Delhi District Court
Shubh K. Kumar Range vs . State & Ors. on 19 September, 2020
Digitally
signed by
Nikhil
Nikhil Chopra
Chopra Date:
2020.09.22
17:49:54
Shubh K. Kumar Range vs. State & Ors.
+0530
IN THE COURT OF SH. NIKHIL CHOPRA, ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE,
SAKET COURTS, SOUTH DISTRICT, NEW DELHI
In the matter of
Suit No.5869/2016
Filing No.5298/2009
CNR No. DLST010000332009
Smt. Shubh K. Kumar Range
D/o Late Sh. Harish Chandra
R/o D3/4, Vasant Vihar,
New Delhi110 057
................Petitioner
Versus
1. State
2. Ashok K. Chandra
S/o Late Sh. Harish Chandra
R/o 18595, Woodbank Way,
Saratoga, CA 95070, USA
3. Dr. Baldev Raj Bahl
Husband of Late Mrs. Manjulika Bahl
R/o #19, The Moorings,
St. Johns Road, Eastbourne,
Sussex BN207NL, United Kingdom
4. Sandeep Bahl
S/o Late Mrs. Manjulika Bahl
PC No. 5869/2016 Page no. 1 of 123
Shubh K. Kumar Range vs. State & Ors.
R/o 297, Edlee Avenue,
Palo Alto, California 94306, USA
5. Dr. Shalini Bahl
D/o Late Mrs. Manjulika Bahl
Consultant, St. Peter's Hospital
Guilford Road, KT 106 PZ
Chertsey (Great London)
United Kingdom
.............Respondents
Date of Institution : 03.03.2009
Date of reserving the judgment : 12.03.2020
Date of pronouncement : 19.09.2020
Decision : DISMISSED
PETITION UNDER SECTION 276 OF THE INDIAN SUCCESSION ACT
FOR GRANT OF PROBATE/ LETTER OF ADMINISTRATION IN RESPECT
OF THE WILL DATED 20.04.2006 REGISTERED WITH THE SUB
REGISTRARIX, NEW DELHI ON 20.04.2006
JUDGMENT
1. The Petitioner has sought probate of the Will dated 20.04.2006, claimed to be executed by Late Harish Chandra, as the executor of the said Will. Vide the aforesaid Will, Testator Late PC No. 5869/2016 Page no. 2 of 123 Shubh K. Kumar Range vs. State & Ors.
Harish Chandra is claimed to have bequeathed his share in the immovable property bearing No.D3/4, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi110 057 in favour of the petitioner (daughter) and Dr. Ashok K. Chandra (son).
BRIEF FACTS
2. Shorn of avoidable details, the case of the petitioner is that property bearing No. D3/4, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi, measuring 420 sq. yds was allotted to the Testator Sh. Harish Chandra and his wife Smt. Sushila Chandra. The name of Dr. Ashok Chandra was also got recorded as coallotee. Thereafter, a Perpetual SubLease dated 28.05.1971 was executed in favour of Sh. Harish Chandra, Smt. Sushila Chandra and Dr. Ashok K. Chandra. It is averred that after the demise of Smt. Sushila Chandra on 02.05.2006, on the basis of a registered Will executed by Smt. Sushila Chandra, portion of the property was mutated in the name of Sh. Harish Chandra, Dr. Ashok K. Chandra, and the petitioner and vide Conveyance Deed dated 16.10.2007, they became the owners of the said property.
3. It is averred that Sh. Harish Chandra, during his lifetime, executed a registered Will dated 20.04.2006 in respect of his share PC No. 5869/2016 Page no. 3 of 123 Shubh K. Kumar Range vs. State & Ors.
in the property bearing No.D3/4, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi57 whereby he bequeathed his share i.e. 1/3rd share, in favour of his two children i.e. son and daughter (petitioner), since one of his daughter Dr. (Mrs.) Manjulika Bahl had predeceased him on 05.06.2005. Testator is stated to have bequeathed a sum of Rs.4,00,000/ each to his grandchildren i.e. Dr. Sandeep Bahl and Dr. Shalini Bahl i.e. children of his deceased daughter Dr. (Mrs.) Manjulika Bahl. Petitioner is claimed to be appointed an Executor of the Will, apart from being one of the beneficiary to the Will. It is further averred that no other application for grant of probate/letter of administration of the above said Will in respect of the estate/properties left by the deceased testator has been filed. It is further averred that this court has territorial jurisdiction to try and entertain the present petition as the deceased testator was a permanent resident of Delhi and died in Delhi within the jurisdiction of this Court.
