination, the evidence as a whole did not arouse sufficient suspicion to displace the presumption of due execution. Both attesting witnesses gave evidence and the original will was produced and inspected. The burden remained on the Defendants to prove the will's validity, which they discharged on the balance of probabilities. The application for adjournment to obtain further expert evidence was refused as unjustified and too late. The claim of forgery was not made out and the will was upheld.

Court Disposition

Claim dismissed; will upheld as valid.

Orders

  • The claim challenging the validity of the will dated 19 September 2019 is dismissed.
  • The will is admitted to probate.