Delhi District Court
Priya Arya vs The State (Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi) on 14 September, 2021
IN THE COURT OF SHRI UMED SINGH GREWAL:
ADDITIONAL DISTT. JUDGE02 (WEST): TIS HAZARI
COURTS: DELHI
PC No. 15869/16
CNR No. DLWT010001082013
Priya Arya
W/o Sh. Shatil Arya
D/o Late Sh. Surender Kumar Madan
R/o 294A, Chand Nagar,
Tilak Nagar, New Delhi. ....Petitioner
Versus
1. The State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi).
2. Sh. Lalit Madan
S/o Late Sh. Surender Kumar Madan
R/o 1, MIG Flats, GG1/96A,
Vikas Kunj, New Delhi.
And also at:
Plot No. F105, Jeevan Park,
Uttam Nagar, New Delhi. ....Respondents
PETITION UNDER SECTION 276 OF THE INDIAN
SUCCESSION ACT 1925 FOR GRANT OF
PROBATE IN RESPECT OF REGISTERED WILL
DATED 12.10.2010 EXECUTED BY LATE SMT.
USHA RANI MADAN
Date of filing of the case : 11.11.2013
Date of reserving the judgment : 31.08.2021
Date of pronouncement of Judgment : 14.09.2021
PC No. 15869/16 Priya Arya Vs. State & Ors. Page 1 of 21
JUDGMENT
1. This is a petition under section 276 of Indian Succession Act, 1925 for grant of probate in respect of registered will dated 12.10.2010 executed by Late Smt. Usha Rani Madan qua her movable and immovable properties, in favour of petitioner and respondent no.2.
2. Petitioner's case is that she and respondent no. 2 are sister and brother. Their mother was owner of following properties:
(i). MIG Flat no. GG1/96A, Vikas Puri, New Delhi;
(ii). Built up plot no. F105, measuring 200 sq. yds., Jeevan Park, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi;
(iii). Transformer factory;
(iv). Fixed deposit and cash funds in bank.
Smt. Usha Rani Madan executed a will on 12.10.2010 vide which movable and immovable properties were bequeathed to petitioner and respondent no. 2 in equal proportion. The will was registered in the office SubRegistrarII, Janakpuri, New Delhi vide registration no. 8865, Book No. 3, Vol. No. 7879, page nos. 40 to 42 dated 12.10.2010. It is specifically mentioned in the will that the testatrix had only a son and a daughter and that there was no other person to succeed her. It is next mentioned that the respondent no. 2 had taken her signature on blank papers and she had strong PC No. 15869/16 Priya Arya Vs. State & Ors. Page 2 of 21 apprehension that he may use those papers for his benefits only. It is next mentioned that she had no intention to make further will in future and if she makes any, she would ensure that the same was registered at all cost.
Smt. Usha Rani Madan expired on 05.09.2013 at flat no. GG1/96A, Vikaspuri, Delhi. At the time of execution of will and death, Smt. Usha Rani Madan was sole, absolute and exclusive owner of property nos. (i) & (ii) and had fixed deposit of Rs. 3 lacs with South Indian Bank, Janakpuri Branch, Delhi. At the time of execution, she was in sound and disposing mind and she had signed and put thumb impression on the will in the presence of attesting witnesses after having fully understood the contents thereof. Probate certificate has been demanded in respect of two immovable properties and Rs. 3 lacs lying in South Indian Bank.
3. Preliminary objection in the written statement is that no executor has been appointed in the impugned will and despite it, probate certificate has been claimed under section 276 of Indian Succession Act, 1925 and hence, probate cannot be granted to the petitioner. Next objection is that the petition is not accompanied by verification by one of the attesting witness to the will, which is mandatory under section 281 of Indian Succession Act.
On merit, it is mentioned that Smt. Usha Rani Madan had already executed a will on 18.12.2008 qua the same properties and it was registered as document no. 13270, in additional book no. 3, Vol.
