Prakash v Devi [2013] FJHC 528; HPP 03.2010 (11 October 2013)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF FIJI
AT SUVA
PROBATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL NO. HPP 3 of 2010

BETWEEN:

Maya Wati Prakash
PLAINTIFF

AND:

Pranita Devi
DEFENDANT

COUNSEL : Ms. Prem Narayan for the Plaintiff
Mr. W Hiuare for the Defendant

Date of Judgment: 11 October 2013

JUDGMENT

1. On 16 February 2010, Maya Wati Prakash issued a Writ of Summons against her daughter in law Pranita Devi seeking inter alia a revocation of the letter of Administration issued to her on 16 February 2009 for the Estate of her husband, Salen Prakash Maharaj on the premise that she is the sole executor and trustee of the Will of Salen Prakash Maharaj dated 22 December 2006.
   

Brief Background

2. Some of the back ground facts in so far as they are relevant, as stated in the Statement of Claims are as here under:
   
   1. “The Plaintiff is the executor and trustee appointed under the will of Salen Prakash Maharaj (“Deceased”) late of Lot 11, Koronivia Road, Koronivia, Nausori, driver who died on 24 November 2008, the will bearing the date 22 day of December 2006.
      
   2. The Defendant was at all material times the lawful wife of the Deceased.
      
   3. On 16 February 2009, Letters of Administration in Estate of the Deceased was grained to the Defendant.
      
   4. On 23rd January 2010, the Plaintiff’s daughter while searching for her personal documents at the Plaintiff’s residence at Lot 11, Koronivia Road, Koronivia, Nausori discovered a sealed envelope, the contents of which, was the original will of Salen Prakash Maharaj bearing the date 22 day of December 2006.
      
   5. The will appointed the Plaintiff as the executor and trustee and bequeathing all real and personal property to the Plaintiff.
      
   6. The will of the Deceased was prepared by the law firm of Patel Sharma & Associates on 22 December 2006.
      
   7. Subsequently to the Deceased’s death on 24 November 2008, the Plaintiff and her family members had approached the law firm of Patel Sharma & Associates enquiring about the Deceased’s will and were informed by the law firm that the Deceased had not made any will.
      
   8. The law firm of Patel Sharma & Associates had subsequently acted for the Defendant in obtaining a grant of Letters of Administration of the Deceased’s estate.”
      

Reliefs Sought

3. a. that the Court shall decree probate of the will of Salen Prakash Maharaj dated 22 December 2006 in solemn form of law;
   

b. that the Letters of Administration granted on 16 February 2009 is revoked forthwith;

C. the Defendant provide an account of the Estate to date; and

D. any further relief that the Court may consider necessary.

4. The Defendant in the Statement of Defence whilst denying the validity of the Will takes up position that the deceased’s signature in the Will is a forgery.
   

The Disputed Will of 22 December 2006

5. For the ease of understanding the real dispute between parties, I give below the full text of the Will:
   

“ This is the last Will and Testament of me Salen Prakash Maharaj(f/n Satya Prakash) of Lokia, Nausori, in the Republic of Fiji Farmer.

1. I hereby revoke all former Wills and Testamentary dispositions at any time heretofore made by me and declare this to be my last Will and Testament.
   
2. I appoint my mother Maya Wati Prakash (father’s name Ram Chandar Singh) of Lokia, Rewa, in the Republic of Fiji, Domestic Duties as the Sole Executor and Trustee of this my Will.
   
3. I give devise and bequeath the whole of my Estate both real and personal of whatsoever nature or kind and wheresoever situate and over which I have any disposing power at the date of my death unto my Trustee to hold the same upon the following trusts.
   
   1. I direct my Trustee to pay all my just debt, medical, funeral and testamentary expenses.
      
   2. I give devise and bequeath the rest of my real and personal estate property and assets of whatsoever nature and wheresoever situate whether in Fiji or outside Fiji of which I shall be entitled or over which I shall have any disposing power at the date of my death To and unto my mother Maya Wati Prakash (father’s name Ram Chandar Singh) of Lokia Rewa in the Republic of Fiji, Domestic Duties for her own use and benefit absolutely.
      

In Witness whereof I the said Salen Prakash Maharaj (f/n Satya Prakash) of Lokia, Nausori, in the Republic of Fiji, Farmer has hereunto set my hand this 22nd day of December 2006.

