Judge: Do all the plaintiffs so agree?

Plaintiffs: We do, your Honour.

Judge:  Let that be so recorded. Let the court clerk briefly narrate the nature of the case brought against the defendant Mr Dayal.

Court Clerk: Your Honour, the petitioners are residents of the village of Raksha, near the town of Nirbhaya in the state of Adarsh Pradesh. The defendant resides next to the plaintiffs. His property adjoins the land on which the plaintiffs’ house stands.  The plaintiffs claim that during his lifetime, Kabir Patel, the father of plaintiffs 1, 2, and 3 and husband of plaintiff no. 4, had purchased a plot of land from the defendant, which purchase was duly transacted in accordance with the procedures laid down by law. The purchaser, who is the father of the first three plaintiffs and the husband of plaintiff No. 4, has since then been deceased and has left no will. Hence, the property passes to the heirs by right of succession, namely the plaintiffs. Reliable information indicates that the sale deed and other relevant papers are in the possession of the defendant, who has neither handed over the purchased land nor parted with the documents. The plaintiffs are in dire financial distress and have no property except the house in which they live, whereas the defendant owns vast tracts of land that lie contiguous to his house compound. But…..

Judge: Wait. Are the petitioners claiming mercy or justice?

Plaintiff 1: Your Honour, we don’t want his charity. We only want what is rightfully ours. The plot of land he sold to my father, which Mr Dayal refuses to part with, though he has ample lands of his own.

Court Clerk: The plaintiffs further claim that the defendant has acknowledged that he is in possession of papers that were drawn up between him and my father when the land deal was struck, and both parties have signed on the dotted line. And despite such admission, he has declined to hand over the land and the papers to the plaintiffs.

Plaintiff 1: Besides, we have a witness who will depose that she was a witness to the actual sealing of the land deal. So he must be made to yield to our demands made in this petition, Your Honour. 

Judge: Mr Kabir, you are speaking out of turn and pleading your case before we have heard all of the depositions and statements.  Besides, we don’t hear demands here, but listen to prayers. Mr Clerk, I think we have heard a sufficient outline of the case at hand and the issues involved. We would like to hear the statements of both parties. Mr Kabir, would you like to make a statement now? 

Plaintiff 1:  My father was a good and conscientious man, Your Honour. He loved us very much, and we took the utmost care of him right till the end. He was a learned man and the Headmaster of our local school.  He was skilled in yoga, taught yogic practices at school and also conducted yoga classes for the community. Though his salary was not much, he was well respected. It was his wish that before he left the world, he would leave something behind for us to show how much he loved us and loathed to part from us. And he did exactly that, but Mr Dayal, who claims to be his friend, is doing his best to deny us that benefit and insult the memory of my dear father.

Judge: Please tell this court, how did your father die, Mr Kabir?

Plaintiff 1: It is our great misfortune, Your Honour, that we do not know how he died. Exactly two months ago, when he was alone in the house, and we brothers had gone to win our bread for the family, and our mother had gone to tend to a neighbour’s child, our father disappeared. He has never been seen again. My father was most infirm and could be said to be almost incapable of ambulation. It is our firm belief that he was spirited away by some malicious person who wanted to harm his family. And doubtless, he has died since because he could not have survived the trauma of abduction and separation from his family. 

Judge: Do you suspect anyone of kidnapping your father?

Plaintiff 1: Well, he could not have gone with anyone whom he did not know. So his abductor was someone he knew well! A close friend.

Judge: So he went of his own accord, left along with a friend who helped him get away?

Plaintiff 1: Your Honour, that is not the way I see it. My father most certainly would not have gone willingly. Somebody lured him away, and whoever did that is most likely responsible for his death as well.

Judge: So you are certain that your father is dead, and you are equally sure that he did not make a will. What has made you so positive about your assertions?

Plaintiff 1: Your Honour, you can direct your queries at our ill-wisher against whom we have lodged our case.  He claims to be my father’s best friend, and he has all the papers in his possession.