PC No. 15869/16 Priya Arya Vs. State & Ors. Page 3 of 21no. 7678 on pages 148 to 151 on 18.12.2008 in the office Sub RegistrarII, Janakpuri, New Delhi. That will was the last and final will of the lady. After the death of testatrix, the freehold property no. F105, measuring 200 sq. yds., Jeevan Park, Uttam Nagar, Delhi devolved upon him and hence, on 22.10.2013, he gifted that property to his wife Smt. Saloni Madan by executing a gift deed which was registered as document no. 20733, Book No. 1, Vol. No. 21290, from pages 38 to 46, dated 22.10.2013 in the office of SubRegistrarII, Basai Darapur, New Delhi.
Further objection is that the impugned will was not executed by Smt. Usha Rani Madan with her free and sweet will. The marriage of petitioner with one Shatil Arya solemnized on 14.04.2000, was a love marriage. Her parents did not like that marriage as Shatil Arya was unemployed and did not use to do anything. Petitioner's father could not bear that jolt and expired on 18.10.2000. After his death, the testatrix and respondent no. 2 tried their best to settle the husband of petitioner and in that process, a shop bearing no. G7, Kirti Shikhar Building, District Centre, New Delhi was transferred in the name of petitioner by giving no objection certificate in her favour, so that her husband may start a business there. But in March 2005, the petitioner and her husband sold the said shop to a stranger. In order to help her, respondent no. 2 had given her Rs. 2,65,000/ in April and June 2005. The testatrix had also given her Rs. 1,20,000/ vide two cheques in April & June 2005. He had also arranged $2000 for the petitioner from his close friend Sh. Vaibhav Goel and his wife Smt. Lata Goel, PC No. 15869/16 Priya Arya Vs. State & Ors. Page 4 of 21 settled in USA. The testatrix had some gold jewellery having value more than lakhs which she bequeathed to petitioner vide will dated 18.12.2008 and moreover, before her death, she had delivered the said gold jewellery to her. The petitioner had executed an affidavit on 31.01.2009 vide which she had given up right and interest in all assetstangible or/and intangible in the firm namely M/s Priya Sales Corporation which was being run by the respondent no. 2. He never forgot the moral duty of a brother and that is why, he used to pay school fee of her both kids.
It is next pleaded in the written statement that the language of the will puts a big question mark on its genuineness. The testatrix was very much emotionally attached with him till last breath as he was a very obedient son. She was not an illiterate lady, as at some point of time, she used to run business of electronics as a sole proprietor of a firm namely M/s Continental Electronics. Such a lady cannot be expected to make will in favour of her daughter, who had been given everything in past.
Next objection is that a lady namely Smt. Sunita Madan, who is real aunt of petitioner and respondent no. 2, is an attesting witness in both wills. But the petition is not verified by her and also she has not been examined in the court. Moreover, respondent no. 2 and his wife used to be busy in their business and job and the testatrix would remain alone at home and from their house, the house of petitioner is not far away. The petitioner took the advantage of his absence from home and induced testatrix to execute the will. Even on PC No. 15869/16 Priya Arya Vs. State & Ors. Page 5 of 21 the day of execution of the will i.e. 12.10.2010, respondent no. 2 alongwith his wife and children was away to Sector15, Gurgaon to attend the birthday function of his sisterinlaw i.e. sister of his wife and they returned next day. But by that time, the petitioner had already put pressure upon testatrix and was successful in getting the will executed in her favour. The petitioner and her husband took undue advantage of his absence.
4. The notice of the petition was issued to State through Chief Secretary, Govt. of NCT and collector of the concerned area where the suit property was situated. The citation to the general public was published in the English daily newspaper "Statesman" dated 25.04.2014 in response to which no public person filed any objection.
5. The Tehsildar/Executive Magistrate Patel Nagar filed valuation reports in respect of subject property no. 1 and 2 assessing to be of Rs. 44,16,000/ (Rupees Forty Four Lacs Sixteen Thousand only) and Rs. 64,90,170/ (Rupees Sixty Four Lacs Ninety Thousand One Hundred & Seventy only).