Signed

....................

Testator

Signed and Acknowledged by the said Salen Prakash Maharaj (f/n Satya Prakash) of Lokia, Nausori, in the Republic of Fiji, Farmer, as and for his Last Will and Testament after the same had been first read over and explained to him in the English language which he appeared fully to understand and approved the same in the presence of us both being present at the same time who at his request in his sight and presence and in the sight and presence of each other have hereunto subscribed our names as attesting witnesses:

Sgd Sgd

................................... ...................................

Clerk, Suva Dipka Mala (F/n Amrit Prasad)

Merewai Doughty 11 Ruve Street, Samabula. Suva.

Law Clerk.

6. The minutes of the pre trial conference held on 20 April 2011 is important in this case as to ascertain the exact issues for determination of this court:
   

1.0 “Agreed Facts

Deceased

1.01 The Deceased was the son of the Plaintiff.

1.02 The Deceased was married to the Defendant at the time of his death.

1.03 The Deceased died on 24 November 2008.

Grant of Letters of Administration

1.04 On 16 February 2009, Letters of Administration was granted to the Defendant.

Recovery of Will

1.05 On 23 January 2010, A Will was discovered executed by the Deceased.”

1.06 The Will is dated 27 December 2006.

1.07 The Will was prepared by the office of Patel Sharma Lawyers.

2.0 Agreed documents

2.01 Letters of Administration granted to the Defendant in the Deceased’s estate.

2.02 The Will dated 22 December 2006 executed by the Deceased and witnesses by 2 witnesses.

Evidence at the Hearing

7. On behalf of the Plaintiff Maya Wati Prakash, the Plaintiff in this case and Subhashni Lata Singh, a daughter of the Plaintiff gave evidence. At the close of the Plaintiff’s case, the Defendant and her uncle, Jayawant Pratap gave evidence for the Defendant.
   
8. The Plaintiff in her evidence testified that she and her son Salen Prakash Maharaj (Deceased) went to Patel Sharma Lawyers to make wills. One Ms Mala of Patel Sharma Lawyers after obtaining all necessary details from both of them prepared two wills. She stated that she and her son signed the wills in the presence of two witnesses and one of them was Mala. She further stated that her son paid for preparation of both wills although she is unable to recall the amount paid to Lawyers.
   
9. She further stated that her son Salen Prakash Maharaj died of an accident on 24 November 2008 and upon his death she and her daughter in law (the Defendant) went to Patel Sharma Lawyers to find about the will and they were told by Ms Mala that there was no will of Salen Prakash Maharaj. She testifies that her daughter has discovered the will sometime in January 2010 of Salen Prakash Maharaj while searching for some papers. She stated that she is seeking from this court that the Letter of Administration that was granted to the Plaintiff be revoked and the original will of Salen Prakash Maharaj be probated.
   
10. In cross examination, several questions were asked on her understanding of a will. She explained her understanding of a will and stated that Ms Mala of Patel Sharma Lawyers explained about the will in Hindi language. She was also questioned on the signature of the will of the deceased and suggested that the signature of the will is a forged signature which she categorically denied. She stated that deceased made his own will.
    
11. She further stated in cross examination that she contacted Patel Sharma Lawyers several times because she knew that deceased made a will.
    
12. The Plaintiff’s next witness was Ms Subhashni Lata Singh, a daughter of the Plaintiff. She testified that she made an appointment with Patel Sharma Lawyers for the deceased and the Plaintiff to make their wills. She stated that after the death of Salen Prakash Maharaj she together with the Plaintiff, the Defendant and her husband made enquiries from Ms Mala of Patel Sharma Lawyers regarding the will. She also stated that she discovered the will of Salen after about an year when she was in Fiji for a holiday while searching some documents.
    
13. In cross examination she stated that the Defendant, the legal wife is entitled to the Letter of Administration if there is no will of the deceased. The following question were asked on behalf of the Defendant to ascertain in the witness’s interest and discovery of the will.
    

“Mr Hiuare: Mrs Singh because of this after 1 year were looking for the will?

Mrs Singh: I was not looking for the will. I was looking for my other documents there. I found the will and I gave it back to the solicitor. If I was looking for the will I would not go back to Australia I will be still searching for the will here.”