Judge: You have stated that you have a witness who will testify that there was indeed a land transaction between your father and the defendant. Is the witness present in court?

Plaintiff 1: Yes, Your Honour. However, since the defendant has already accepted that there is a documented land transaction between him and my father, I am rather inclined not to call her as my witness.

Judge: Why should you demur in calling a witness who will bear out your claims about the sale of a piece of land?

Plaintiff 1: Well, my Lord. It is possible she may turn out to be a hostile witness, and may make strongly biased statements that are derogatory, and could even be detrimental to our interests.

Judge: Well, in that case, the court may decide to call the witness from the court’s side.

Plaintiff 1: That would be highly irregular, Your Honour, and I don’t see what would be gained from calling such a witness!

Judge: We shall see about that. And now, if you have nothing more to say, I will call upon the defendant to make his statement.

Dayal:   My lord, the plaintiffs have no case against me. They have no will that bequeaths to them the plot of land that my friend had bought from me. They have no evidence that my friend is even dead. So far as we know, he has disappeared. But this much I can vouch for, that wherever he is, he is far better off there. At last, he has escaped the hell that his so-called loving family had consigned him to.

Plaintiff 1: Your Honour, I most strenuously object to that aspersion.

Dayal: I am talking about ugly realities, not aspersions. The plaintiffs constitute the most wicked family I have come across in my life, and I have had to bear the anguish of having my best friend forced to the wall by such cruelty and callousness as can only be described by one word: evil.

All plaintiffs together: My Lord, surely you cannot allow such profanity in your court! He must be booked for contempt and beg the court’s mercy at once!

Judge: I am inclined to think that the defendant has made most objectionable remarks and has not shown the respect due to this court. The defendant is cautioned against such outbursts, and any repetition will render him guilty of contempt of court. The remarks made by the defendant may be expunged. You may carry on.

Dayal: I render sincere apologies to the Honourable Court. I got carried away. I loved my friend, who was the best human being I have ever known. The suffering he endured in silence has broken out in me. Today, his family pleads love for him, and had he been alive today, I would have gone to any extent to destroy those who would sully his name thus.    

Judge: Then you, too, believe that he is dead, which indicates you have knowledge that you have not shared fully with this court.       

Plaintiff 1:  Your Honour, you have heard now from the opposite party himself that my father is no more. This not only establishes that my father is dead but also endorses our claim to the property that is being illegally held by this man.

Judge: Don’t you want to know how your father died? Don’t you want a closure that can help ease the pain of not knowing what had become of your father?

Plaintiff 1: It is clear that this man kidnapped my father and is also implicated in his death. He was there that day with my father when we left, and later stuck to an alibi that he had gone home, leaving my father on his bed.

Dayal: That is right. I went home with my friend lying in his bed. I guess my accuser is unaware of the term corpus delicti. It is possible that after I left, one or more of the plaintiffs returned home and spirited off the head of the family for reasons best known to themselves.

Plaintiffs: How dare you suggest such a thing? Why on earth would we cause harm to him?

Dayal: For people who have caused nothing but harm to him all through his life, you could only have ceased causing harm to him when he was dead.

Judge: If you have done with your recriminations, we can proceed with the case. There is a case of corpus delicti here because the death of Mr Kabir Patel has not been established. We have been informed that he disappeared from his home two months ago, and no one has seen him since. A person who has vanished cannot be presumed dead unless seven years have elapsed during which he does not reappear. Do the plaintiffs have any evidence to establish the death of Mr Kabir Patel beyond any reasonable doubt?

Plaintiff 1: Really, Your Honour, the thought that my father is still alive is not tenable. He was ailing and on the point of death when he was abducted. In fact, whoever took him away is also responsible for his death. There is a murder involved here, Your Honour. But that is for another court to decide.

Dayal: In which case, the case of homicide needs to be decided first to establish the death of my friend. Thereafter, the case for inheritance and will can be taken up.

Plaintiff 1: Your Honour, this is a ploy adopted by the defendant to get out of his obligations towards our family. He was the last person to see my father alive, and he knows fully well that my father is no more in this world. 