6. Following issues were framed on 07.07.2014: (1). Whether the present petition is liable to be dismissed as petitioner has not filed any verification by one of the attesting witness of the Will in accordance with section 281 of the Indian Succession Act? OPD2 PC No. 15869/16 Priya Arya Vs. State & Ors. Page 6 of 21 (2). Whether the Will dated 12.10.2010 executed by testatrix Smt. Usha Rani Madan is a valid, legal and genuine Will? OPP (3). Whether the petitioner is entitled to the grant of probate in respect of the aforesaid Will dated 12.10.2010, as prayed for? OPP (4). Relief.
7. In order to prove the case, the petitioner examined two witnesses.
8. PW1 is petitioner herself and in her affidavit in evidence Ex.PW1/X, she repeated the contents of the petition. She relied upon following documents:
(i). Ex.PW1/A is original will dated 12.10.2010 executed by deceased Smt. Usha Rani Madan.
(ii). Ex.PW1/2 is the original death certificate of Smt. Usha Rani Madan.
PW2 Sh. S.N. Tiwari, the attesting witness, deposed that the will Ex.PW1/A was signed and executed by Smt. Usha Rani Madan in his presence and in the presence of other attesting witness. He identified the signature of the testatrix at point P1 and of himself at pointP.
9. Respondent no. 2 examined six witnesses.
PC No. 15869/16 Priya Arya Vs. State & Ors. Page 7 of 2110. RW1 Sh. Lalit Madan is Respondent no. 2 himself and he repeated the contents of written statement in his affidavit in evidence Ex.RW1/A. He relied upon following documents:
(i). MarkA (13 pages) is copy of flat buyer agreement dated 16.12.1992;
(ii). MarkB is the copy of cheque dated 02.04.2005 of ICICI Bank;
(iii). MarkC is photocopy of cheque of year 2005 of Rs. 75,000/ of ICICI Bank Ltd.;
(iv). MarkD is photocopy of cheque dated 13.06.2005 of Rs. 70,000/ drawn on South Indian Bank Ltd.;
(v). MarkE is photocopy of cheque of Rs. 70,000/ of UCO Bank;
(vi). MarkF is photocopy of cheque dated 06.06.2005 of Rs. 50,000/ drawn on UCO Bank;
(vii). MarkG is photocopy of cheque of $2000 dated 02.10.2005 drawn on WELLS FARGO Bank, California (USA); and
(viii). MarkH (containing 14 pages) is valuation report of the jewellery.
RW2 Sh. Balbir Singh, UDC from the office of SubRegistrar II, Janakpuri, deposed that the will Ex.RW2/A executed by Smt. Usha Rani Madan in favour of respondent no. 2 was registered in his office on 18.12.2008. He next deposed that on 22.10.2013, a gift deed PC No. 15869/16 Priya Arya Vs. State & Ors. Page 8 of 21 Ex.RW2/C was got registered by respondent no. 2 in favour of his wife Smt. Saloni Madan.
RW3 Sh. Anshul Jindal, Sr. Manager, South Indian Bank, Janakpuri, placed on record bank statement of M/s Priya Sales Corporation from 01.06.2005 to 31.08.2005 as Ex.RW3/A. As per statement, cheque no. 376619 of Rs. 70,000/ was cleared on 13.06.2005 which was transferred in saving bank account no. 4541.
RW4 Smt. Monika Oberoi is the sister of wife of respondent no. 2 and she deposed that her date of birth was 12.10.1976. As usual, in 2010 also, she celebrated her birthday and invited her sister Smt. Saloni Madan, her husband Sh. Lalit Madan and their daughters for dinner at her house in Sector15, Gurgaon which was hosted on 12.10.2010. The guest stayed in her house in the night and returned only next day i.e. 13.10.2010.