4. Despite publication of citation in the newspaper "The Statesman" dated 14.03.2009, proclamation in Saket Court Complex as well as in the office of District Magistrate, none appeared from the General Public/State to join the proceedings.
5. On service of notice, respondent No.2 to 5 appeared and filed PC No. 5869/2016 Page no. 4 of 123 Shubh K. Kumar Range vs. State & Ors.
separate objections.
REPLY/WRITTEN STATEMENT/OBJECTIONS On behalf of respondent No.2
6. Respondent No.2 raised objections that the petitioner has not approached this court with clean hands, suppression of material facts while submitting that the property in question was jointly owned by him alongwith his parents i.e. Sh. Harish Chandra, Smt. Sushila Chandra, vide Perpetual SubLease dated 28.05.1971 and after the demise of Smt. Sushila Chandra, her share devolved upon him and the petitioner vide Will dated 20.04.2006, which made him owner of ½ share in the property in question (1/3 + 1/6) and as such petitioner got 1/6th share in the property. It is further submitted by respondent No.2 that the petitioner got the property mutated, by getting his signatures on some papers and the same was converted into free hold but he remains to be the owner of ½ share in the property. He submitted that vide Will dated 20.04.2006 executed by Sh. Harish Chandra, he has become owner of property to the extent of 2/3 share and the petitioner became owner of 1/3 share in the property.
PC No. 5869/2016 Page no. 5 of 123 Shubh K. Kumar Range vs. State & Ors.
7. It is submitted by respondent No.2 that his parents, under the influence of the petitioner, signed the Will without reading the contents of the same and the same is surrounded with suspicious circumstances and further the petitioner, in December 2018, unauthorizedly and illegally stopped respondent No.2 from staying in the suit property despite the fact that he is coowner of the property. On merits, he denied the averments made in the petition.
8. It is pertinent to mention here that vide amendment, objections filed by respondent No.2 were amended whereby he had given his no objection to the grant of probate in favour of the petitioner.
On behalf of respondent No.3 to 59. Respondent No.3 to 5 have filed objections, separately, but on same lines. Respondent No.3 to 5 raised the preliminary objections with regard to the petitioner's not approaching the court with clean hands; Will in question being prepared under undue influence & coercion; that the Testator, due to his mental & physical health, was not in position to understand the contents of the Will or form an independent decision regarding the bequeathing of his estate; that petitioner and respondent No.2 with malafide intention & ulterior PC No. 5869/2016 Page no. 6 of 123 Shubh K. Kumar Range vs. State & Ors.
motives, without obtaining NOC from respondent No.3 to 5, being classI legal heirs of Smt. Sushila Chandra, got the share of Smt. Sushila Chandra in their favour, despite the fact that Smt. Sushila Chandra had stated in her Will that her share be given to her children only after the death of Sh. Harish Chandra and not before that. It is stated that the petitioner, who was residing with the Testator, had exercised undue influence and coercion in getting the Will prepared. Respondent No.3 stated that petitioner concealed the existence and execution of Wills dated 11.10.2002 by Sh. Harish Chandra and Smt. Sushila Chandra and further, petitioner and respondent No.2, with malafide intention, concealed the factum of execution of Wills dated 20.04.2006 of Sh. Harish Chandra and Smt. Sushila Chandra, from them and it was only in February, 2009 that respondent No.3 to 5 got to know about the changes in the Will dated 11.10.2002. Respondent No.3 alleged that the Will bore the thumb impressions of Smt. Sushila Chandra despite the fact that she was a lecturer in Psychology at Allahabad University and the Will was got registered just prior to the date of her admission in ICU in Holy Child Hospital. He further stated that as per Wills dated 11.10.2002 executed by Sh. Harish Chandra and Smt. Sushila Chandra separately, all their children got 1/3 share in the property PC No. 5869/2016 Page no. 7 of 123 Shubh K. Kumar Range vs. State & Ors.
in question and Dr. (Mrs.) Manjulicka Bahl was made Executor of that Will. It is stated that he along with his wife Dr. (Mrs.) Manjulicka Bahl used to take care of Sh. Harish Chandra and petitioner would not come to visit her parents for weeks. It is stated that in the year 2007, after the death of Smt. Sushila Chandra, petitioner along with her husband shifted to the property in order to grab the same, after getting the same renovated and that petitioner did not disclose the execution of the later Will to respondent No.4 on the basis of which she had already got mutated the property in her name. Subsequently, even on the demise of Sh. Harish Chandra on 31.12.2008, facts about the execution of later Wills or mutation of the property were not disclosed. On merits, respondent No.3 denied the averments made in the petition.