Judge: Mr Dayal, were you the last person to see Mr Kabir Patel alive?

Dayal: I don’t know. When I saw him last, he was alive. If, thereafter, somebody saw him alive, then that person would be the last person to see him alive before he died.

Judge: That’s the second time you have referred to Mr Patel as deceased. It is clear that you do know about his death, and it is your duty to tell the court about it.

Dayal: Your Honour, the plaintiffs, too, are sure that Mr Kabir Patel is dead. In fact, they have lodged this case with the firm belief that Mr Patel is dead, and hence his property should go to them. Is it not reasonable to assume that it is they who know about his death, which they should divulge before the court?

Judge: Mr Kabir, I think it is in your interest to provide concrete evidence of your father’s death. So if you have something to tell us, let it be now.

Plaintiff 1: I had gone to work as usual on the morning of my father’s death. But when I reached my place of work, my superior told me I had been fired, and so he could not take me on duty.

Judge: Why were you fired?

Plaintiff 1: Your Honour, that has nothing to do with our case.

Dayal: It certainly has. Your Honour, he had no job because he never wanted to do one in the first place. And that goes for the other brothers, too. All they did was meet at some other shiftless friend’s house, and while away their time drinking, playing cards and perhaps other things too. Their father had to bear with all their idling and wasteful expenses, and went bankrupt himself. He gave everything to raise them well, and they paid him back equally well by giving him all the misery and wretchedness he could endure, and beyond.

Plaintiffs: This man’s mouth needs to be shut, because he lies!

Plaintiff 1: He is not only a liar but a killer as well. That day, I returned home and found the front door open. I went immediately to my father’s room and found him lying dead in his bed. I hurried to the back door and found that open as well, and when I looked out, I found Mr Dayal hurrying into his own compound, which is separated from ours by a wicker gate.

Judge: Why didn’t you say all this before?

Plaintiff 1: Because I thought I would be suspected.

Judge: Of what?

Plaintiff 1: I don’t know, but the fact remains I saw my father dead, and the defendant had just left by the back door.

Judge: And how did you know that your father was dead?

Plaintiff 1: My lord, I can tell the difference between a dead man and a live one. Seeing my father dead, I ran to my neighbour’s house to tell my mother, and get her back to the house. But when we came back, I found my father’s body had disappeared! Now I know this was the defendant’s work to prevent us from claiming the property as rightful heirs.

Dayal: Or the plaintiffs decided to get rid of their father to claim the land he bought from me.

Judge: So you admit that you sold a piece of land to your friend.

Dayal: That is what the plaintiffs allege, Your Honour. So they have dragged me to court not so much to punish me for killing their esteemed father ( or husband) but to extract that last juice of life in my friend, even after his death. I have offered them a plot of land much larger than the one he bought from me, but they have declined.

Plaintiff 1: The defendant is a cheat, Your Honour. We strongly feel that the piece of land my father bought from him is far more valuable than the one he offers to us, which is at the far end of his property without any access to a road. We want the land my father bought, no less.

Dayal: I have offered the alternate plot of land to the plaintiffs, not as any compensation. It is to honour the memory of my friend, who, even beyond his grave, despite the torture and vilification inflicted upon him, would still not want his family on the streets. They have no right to the property they claim, both morally and legally. Your Honour, I suggest you call the witness that the plaintiffs are conveniently avoiding calling, even though she is listed as their witness. I am confident she will shed light on this case, which will assist you in making your decision. 

Plaintiff 1: My lord, the defendant is trying to teach you your job. He is misleading the Honourable Court and diverting attention from his own guilt of not just misappropriation but brutal murder. He should be censured accordingly.

Judge: Mr Kabir, were he guilty of the charges you levy against him, mere admonition through censure would hardly be commensurate with the crimes. But I find both parties are trying to outdo each other in equivocation, and to get at the truth, it will be worthwhile to call the witness. Let M/s Maria Patel, who will depose as a witness, take the stand.

Court Clerk: Maria Patel, do you swear on the Bhagwad Geeta that you will tell the truth, and nothing but the truth?