Wrong witness no. RW4 has been given to Sh. Prakash Bisht because that number had already been given to Smt. Monika Oberoi. The correct number of this witness should be RW5. He placed on record ICICI bank statement of account of respondent no. 2 from 01.04.2005 to 31.07.2005 as Ex.RW4/1. As per that statement, a sum of Rs. 1,20,000/ was withdrawn by Smt. Priya Arya on 05.04.2005 and a sum of Rs. 75,000/ was withdrawn by her on 07.06.2005.
Wrong witness no. RW5 has been given to Sh. Alam Zameer, Manager (Legal), Ansal Housing & Construction Ltd. because Sh. Prakash Bisht had already been examined as RW5. The correct number of this witness should be RW6. He placed on record original PC No. 15869/16 Priya Arya Vs. State & Ors. Page 9 of 21 flat buyers agreement in respect of shop no. GF7, Kirti Shikhar Building, District Centre, Janakpuri, New Delhi as Ex.RW5/A. He deposed that as per the record, the shop was initially allotted to Sh. Surender Kumar Madan, but later, it was transferred to Priya Arya. Thereafter, the shop was transferred by Priya Arya to Sh. Bhavit Kumar.
ISSUE NO. 1: (1). Whether the present petition is liable to be dismissed as petitioner has not filed any verification by one of the attesting witness of the Will in accordance with section 281 of the Indian Succession Act? OPD2.
11. Ld. counsel for respondent no. 2 argued that as per section 281 of Indian Succession Act, 1925, the probate petition is required to be verified by atleast one of the attesting witness to the will. But in the present case, it has not been verified and hence, the petition be dismissed.
On the other hand, ld. counsel for petitioner argued that provisions of section 281 of the Act are directory and not mandatory and so, the petition cannot be dismissed solely due to that deficiency.
12. In Krishan Dass Gupta Vs. State & Ors., in Test Case no. 44/1999 and Test Case No. 51/2004, decided on 16th February 2012, similar was the issue before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi which held that provisions of section 281 of the Act were only directory and PC No. 15869/16 Priya Arya Vs. State & Ors. Page 10 of 21 not mandatory and that the probate petition cannot be dismissed on the score that it was filed without verification of atleast one attesting witness to the will. Following more was held by the High Court:
35. The aforesaid issued was framed in view of the preliminary objection no. 2, having been taken by the respondent no. 3 that the petition is not maintainable because the petition is not properly verified in the manner and to the effect as provided in Section 281 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. At the time of hearing, however, this issue was not seriously pressed, presumably for the reason that it is settled law that the provisions of Section 281 are not mandatory but only directory and no petition can be dismissed on the score that it is filed without the verification of at least one of the two attesting witnesses to the will.
36. In the case of Nand Kishore Rai and Anr. Vs. Mst. Bhagi Kuer & Ors., AIR 1958 All 329, it was observed as under: "Verification of a petition required under S. 281 similar to verification required of pleadings, including a plaint, under order 6 Rule 15 Civil Procedure Code and has no greater effect or value. Omission to verify, or defective verification, of a pleading is a mere irregularity within S. 99 CPC and is never fatal. The provision of S. 281 of the Succession Act is less drastic than that of Order 6 Rule 15 and an omission to verify, or a defective verification of, a petition for probate cannot have a more serious effect than that of a plaint. The provision in S. 281 is merely directory and not mandatory, i.e. noncompliance with it is not intended to lead to the rejection of the petition. "
13. Perusal of petition shows that it has not been verified by any of the attesting witness. As held in above citation, the provisions of PC No. 15869/16 Priya Arya Vs. State & Ors. Page 11 of 21 section 281 of the Act are directory and not mandatory and so, the petition cannot be dismissed only on that ground. So, this issue is decided in favour of the petitioner and against respondent.
ISSUE NOS. 2 & 3: (2). Whether the Will dated 12.10.2010 executed by testatrix Smt. Usha Rani Madan is a valid, legal and genuine Will? OPP (3). Whether the petitioner is entitled to the grant of probate in respect of the aforesaid Will dated 12.10.2010, as prayed for? OPP
14. Both these issues are interconnected and hence, are being taken up together.
15. The first argument of counsel for respondent no. 2 is that the petitioner has not been appointed executor in the will and hence, probate certificate should not be granted to her.