REPLICATION/REPLY TO OBJECTIONS
10. Petitioner, in her separate replications/ replies to the objections filed on behalf of respondent No.2 to 5, reiterated the averments made in the petition and denied the allegations made by respondents in their objections.
PC No. 5869/2016 Page no. 8 of 123 Shubh K. Kumar Range vs. State & Ors. ISSUES
11. From the pleadings of the parties, vide order dated 19.02.2011, following issues were framed:
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to grant of letter of administration/ letter of probate in respect of Will dated 20.04.2006 executed by Sh. Harish Chandra in property No.D3/4, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi?(OPP) (date of Will was wrongly written as
20.04.2004 in the issues)
2. Whether the objections filed by the respondents are valid? (OPP)
3. Relief EVIDENCE ADDUCED On behalf of the petitioner
12. Petitioner examined herself as PW1; Sh. Manjeet Arya as PW 2; and Sh. Kiran Thapliyal, UDC from the office of SubRegistrarIX as PW3.
13. PW1 i.e. petitioner tendered her evidence by way of affidavit PC No. 5869/2016 Page no. 9 of 123 Shubh K. Kumar Range vs. State & Ors.
Ex.PW1/A and relied on the following documents:
1. Original death certificate of Smt. Sushila Chandra as Ex.PW1/1;
2. Photocopy of Conveyance Deed dated 16.02.2008 as Ex.PW1/2 (OSR);
3. Original death certificate of Sh. Harish Chandra as Ex.PW1/3; and
4. Original Will dated 20.04.2006 executed by Sh.Harish Chandra as Ex.PW1/4
14. PW1 deposed on the lines of her petition. In her cross examination on behalf of respondent No.2, she deposed that name of respondent No.2 was joined as coallottee by her parents. She admitted that whatever share she got in the property, by virtue of Wills of her parents, was to the extent of their shares in the property; and that the Wills of her parents were not executed in her presence.
15. In the cross examination on behalf of respondent No.3 to 5, she deposed that her father was the original allottee of the plot by the Government Servant Cooperative Group Housing Society and after change in rules, her mother's name was added. She admitted PC No. 5869/2016 Page no. 10 of 123 Shubh K. Kumar Range vs. State & Ors.
that her mother i.e. respondent No.2 did not contribute towards the purchase of the plot; that name of respondent No.2 was added by her parents just for convenience. She denied that Smt. Manjulicka Bahl assisted her parents a lot during litigation with tenants and because of the efforts of her sister that the property was got vacated from the tenants in 1989, and volunteered, that Smt. Manulicka was living abroad. She stated that as per her information, her father got the property vacated from the tenants sometime in the year 1988 and thereafter, she shifted to the same in 1988 itself. She denied that her sister and respondent No.3 used to visit India regularly and stay with her parents and used to resolve their psychological & medical problems. She denied that Dr. Manjulicka Bahl had taken all the steps to ensure that her parents live a dignified life and volunteered that her parents were living a dignified life on their own, and all the children used to visit them. She further denied that her parents used to visit respondent No.4 & 5 during their education at Dehradun & that they used to spend their holidays with her parents and stated that her parents were close to all the grandchildren and not only respondent No.4 & 5. She denied that her parents used to pay the fees of respondent No.4 & 5 and PC No. 5869/2016 Page no. 11 of 123 Shubh K. Kumar Range vs. State & Ors.
volunteered that they had arrangements with Dr. Munjulicka i.e. his sister with regard to local expenses of her children and properties and thereafter, she used to reimburse the same.