14. The Defendant Pranita Devi, the legal wife of the deceased testified that she was not aware of the will of her husband SalenPrakash Maharaj. After the death of the husband, on the request of Subhashni Lata Singh she, together with Subhashni, the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s husband visited Patel Sharma Lawyers to enquire about the will. She testified what exactly transpired at the lawyer’s office in the following manner:
    

“Mr Hiuare: Pranita Devi... came to Patel Sharma lawyers. Who actually went to Patel Sharma lawyers?

Ms. Devi: Me, Subhashni Singh, Maya Wati Prakash and Mr Singh.

Mr Hiuare: Before going there, were you people discussing about the will. Do you deny.

Ms. Devi: No.

Mr Hiuare: Why were you asked to go to Patel Sharma lawyers?

Ms. Devi: Maya wanted to take out the probate. That is why she took me there.

Mr. Hiuare: When you arrayed at the office, who did you speak to?

Ms. Devi: Mala was there.

Mr Hiuare: Who talked to Mala that time?

Ms Devi: Subhashni Singh.

Mr Hiuare: When you were there what did Subhashni Signh say to Mala that time?

Ms. Devi: She told that mother is here and she wanted to do a probate.

Mr Hiuare: Did Mala talk to you?

Ms. Devi: Yes.

Mr. Hiuare: What did Mala say?

Ms. Devi: She took us to the office of Suruj Sharma.

Mr. Hiuare: In that office who talked to you people?

Ms. Devi: Suruj Sharma.

Mr. Hiuare: What did Suruj Sharma say that time?

Ms Devi: He asked me why I came there?

Mr. Hiuare: Did Suruj Sharma show you anything?

Ms Devi: No.

Mr. Hiuare: So what did Suruj Sharma tell you?

Ms. Devi: He asked me “do you know anything about the probate” and I told him no.

Mr. Hiuare: Did Mala or Suruj show you the will that time?

Ms. Devi: No.

Mr. Hiuare: And what did Suruj Sharma do that time?

Ms. Devi: He told us that he can take out the probate if there is no will. Mala checked and there is no will.

Mr Hiuare: What did Mr Sharma advise you to do?

Ms. Devi: Mr Sharma told Mala to fill a form.

Mr Hiuare: Do you know that form?

Ms Devi: No.

Mr Hiuare: Pranita who advised you that you are entitled to take out the Letter of Administration.

15. She further testified that she visited Patel Sharma lawyers again with her mother’s brother Mr Jayawant Pratap, and other family members to discuss about a settlement. She testified in the following manner with regard to the proposed settlement:
    

“Mr. Hiuare: Who else was helping you at Suruj Sharma after that?

Ms. Devi: My mother’s brother Jayawant Pratap.

Mr. Hiuare: At any time you went to the lawyer’s office, can you recall?

Ms. Devi: Yes.

Mr. Hiuare: In whose office?

Ms. Devi: Suruj Sharma’s office.

Mr. Hiuare: You remember the month or year?

Ms. Devi: I cannot remember?

Mr. Hiuare: Who were there?

Ms. Devi: The lawyer Suruj Sharma, me, Maya Wati, my mum’s brother, the lawyer and Irene.

Mr. Hiuare: Was there any lawyer for Maya Wati that time?

Ms. Devi: Yes there was, Prem Narayan.

Mr. Hiuare: What was the settlement terms being drawn up?

Ms. Devi: My mother’s brother suggested 65% to be given to Maya Wati and 35% for me.

Mr. Hiuare: And how...... this settlement?

Ms. Devi: Maya Wati’s lawyer did not agree.”

16. She under cross examination admitted that the deceased from year 2006 – 2007 period was having defacto relationship with one Ms Pranita Singh, a girl of 15 year old, in the same house. She stated that she used to sleep with the Plaintiff as the deceased was also living in the house with one Ms. Pranita Singh.
    
17. The witness explained further, about the phone call she received from Patel Sharma lawyers regarding the will. He evidence was as follows:
    

“Ms. Narayan: In your evidence in chief you said you became aware of Salen’s will when Mr Sharma’s office called you and told you. Do you agree with that?

Ms Devi: I do not have any idea of Salen’s will. I was contacted by Mr Suruj Sharma of Patel Sharma & Associates who advised me that there was a will in question and she ..... and basically in the absence of a will then Mrs. Prakash can apply for a probate. Patel Sharma had done the search and prior to that advised me that there was no will in question.