Next submission is that the attesting witnesses to the will i.e. PW2 Sh. S.N. Tiwari is a stock witness who habitually attests the documents which are registered in the office of SubRegistrar, Janakpuri. He had stood as a witness in the gift deed executed by respondent no. 2 in favour of his wife. So, attestation of the will is not proper.
Next argument is that the second attesting witness is Smt. Sunita Madan i.e. aunt of the petitioner and respondent no. 2, but she PC No. 15869/16 Priya Arya Vs. State & Ors. Page 12 of 21 has not been examined.
It is next argued that the impugned will has been executed by the testatrix due to undue influence and tutoring of the petitioner.
Moreover, the testatrix had already executed a registered will dated 18.12.2008 in favour of respondent no. 2 and hence, she was incompetent to execute will of the same property in favour of the petitioner.
Next argument is that respondent no. 2 and testatrix used to help petitioner with money and at one point of time, a shop was also given to her. Despite it, the will has been executed in her favour and it is unbelievable that despite helping of the petitioner to such an extent, she would give more property to her.
Last argument is that till her death, the testatrix resided in the house of respondent no. 2 and it was he who used to take her care. Last rites were also performed by him. So, there was no occasion for the testatrix to make will in favour of the petitioner.
16. On the other hand, ld. counsel for the petitioner admitted that the petitioner has not appointed as an executor in the will and hence, probate certificate cannot be granted to her. Rather, letter of administration be given to her.
He next submitted that PW2 is not a stock witness. He has no interest in the subject property. Moreover, respondent no. 2 cannot castigate him because PW2 had become witness when respondent no. 2 executed gift deed of property no. 1 in favour of his PC No. 15869/16 Priya Arya Vs. State & Ors. Page 13 of 21 wife.
Ld. Counsel for petitioner admitted that the second attesting witness Smt. Sunita Madan, aunt of the petitioner, has not been examined. But there is no requirement of it in view of section 68 of Indian Evidence Act.
Next submission is that the petitioner used to visit her mother / testatrix only once a month. So, she cannot be expected to tutor her to execute will in her favour.
Ld. counsel next argued that the first will dated 18.12.2008 has been revoked by the testatrix by executing the impugned will dated 12.10.2020 and the testatrix was very much competent to do so in view of section 70 of the Act.
Next it is submitted that respondent no.2 had opened a bank account in the name of petitioner and it was he who used to operate that account and whatever money was withdrawn from that account, was withdrawn by him.
Lastly, it is submitted that the will is not the result of any tutoring or undue influence. Rather, it is voluntary.
17. It is true that for getting the relief of probate, the petitioner should have been appointed as executor in the will. In the case in hand, it is the admitted case of both the parties that she has not been so appointed. So, if the case is decided in her favour, she would not be entitled to probate certificate and rather, letters of administration would be granted.
PC No. 15869/16 Priya Arya Vs. State & Ors. Page 14 of 2118. PW2 admitted that he was employed with a deed writer namely Sh. P.K. Kharbanda, first floor, District Centre, Janakpuri. The office of SubRegistrar is located on the ground floor. The gift deed executed by respondent no. 2 in favour of his wife regarding subject property no. 2 was shown to him in cross examination and he admitted that he had acted as one of the attesting witness in that gift deed also.
PW2 is employed with a document writer based near the office of SubRegistrar. His interest in becoming a witness to several deeds may be, at the most, that more and more persons should engage his employer. In that process, PW2 would get more money from the employer. So, the interest of PW2 in standing as an attesting witness to any document would be that the executor of the document hires the services of his employer. He has no interest in the subject property. So, even if he is a stock witness, it cannot be said that he had malafidely done so in the will, because by doing so, he was not going to get any interest in the subject property. Moreover, PW2 had stood as a witness in the gift deed executed by respondent no. 2 in his wife's name. That gift deed is being heavily relied upon by respondent no. 2. He cannot be allowed to adopt one document and discard the other when both have been attested by the same witness.