Maria: I do.

Judge: You are Maria Patel, the daughter of Madhu Patel, who was brother to Mr Kabir Patel, and the plaintiffs are your cousins and plaintiff no.4, your aunt

Maria: Yes, Your Honour.

Judge: You reside with the plaintiffs.

Maria: Yes, Sir. I have been living with them for the last fifteen years. Ever since my father’s death, my uncle has taken me into his family as his own child, and a kinder parent I have not known. I called him Daddy.

Judge: Do you know the defendant?

Maria: Yes, Sir. I know Uncle Dayal. He was Daddy’s best friend and did all he could to make his life easier. Right till the end, he was with Daddy, and Daddy never let go of his hand.

Judge: You mean to say that your Uncle was there when your Daddy died?

Maria: The last time I saw Daddy, he was with Uncle. But he was alive then, because they were talking.

Judge: Did you hear what they were saying?

Maria: Not all of it, but Daddy wanted Uncle to do something which Uncle was resisting. 

Plaintiff 1: I knew it. There you are, Your Honour. It is now crystal clear that it was the defendant who spirited away my father before I could return with my mother. He took away the body so that we would not be able to prove my father’s death.

Judge: Mr Kabir, so far, all this hearing has been able to ascertain from you, the defendant and the witness, is that your father was alive before he disappeared.

Plaintiff 1: But, Your Honour, I saw the body myself, and you have ignored that fact.

Judge: Mr Kabir, you did not confirm that your father was dead when you saw him lying on his bed. The defendant, too, has claimed that when he last saw your father, he was alive. The witness Maria has also testified that when she last saw Mr Patel, he was with his friend and alive. 

Judge: Maria, when you saw your Daddy and Uncle together, did you hear them say anything about the sale of some property between them?

Maria: Well. What I heard was Uncle telling my Daddy that he had drawn up the papers for the sale of land to my Daddy, but he had doubled the area proposed by him, and there was no charge for that. Daddy said there was not much time left to argue, and the papers must be signed at once.

Judge: Maria, did you see any of those documents they might have been referring to?

Marai: No, Sir.

Judge: What happened then?

Maria:  My Uncle left by the back door, and I went back to the shop.

Judge: What shop?

Maria: Your Honour, I work in a local grocery shop. Do odd jobs for the proprietor, for which he pays me monthly wages.

Plaintiff 1: What? How is it that you did not tell us about it?

Maria: I don’t see why I should have. I would never have been able to keep that money had you all come to know. That money was for my Daddy, his food, his medicines and other things he needed from time to time.  My cousins and aunt did absolutely nothing for him and left it entirely to me to fend for him. They thought I was receiving money from my Uncle Dayal, and that would suffice for Daddy and me. My cousins are not only callous, but lazy as well. They manage to survive by scrounging, gambling, borrowing in the name of their father and doing odd jobs here and there.

Plaintiff 1: I knew this would happen. That is why I did not call her as a witness, because she would say nasty things about us that are not true at all. But what matters is that her testimony proves that my father did indeed buy a plot of land from the defendant, who doubled the area by his own admission. Now that my father is dead, the man has turned face and denies us, the rightful heirs, possession.

Judge: Maria, do you know where your father is now?

Maria: No, Sir. But I fear he is no longer alive, as his health was precarious. Without his medicines and my care, he would not have lived more than a few days. When he was alive, I looked after him because he was my world. It was worth my life to serve him. I fed him, helped him clothe himself, gave him his medications in time, cleaned his room, did his bed, washed his clothes and ran his errands. My greatest happiness lay in tending to him. I can never figure out why such a man as he could be treated so shabbily by his own family members, who now claim his property on the strength of their love for him! What love? Daddy did not owe anything to them, and despite their ill treatment has still left them his house to live in. 

Judge: Did your Daddy have friends who visited him after his retirement?

Maria: Yes, Sir. He had many friends who came to see him off and on. He was much loved by all, except his family. He was an expert in yoga, and even in his last days performed yogic exercises as well as he could, given his circumstances. 