Ms. Narayan: When you were asked by your lawyer as to when you became aware of the will in response you were informed by Suruj Sharma’s office that they have received the will. Do you agree with that?

Ms. Devi: In Suruj Sharma’s office I applied for an Letter of Administration application.....

Ms. Narayan: She should be directed to answer the question.

Ms. Devi: After the Letter of Administration was granted at Sharma’s office then Mrs Prakash brought into the picture a will – my husband’s will.

Ms. Narayan: But do you agree with me that it was the office of Suruj Sharma that you see the will? That is what you said in evidence?

Ms. Devi: Mr Sharma was asked to see how the will was made from and Mr Sharma had actually applied for Letter of Administration which was granted. Only interested in seeing the will and looking at the contents of the will. That is the only thing he has to do.

Ms. Narayan: Now isn’t it true when Mr Sharma’s office the will they asked you to see a will?

Ms. Devi: Yes.

Ms. Narayan: So in actual fact Mrs Devi there was a will made by Mr Sharma’s office of Salen Maharaj?

Ms. Devi: The difference is that Salen Maharaj had never executed a will through Suruj Sharma’s office. Had it been that they granted a will they will not apply for Letter of Administration.

18. In the re-examination, she stated that Patel Sharma lawyers are their family lawyers and took out the Letter of Administration as there was no will. She also stated that she wanted to go to a different lawyer but could not afford another lawyer due to financial difficulties.
    
19. Mr. Jayawant Pratap in his evidence testified his involvement in the estate of Salen Prakash Maharaj. He stated the he helped the Defendant as she was his sister’s daughter. He testified that he helped the Defendant in the following manner in his evidence:
    

“Mr Hiuare: Did you seek any advice about this on behalf of Pranita? Did you see any lawyer?

Mr. Pratap: Yes Mr Suruj Sharma, Patel Sharma lawyers. Suruj Sharma is my brother in law from my sister’s husband’s side. He is very close to me too. In fact those people are very close to them too. I went to see him and I sat down. It was on a Saturday. I sat down and had a bowl of grog there then I was telling the story about Pranita’s husband and how to take out the probate and after that there was a clerk by the name of Mala and she was looking and there is no will or anything. There were none there. They checked the computer too and the afternoon there was no copy of the will in the file too. Where there is no will both parties came Salen’s brother and my sister’s daughter Pranita and together they will take out the probate. The probate has to be taken out in Pranita’s name. She is the legal wife. Before that the mother in law was telling the solicitor to take out the probate under her name but the lawyer said it will go to the wife.

Mr. Hiuare: Where were you that time when they were inside the office? Were you outside the office or sitting together on the table?

Mr Pratap: I was Sharma’s office. The first time only Pranita and myself, Mala Pranita and Rosie and Suruj Shama.

Mr. Hiuare: What did you specifically discussed?

Mr Pratap: Discussion was made between both parties. Suruj Sharma said there is no children so the properties will not all go to Pranita. We will be giving 35% and 65% to mother in law. At least she can get something out of it. After some time they found a will there. I get shock. Any paper has to be signed by him he always come and contact me. How come there is a will there which I do not know and Pranita does not know.

The Determination

20. It is clear from agreed facts of the pretrial conference minutes that the execution of the will by the deceased is admitted. I re-iterate the following agreed facts in order to determine the issue in this case.
    
    1. The Last Will of the Deceased was recovered on 23 January 2010.
       
    2. The Will was executed by the Deceased on 22 December 2006.
       
    3. The Deceased’s Will was prepared by Patel Sharma lawyers.
       
21. The Defendant in the Statement of Defence takes up the position of forgery as a ground to challenge and invalidate the will. However it is noted that, the issue of forgery has not been raised as a determination of issue at the pre-trail conference.
    
22. At the outset, court needs to examine the will of Salen Prakash Maharaj dated 22 December 2006 to ascertain whether the will is in accordance with the provisions of Wills Act Cap a which provides:
    

“6. Subject to the provisions of Part V a will is not valid unless it is in writing and executed in the following manner:

(a) It is signed by the testator or by some person in his presence and by his direction in such place on the document as to be apparent on the face of the will that the testator intended by such signature to give effect to the writing as his will;

(b) Such signature is made or acknowledged by the testator in the presence of at least two witnesses present at the same time; and

(c) The witnesses attest and subscribe the will in the presence of the testator, but no form of attestation is necessary.