19. The first will has been executed only in favour of respondent no. 2 and one of the attesting witness Smt. Sunita Madan is real aunt of petitioner and respondent no. 2. She is second attesting witness in PC No. 15869/16 Priya Arya Vs. State & Ors. Page 15 of 21 the impugned will dated 12.10.2010. It is the admitted case of both the parties that she has not been examined by the petitioner. But as per section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, a will is required to be attested by two attesting witnesses. As per section 68 of the Evidence Act, only one attesting witness is required to be examined to prove the will. In the case in hand, such one witness has already been examined by the name of Sh. S.N. Tiwari and so, there was no requirement to examine her aunt.
The respondent no.2 has no explanation why he did not examine his aunt Smt. Sunita Madan to prove that the impugned will was not executed by his mother. Had he examined Smt. Sunita Madan, he would have proved the first will also. So, by not examining Smt. Sunita Madan, the respondent no. 2 committed double default. But only single default has been committed by the petitioner as by examining her aunt, she would have only corroborated the testimony of PW2. Hence, non examination of Smt. Sunita Madan by petitioner is of no consequence.
20. It is correct that respondent no. 2 and his wife, due to business and job, used to remain away from home during day time and their daughters also used to be in educational institutes. It is the admitted case of both the parties that during day time, the testatrix used to remain alone at home in the company of maids. It has also been proved by respondent no. 2 and his sisterinlaw that on the day of execution of the will i.e. 12.10.2010, the respondent no. 2 PC No. 15869/16 Priya Arya Vs. State & Ors. Page 16 of 21 alongwith his wife and both daughters had gone to Sector15, Gurgaon to attend the birthday ceremony of his wife's sister.
Above facts merely prove that during day time, the testatrix used to remain alone at home. But there is no evidence that the petitioner had put undue pressure or influence upon her to execute will in her favour. It is no where established that the petitioner was present at the time of registration of the will. The circumstances proved by respondent no. 2 can be said to have helped the court to reach to the conclusion that the atmosphere was conducive for putting undue influence upon the testatrix. But the respondent no. 2 has failed to prove that the undue pressure was actually put upon the lady.
21. The original copy of first will has been placed on record as Ex.RW2/A. RW2, an official from the office of SubRegistrarII, Janakpuri, deposed that the will was registered in his office. Vide page no. 3 of the will, both immovable properties have been bequeathed to respondent no. 2 and fixed deposits and gold jewellery, etc. were to go to petitioner. The subsequent will Ex.PW1/A has also been registered in the office of same SubRegistrar. As per that will, both immovable properties and bank deposits, etc., have been bequeathed to petitioner and respondent no. 2 in equal proportion i.e. ½ share each. Perusal of first page of the subsequent will shows that the testatrix revoked her all wills including the first will by mentioning "I hereby revoke all forms of wills and codicils and testamentary PC No. 15869/16 Priya Arya Vs. State & Ors. Page 17 of 21 dispositions, if any made by me at any time hereto before, including the will Regd. no. 13270, Additional book no. 3, Vol. No. 7678, page no. 148 to 151 dated 18.12.2008". As per section 70 of the Act, an unprivileged will shall be revoked by another will. In the case in hand, the first will has been revoked by the second will in two ways. The first way is that it has been revoked by mentioning expressly that the said will was being revoked. The second way is that vide subsequent will, all the properties bequeathed to respondent no. 2 through first will, have been bequeathed to petitioner and respondent no. 2 in equal share. The testatrix was duly empowered by section 70 of the Act to revoke the first will and she has done so. Hence, the argument of counsel for respondent no. 2 that the testatrix was incompetent to execute another will for the same properties for which she had executed the first will, cannot be upheld.