Judge: Where are you staying these days?

Maria: Your Honour, I am staying with a friend near the shop. She is very close to me. Now that my Daddy is no more, I cannot go back to that house and live with folks who hated him, and me as well.

Plaintiff 1: Nor would we like you to live with us, you ingrate. But I know when we get back our property, you will come wheedling to us. Let me tell you here and now, you are not welcome in our house.

Maria: That’s not your house. It is my Daddy’s house. He should have turned you all out long ago. But his goodness prevailed. I wish it hadn’t.

Judge: Maria. You have lived your whole life here, and I am sure you know all the people around here. Have you asked around to find out if anybody had seen your father around on the day he disappeared, or subsequently?

Maria: I did, Sir. I went to everyone out here, and even to the adjoining villages. But none had seen him, or even heard of him being somewhere. If his own family loved him so much and took such good care of him, they should know.

Plaintiffs: Wretched girl! Your Honour, this woman should be taken off the stand!

Judge: Sit down, all of you. You know fully well that it is up to me to decide things here, and any presumption otherwise is best abandoned forthwith. I believe this witness has no reason to tell lies in respect of the whereabouts of her Daddy. He was in her care, and since she was devoted to him, do everything to find him so that she can save his life. Mr Kabir Patel is being held here, somewhere in the premises of either his family or the defendant.

Plaintiff 1: Your Honour, that is an insinuation that is most unjustified. The police have already searched our premises and found no one being held, as you put it.

Judge: The police have searched the premises of the defendant, too. And found no one there. The only reasonable conclusion one can draw from all this is that Mr Patel is……

Plaintiff 1: Dead, Your Honour. And the man who is sitting in front of us is the one who is responsible for his death. And in all fairness should hand over what he has stolen from his beloved friend to the rightful heirs.

Judge: It does seem to me that the defendant has the most to gain from the death and disappearance of the body of Mr Kabir Patel.

Maria: May I say something, Your Honour? I was in Karbala. A village about ten kilometres from here, to deliver some goods for a family there. There, I heard that certain obsequies had been performed in a house there, for a man who was much loved there. Daddy was a frequent visitor to that village whose inhabitants loved him dearly. And he stayed at the house I have mentioned.

Judge: And whose house was that where the obsequies had been performed? Does the owner have anything to do with this village? Who is he?

Maria: Uncle Dayal. It is his ancestral house. I knew then that my Daddy was dead, and my Uncle had performed his duties as the one closest to him. Something his own family would never have done.

Judge: Well, Maria, you may step down. Does the defendant have something to say about this?

Dayal: Your Honour, this case has come to your esteemed court as a land dispute, and I pray that it should remain as such. The plaintiffs want me to return their property, which they claim has been sold by me to my friend. I have offered them land far more in excess of that which my friend bought of me. Let them take it and let this case be closed. 

Plaintiff 1: We refuse to accept his offer, Your Honour. He wants to cheat us, because we are sure the property bought by my father is far more valuable than that offered by this greedy man. We will settle for no less than the bought land, and will accept nothing else than that.

Judge: You have performed certain ceremonies for your friend in your village, and that makes it most likely that your friend, Mr Kabir Patel, is no more. But you are right. This is a land dispute, and must remain so. Apart from the plaintiffs’ claim, a witness who is very close to you has deposed that she overheard your land transaction and the imminent signing of the papers. Doubtless, the papers are registered and legal, and now in your possession. Any attempt to hold on to them will render you liable to be prosecuted for willful and illegal possession of property that belongs to another with the intent to defraud and make unlawful gains. That apart, you have a lot of explaining to do about the disappearance of Mr Kabir Patel, whom you may be holding at your ancestral house in that village, a place that has not been searched as yet.

Dayal: Your Honour, the property in question, though sold by me to my friend, must at his behest remain with me. He had decided that land would never go to his family and made me promise as such. I gave him my word, Your Honour. I have offered a large plot of land to the plaintiffs in lieu and am willing to double that offer. Let the plaintiffs accept, and if it please Your honour, let this case be closed on this fair offer I make.

