Fran­cis Joseph

?A three-year bat­tle for a $100 mil­lion es­tate end­ed in the High Court yes­ter­day, with Jus­tice Carl­ton Best rul­ing that an al­leged will dat­ed Sep­tem­ber 29, 1999, not be pro­bat­ed.

Char­ma Ma­haraj had claimed that she was the last sur­viv­ing ex­ecutrix to the will, and that it be pro­bat­ed. But her two broth­ers, Haim­raj and Vish­nu, staked a claim, say­ing the will was not made by their fa­ther, well-known busi­ness­man Jag­dath Ma­haraj. The ef­fect of the court judg­ment means that the en­tire es­tate is now to be shared up by the sib­lings. In an 11-page judg­ment de­liv­ered yes­ter­day, Best dis­missed the ev­i­dence in the case. He said af­ter read­ing the ev­i­dence in the case, he was con­vinced that the whole ex­er­cise of at­tor­ney Suren Capildeo's prepa­ra­tion and at­tes­ta­tion of the will was a spoof. Best al­so found that the ev­i­dence of Capildeo's sec­re­tary, Sheila Sar­dars­ingh, was cre­ative. "Fur­ther, I have not been con­vinced that their ev­i­dence has risen to the sta­tus of af­fir­ma­tive proof that the sus­pi­cion, which had ex­cit­ed the con­science of the court, has not been dis­si­pat­ed," Best said. He or­dered Char­ma Ma­haraj to pay costs fit for a se­nior and ju­nior at­tor­ney. He grant­ed a stay of ex­e­cu­tion of 28 days in the event of an ap­peal.

Seenath Jairam, SC, Phillip La­m­ont and Ramesh Per­sad-Ma­haraj rep­re­sent­ed the broth­ers, while Alvin Fitz­patrick, SC, and Les­ley Lucky-Sama­roo ap­peared for Char­ma. Jag­dath Ma­haraj, race­horse own­er and busi­ness­man, left a will dat­ed Sep­tem­ber 28, 1999, with two of his six chil­dren as ex­ecu­tors. Ma­haraj left be­hind a horse farm, sawmill and land in Pi­ar­co and Orop­une and prop­er­ties in east Trinidad. He died on De­cem­ber 21, 2005, aged 85, and left his en­tire es­tate to two of his six chil­dren. One of the ex­ecu­tors, Bal­dath Ma­haraj, died be­fore his fa­ther, so his sis­ter Char­ma Ma­haraj was left as sole ex­ecutrix. Af­ter Ma­haraj died in 2005, his daugh­ter Char­ma ap­plied for the pro­bate of the will in Ju­ly 2006, but a caveat was filed by her broth­ers Vish­nu and Haim­raj. Vish­nu lives in Flori­da, while Haim­raj, al­so known as "Gan­ga," re­sides in Cana­da. The two broth­ers ar­gued that their fa­ther did not know and ap­prove the con­tents of the will when it was signed. They are fur­ther con­tend­ing their fa­ther did not give in­struc­tions for the draw­ing up of the will.

Vish­nu and Haim­raj said the con­tents of the will were con­trary to the be­hav­iour and af­fec­tion of their fa­ther. All in all, they are ar­gu­ing that their fa­ther nev­er signed the will. Ac­cord­ing to Best, there were two is­sues be­fore the court:

�2Was the pur­port­ed will ex­e­cut­ed in ac­cor­dance with the pro­vi­sions of the Wills and Pro­bate Or­di­nance?

�2 Did the de­ceased know and ap­prove of the con­tents of the pur­port­ed will?

Best said af­ter Jag­dath died, Haim­raj and Vish­nu per­formed the nec­es­sary fu­ner­al rites at their fa­ther's cre­ma­tion on De­cem­ber 24, 2005.

Two days lat­er, Haim­raj said a quar­rel broke out at Jag­dath's home and his wife be­came up­set and be­gan to cry. Haim­raj claimed that Char­ma came out of Jag­dath's room with sev­er­al pages in her hand and said to his wife: "What are you cry­ing about. Look at the doc­u­ments, look at what you are go­ing to get." Af­ter the cre­ma­tion, Haim­raj asked Char­ma to see his fa­ther's will, but he was told there was no will, that she got every­thing. Haim­raj asked the fol­low­ing day about the will and was di­rect­ed to Capildeo. Haim­raj said when he even­tu­al­ly met with the at­tor­ney, Capildeo told him there was no will and that he should re­turn to his home in Cana­da where he would re­ceive some mon­ey.