22. Respondent no. 2 deposed that he and his mother had given shop bearing no. G7, Kirti Shikhar Building, District Centre, New Delhi to the petitioner so that her husband may earn livelihood and in this regard, he examined a witness i.e. RW4 Ms. Monika Oberoi. As per the documents placed on record by RW4, the said shop was initially allotted to the father of petitioner and respondent no. 2. Later, it came to the name of petitioner and subsequently, it was transferred in the name of one Sh. Bhavit Kumar. But the documents filed by RW4, do not prove that the shop was given to petitioner by her mother and/or respondent no. 2.
PC No. 15869/16 Priya Arya Vs. State & Ors. Page 18 of 21It is the contention of respondent no. 2 that he used to help his petitioner sister and the petitioner also admitted in cross examination that her brother had given her Rs. 2,65,000/ and her mother had given her Rs. 1,20,000/ through five different cheques, dated 02.04.2005, 06.06.2005 and 13.06.2005. But she deposed that it was respondent no. 2 who had opened that account in her name in the bank and it was operated by respondent no. 2 himself and that she started operating that account only after the death of her mother. But she could not substantiate the allegation that the account was operated by respondent no. 2. Her admission of receipt of five different cheques totaling to Rs. 2,65,000/ and totaling to Rs. 1,20,000/ from her mother and brother, shows that she had received money from them. Those facts prove the stand of respondent no. 2 that he and his mother used to help petitioner. But this court has failed to comprehend how those facts can prevent the testatrix from executing will of her property in favour of her daughter to the extent the daughter would have got in case of mother's intestate death.
It has been admitted even by the petitioner that till death, her mother resided in the house in which respondent no. 2 was residing. It was he who had performed her last rites. Existence of these facts does not suggest that the testatrix should not have bequeathed half property to the petitioner. It is pertinent to mention that the testatrix has given ½ share each to her daughter and son. Even if she had died intestate, the petitioner and respondent no. 2 would have got the same share. So, by executing the will, the testatrix PC No. 15869/16 Priya Arya Vs. State & Ors. Page 19 of 21 did not do any aberration.
23. But the petitioner did not examine any witness or tender any document to prove that her mother had a credit of Rs. 3 lacs in the bank account.
24. The petitioner has not been appointed as executor in the will and hence, she is entitled to letters of administration and not probate.
25. In view of above discussion, both these issues are decided in favour of the petitioner and against respondent no. 2.
ISSUE NO. 4 (Relief):
26. In the light of above discussion and observations, it is held that the petitioner is entitled to letters of administration and such letter be issued to her in respect of subject properties i.e. (i). MIG Flat no. GG1/96A, Vikas Puri, New Delhi and (ii). Built up plot no. F105, measuring 200 sq. yds., Jeevan Park, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi, in terms of will dated 12.10.2010 Ex.PW1/A, to enable her to administer the aforesaid properties of the deceased Smt. Usha Rani Madan, on furnishing administrationcumsurety bond and court fee on the total value of the subject property i.e. Rs. 44,16,000/ (Rupees Forty Four Lacs Sixteen Thousand only) plus Rs. 64,90,170/ (Rupees Sixty Four Lacs Ninety Thousand One Hundred & Seventy only) = 1,09,06,170/ (Rupees One Crores Nine Lacs Six Thousand One Hundred Seventy PC No. 15869/16 Priya Arya Vs. State & Ors. Page 20 of 21 only).
27. Further, the petitioner is directed to file the inventory of all the immovable properties within six months and final statement of account within one year from the date of receipt of formal letter of administration. The formalities of issuance of Letter of Administration shall completed by the petitioner within six months from the date of the judgment as per Section 290 & 291 read with Section 317 of Indian Succession Act.
28. It further clarified that the question of title, share or ownership of immovable properties mentioned herein above is not decided by this Court.
29. File be consigned to the Record Room.
Announced in the open court
Today on 14.09.2021 (Umed Singh Grewal)
Addl. District Judge02 (West)
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
PC No. 15869/16 Priya Arya Vs. State & Ors. Page 21 of 21