Plaintiff 1: My Lord, this man is a murderer. He is not to be trusted! Let him hand over the property and papers which my dear father bequeathed to us. We will accept no more, no less. Let justice be done.

Judge: Let justice be done. So be it. I have decided that the defendant is guilty of unlawfully appropriating a plot of land sold by him to his friend. Under the rule of succession, the plaintiffs are the rightful owners of that land and must be given their due. I hereby order that the sale deed and other relevant papers about the sold land be handed over here and now by the defendant to the plaintiffs under due acceptance, and in my presence. The subject land itself must be made over to the plaintiffs within twenty-four hours from the date and time of issue of this order.

Dayal: Your Honour, I had sworn to my friend on his deathbed that this land would never be handed over to the plaintiffs. I must now forswear that promise because the law is above all and must be honoured.

Judge: You may hand over the papers to me first, and let me satisfy myself that they are indeed the correct papers.

Dayal:  As you desire, Your Honour.

Judge: Well, I think the papers are in order. I think I understand why you have been adamant in not handing over the papers. This is indeed a remarkable document. Mr Kabir may please step forward and take the papers over on behalf of all plaintiffs, and acknowledge accordingly.

Plaintiffs: Thank You, Your Honour. Justice has been done.

Judge: Mr  Dayal, you may now tell us where you have kept your friend, and whether there are other papers left behind by Mr Patel.

Dayal: Your Honour, there is one more document that my friend entrusted to me, which you may like to peruse.

Plaintiffs: What is this? This cannot be the land bequeathed to us. The defendant is yet again perpetrating a hoax, and must be made to hand over the original documents to us at once by Your Honour!

Judge: Mr Kabir, I have gone through the papers and must assure you that they are genuine. You have got what you wanted, and you and the other plaintiffs should be happy with what you have received. After all, you loved your father truly, and though your father did not intend to leave this plot of land to you, in the end, it is the blood that counts.

Plaintiff 1: Your Honour, we refuse to take over this land, and will be content to receive the land the defendant has assured in lieu. He has made his offer openly in court in your presence, and hence we pray that it may so be decreed.

Judge: I also heard in open court your unequivocal refusal to accept anything less than the land sold by the defendant to your father. And to leave no doubt in the minds of all present, you have reiterated your refusal.  So you cannot now lay claim to what you have declined so categorically. The land your father purchased from the defendant is now yours, and you can claim possession of it by the morrow.

Plaintiff 1: Well, in that case, we reject the decision of this court. I will appeal against this most dreadful decision made by Your Honour.

Judge: Stay, Mr Kabir. You have dishonoured this court, committing a breach of privilege by tearing up the documents given in trust to you, in open court. By doing so, you have also seriously compromised your chances on appeal. You are held guilty of contempt of court and shall be sentenced accordingly.

Dayal:   Your Honour, if it please the court, may I propose something?

Judge: By all means. You have stated that there is another document in your possession which you received from your friend. The court would like to know about the contents of that document.

Dayal: It is precisely what I had in mind, Your Honour. Now that the promise I made to my friend is broken, and the plaintiffs are in possession of the last thing he wanted them to have, I wish to make public the document that I still have in my possession, despite the intensely personal nature of its contents.  It is no less than the will, drawn up and executed by my friend.

Plaintiff 1: So he did make a will, as we had thought. This is yet again an example of the subterfuge and chicanery used by the defendant. We demand that the contents of the will be disclosed forthwith, and I am sure we shall be vindicated.

Judge: Mr Kabir, you have already been vindicated and received what was rightfully yours. I don’t know what further gains you expect to make through the will. Mr Dayal, will you please hand the will over to the court clerk, who may read it out aloud so that all may listen?

Dayal:  Yes, Your Honour.