23. In view of the provisions of the Wills Act, will dated 22 December 2006, is in compliance with the provisions of the same as it satisfies all necessary requirements for a valid will.
    
24. The Defendant submits that the Plaintiff failed to discharge its onus in proving the validity of the will as she the one who seeks to propound the will.
    
25. The Defendant in her submissions relies on Chandra v Chandra (2012) FJHC 1080, Judgment of Calanchini J to support her position.
    

In the above case, court held:

“Whenever it is necessary for an executor to establish due execution of a will, he is required at common law, to call on of the attesting witnesses, if any was available (Bowman v Hodgson (1867) 1 L.R.P and D 362).”

The burden imposed on a party who seeks to propound a will was stated clearly by Lord Hanworth MR in the Estate of Lavinia Musgrove, Davis v Mayhew [1927] P 264 at page 276.

It is clear first, that the onus of proving a will lies upon the party propounding it, and secondly, that he must satisfy the conscience of the Court that the instrument so propounded is the last will of a free and capable testator. To develop this rule a little further – he must show that the testator knew and approved of the instrument as his testament and intended it to be such.

Parke B in the course of his judgment in Barry v Butlin (1) says:

The strict meaning of the term onus probandi is this, that if no evidence is given by the party on whom the burden is cast, the issue must be found against him. In all cases the onus is imposed on the party propounding a will, it is in general discharged by proof of capacity, and the fact of execution, from which the knowledge of and assent to the contents of the instrument are assumed.”

The Court will usually pronounce for a will if one of the attesting witnesses deposes to the due execution of the will. However the Court will not exclude further relevant evidence for the purpose of avoiding fraud. Vere – Wardale – v – Johnson and Others [1949] P 395 is authority for the proposition that “the evidence of the attesting witness to a will is not necessarily conclusive and the court is competent to receive evidence in rebuttal.” Willmer LJ page 397 stated:

It appears to me that the object of the legislature in imposing the strict formalities required by the Wills Act, 1837, was to prevent fraud. My duty here is to do all that I can to see that no fraud is perpetuated; and if I exclude further evidence such a ruling can only assist the possibility of the perpetration of fraud.

In the circumstances it is my opinion that it would be quite wrong, and no in accordance with authority, to exclude such further evidence with regard to the attesting of this will as may be available.”

26. The applicability of the underlying principles in the above judgment in the instant case before court is of paramount importance.
    
27. In my view, the onus of the executor to establish the due execution of will was only if the execution of the will is contested or the will was executed subject to duress, under influence, or lack of proper material status. It is noted that there is no such allegation in this matter and no evidence was adduced to that effect by the Defendant.
    
28. The New Zealand Court of Appeal in J.J. Bishop v P. J Odea & Another – ( 1999) NZCA 239 considered the legal principles applicable in cases of testamentary capacity. It summarized the legal principles as follows:
    

“(1) In probate proceedings those propounding the will do not have to establish that the maker of the will had testamentary capacity, unless there is some evidence raring lack of capacity as a tenable issue. In the absence of such evidence, the maker of a will apparently rational on its face, will be prensumed to have testamentary capacity Re White [1950] NZGazLawRp 66; [1951] NZLR 393 (CA) and Peters v. Morris (CA 99/85:judgment 19 May 1987).

(2). If there is evidence which raises lack of capacity as a tenable issue, the onus of satisfying the Court that the maker of the will did have testamentary capacity rests on those who seeks probate of the will: Public Trustee v Bick [1973] 1 NZLR 301 and Peters v. Morris (supra).

29. In consideration of the above case authorities, it is clear to court that the burden shifts to Plaintiff only if there is any evidence before the court on lack of capacity and in the instance case, I re-iterate that there is no such evidence.
    
30. The Defendant as I stated in my earlier paragraphs that the issue of forgery of signature has not been raised as an issue for determination in this case although pleaded in the Statement of Defense.
    
31. Functions of the pleading has been clearly stated in the case Williams Associates Ltd v Gunwale [2009] FJHC 88; HBC 94 of 2004 (13 February 2009) at Para [106].
    