Court Clerk: My dear Shankar. This is a letter to you as well as my will. Not that I have anything to give, but whatever I called mine during my life has to be disposed of, now that I have decided on my death. Like all lives, I have had some good things in life, as well as the bad. No need to tell you about the bad, because you know that already. I wish my family had given me sorrow and grief, because these are given by those who love you, or those you love. It’s the misery and wretchedness given by those who hate you that bear you down. And sap the will to live. And that my wife and sons gave me in plenty.  I don’t attribute that to some wrong I did in some previous life, or an unfair deal meted out by a capricious God. You just get what you get, and no amount of speculation can change that. I got you too for a friend and Maria as a daughter. So things have balanced out, as they probably do in everybody’s lives.

I have bought a piece of land from you, and you know why. I have paid for it with my own money, a gratuity I received from the School. I had always wanted that, to have land there is my very own, and only for myself. I am aware that after my death, I will have no control over its disposal. So I give it to you for possession after my death, to do as you wish with it. The rest of my gratuity goes to Maria, who has tended to me so selflessly. It’s my wish that after I am gone, you take the responsibility of taking care of Maria for life. Your love is a part of what I own, and hence I bequeath it to Maria through you. I hate to leave anything to my family. Yet, I cannot leave them behind without any shelter, living on the streets. Strange how filial duties are reversed at the time of death, and conjugal ties, too, need to be reconciled. I leave my house with all its assets, except my books and writings that will go to Maria, to my wife and three sons as a gesture of mercy, not forgiveness. 

You are aware that I am proficient in yogic exercises and have mastered the art of dying by will. Just as I can hold my breath for hours without dying, I can consciously let my being just die whenever I want. The time has come to perform my last act of the wilful exercise of spirit. When it is over, you shall remove my body from my house and dispose of it in the manner I have told you. If your inclinations lead you to perform some obsequies that are generally performed a few days after death, you may do so. But none of my family must be present, nor should it be within their knowledge. What I ask you to do, I consider it done because I own your love. It is my most precious property, and that part of it which I intend to take along with me. I look forward to being with you again hereafter, because it’s just a matter of time, not destiny. Meanwhile, be happy, my friend, and make me proud wherever I am.

Judge: Well, I think the will clears up all that had still been dark. It is clear that Mr Kabir Patel was still alive when you saw him at your house. He had used his yogic powers to stop breathing and stimulate death, because he knew you would then leave to call in the others. And in that time, he had planned to draw his will, and then will himself to die, allowing time for his friend to remove his body. So we can absolve the defendant of the allegation that he had killed his friend.

There is only one thing left to clear up, and for that, I will ask the defendant to clarify why he doubled the land bought by his friend in the land transaction, and did that without charge.

Dayal: Your Honour, I too have drawn up my will, and all my property goes to Maria, who intends to build a school on it.

Judge: All of your property?

Dayal: Yes, Your Honour, except for that piece of land I included in my friend’s sale deed before he signed the papers. That piece of land I have kept with me.

Judge: Why?

Dayal: That I may lie next to him.

Judge: Ah! I now have all the facts, and since my verdict has already been delivered in this case, the case is closed. Next.

Court Clerk: There are no other causes listed for today, Your Honour.

Well, in that case, this court is adjourned.

Bailiff: All rise!

Court Clerk: Mr Bailiff. Now that everybody has left, I can safely ask you what you think of our new judge. This was his first day.

Bailiff: Well. I do think his manner of conducting the case was a bit unusual. I have never seen a case handled this way.

Court Clerk: I couldn’t agree with you more. But the reason I ask is that I have just received a message from Justice Pandava that, due to a delay in his flight, he would not be able to hold court today. 

Bailiff: How extraordinary! Then who was it who sat in his place?

Court Clerk: I haven’t the least idea, Mr Bailiff. But a case has been disposed of today, and I have to remove it from the cause list.

Bailiff: But how do you propose to account for it? And how will this day count?

Court Clerk: There is no other way but to declare this day as dies non. And I must record that no case was heard today. For me… for us, this case never existed and was never heard at all.

Bailiff: I agree. Please strike off the case. And for the purposes of the record, we were never present in court today.

Court Clerk: And so it shall be. A good day to you, Sir.

Bailiff: A good day to you.