“.. The Defendant had not specifically pleaded any such defence by way of equitable relief. On this issue, the decision of the High Court of Australia in Dare v Paulham (1982) 148 CLR 658 (Austlii: [1982] HA 70, http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HAC/1982/70 .html) is worth noting:

"6. Pleadings and particulars have a number of functions: they furnish a statement of the case sufficient clear to allow the other party a fair opportunity to meet it (Gould and Birbeck and Bacon v. Mount Oxide Mines Ltd. (In lig.) [1916]HCA 81; [1916] HCA 81; (1916) 22 CLR 490, at p 517; they define the issues for decision in the litigation and thereby enable the relevance and admissibility of evidence to be determined at the trial (Miller v. Cameron [1936] HCA 13; (1936) 54 CLR 572, at pp576-577; and they give a defendant an understanding of a plaintiff's claim in aid of the defendant's right to make a payment into court. Apart from cases where there parties choose to disregard the pleadings and to fight the case on issue chosen at the trial, the relief which may be granted to a party must be founded on the pleadings(Gould and Birbeck and Bacon (1916) 22 CLR, at pp 517, 518; Sri Mahant Gogind Rao v. Sita Ram Kesho (1898) LR 25 Ind App 195, at p 207). But where there is no departure during the trial from the pleaded cause of action, a disconformities between the evidence and particulars earlier furnished will not disentitle a party to a verdict based upon the evidence. Particulars may be amended after the evidence in a trial has closed (Mummery v Irvings Pty Ltd, (1956) [1956] HCA 45; 96 CLR 99, at pp 111, 112, 127), though a failure to amend particulars to accord precisely with the facts which have emerged in the course of evidence does not necessarily preclude a plaintiff from seeking a verdict on the cause of action alleged in reliance upon the facts actually established by the evidence (Leotta v Public Trnsport Commission (N.S.W) (1976) 9 ALR 437, at p 446; 50 ALJR 666, at p 668) (at p664)."

32. As the issue of forgery has been specifically pleaded and some evidence was led to that effect, and inconsideration of the above judgment, I now consider the issue of forgery in this case.
    
33. The burden falls on the Defendant to establish that fraud was involved in the sense that the signatures on the will dated 22 December 2006 was not the signature of the deceased and has been forged.
    
34. It is noted that there was no expert evidence of handwriting led in this case for comparison and no documents were produced in this regard. It is my considered view that mere suggestion to witnesses that the signature in the will is not similar to the signature of deceased is not sufficient to establish forgery in civil standard of proof. I conclude that the Defendant has failed to establish forgery in this case as there was no acceptable evidence before court, even if the court assumes that the forgery of the signature is an issue for determination in the minutes of the pretrial conference.
    
35. I also conclude that the execution of the will is an admitted fact and as a result it was not necessary for the Plaintiff to call either of the attesting witnesses to the will dated 22 December 2006 to establish due execution and hence validity.
    
36. I note that the parties in this case are in this predicament due to the inadvertence of the solicitors acted in the preparation of the will. When all the parties visited after the death of Salen Prakash Maharaj, they were categorically informed that there was no will. The same solicitor subsequently acted for the Defendant and took steps to take out Letter of Administration in favour of the Defendant. When the will was discovered and submitted to the solicitor, he contacted the Defendant and informed that there is a will and thereby the Letter of Administration is in issue. The solicitors are duty bound be maintain proper records and registers for the wills prepared by them on behalf of their clients. It appears that there was no such accurate system registration and recording of wills in the law firm. It also appears that the will is not registered. Wills (Amendment) Act requires the registration of will to avoid the circumstances similar to this case. It is further observed that the existence or the non existence of a will to a complete 3rd party, by the solicitors after the death is also a matter of concern of the court. In my view, the conduct of the solicitor acted for parties initially in preparation of the will and Letter of Administration is unacceptable and unsatisfactory.
    
37. In conclusion, I pronounce the will dated 22 December 2006 is the valid will I order that probate of the will dated 22 December 2006 be granted in favour of the Plaintiff as executor and trustee subject to the lodgment with Chief
    

Registrar of the necessary application. I also order the Letter of Administration granted to the Defendant on 16 February 2009 be revoked forthwith. The Defendant is directed to provide an account of the estate within one month from this judgment. I also order that the Defendant pay the Plaintiff's costs of those proceedings which are fixed summarily in the sum of $1,500.00.

Susantha N. Balapatabendi
JUDGE