16. PW1 further stated that her parents were living independently and managing their affairs independently. She denied that respondent No.2 was never dutiful and caring son and volunteered that he was caring and that at times their relations got sour but thereafter it was again straightened, or that her parents were not happy with respondent No.2. She admitted that her parents executed separate Wills dated 11.10.2002 vide which they all got 1/3rd share each and submitted that she did not know if the original Wills were handed over to her sister Dr. Manjulicka Bahl who was made the Executor. She denied that after the execution of the Wills dated 11.10.2002, the health of her parents started to deteriorate, or that at one stage her father was no able to recognize anybody. She denied that her parents came to know about the death of her sister in September/ October, 2005. She denied that her parents were not in a mental condition to take decisions in their life or in respect of their property and volunteered that they were living an independent life managing their affairs by themselves. She stated that after the death of her mother, his father resided in the Vasant PC No. 5869/2016 Page no. 12 of 123 Shubh K. Kumar Range vs. State & Ors.
Vihar property but after sometime, on her request he agreed to join her residence. She deposed that in March, 2007 her father moved back to Vasant Vihar house and on his request, they also started living with him and even after his death, they are residing there and maintaining the property.
17. PW1 stated that in November, 2005 when Dr. Baldev Bahl was visiting India, her parents informed him that they wanted to execute a new Will since her sister had passed away; that they also informed her about the same; and that Dr. Bahl had threatened them to take them to court if they would execute a new Will. She deposed that after execution and registration of Wills, her parents had informed her in March/April 2006, regarding the same. She denied that her husband visited Dr. Baldev Bahl several times after April, 2006 but did not inform him about the execution of Wills but did not know when Dr. Bahl and her brother Dr. Ashok Chandra came to know about the execution of 2006 Wills. She stated that when she initiated proceedings, being executor of the Will, she sent the copies of the Wills to Dr. Ashok Chandra and Dr. Bahl and volunteered that since Dr. Chandra was involved in the freehold proceedings and DDA asked them to provide the Wills, he was aware of the execution of the Wills. She denied that Dr. Baldev Raj PC No. 5869/2016 Page no. 13 of 123 Shubh K. Kumar Range vs. State & Ors.
Bahl came to know about these Wills in February, 2009 during telephonic conversation. She admitted the receipt of email dated 08.02.2009 Ex.PW1/DX1. She denied that at her and her husband's instance, Mrs. Manjeet Arya manipulated the Wills of March, 2006 or has deposed falsely in her favour. She stated that in November, 2005, she disclosed to Dr. Baldev Bahl that her parents wanted to change their Wills and denied that neither she nor her parents ever disclosed to Dr. Baldev Bahl about the intention of her parents to change the earlier Wills. She stated that her father gave the Wills to her at the time of process of conversion of leasehold rights to freehold rights initiated with DDA, around July 2006. She deposed that no one informed her that her parents had engaged Mrs. Manjeet Arya for drafting of these Wills or that she was one of the witness to the same and volunteered that she learnt when she saw the same but did not know as to how many times, Mrs. Manjeet Arya visited her parents or viceversa or regarding preparation of draft Wills by Mrs. Manjeet Arya. She further denied that in March April, 2006,her parents were completely immobile, or were suffering from old age chronic diseases or ailments or they were mentally and physically fragile,or were not able to understand or comprehend day to day chores of life, or that she was regularly taking her parents to PC No. 5869/2016 Page no. 14 of 123 Shubh K. Kumar Range vs. State & Ors.
Doctors before MarchApril, 2006.
18. PW1 further stated that the names of all the legal heirs of including Dr. Baldev Bahl, Shalini Bahl and Sandeep Bahl were also mentioned in the mutation proceedings with DDA or that she did not know whether DDA had sent any notice to them before carrying out mutation of property or that she did not procure any NOC from them as the same was not required, as informed by DDA and denied that she, in connivance with DDA officials, illegally got the mutation done in their favour, without due procedure. She denied that the Wills of MarchApril 2006 were product of misrepresentations, or that her parents never had any intention of executing the Wills, or that the Wills were manipulated or procured by her, by exercising undue influence or coercion upon her parents; and that the attesting witnesses signed the Wills at her instance.
19. Ms. Manjeet Arya, one of the attesting witness, was examined as PW2, who proved the Will dated 20.04.2006 as Ex.PW1/4. She deposed that Sh. Harish Chandra and Smt. Sushila Chandra contacted her through Ms. Urmil Khurana, their neighbour and that they expressed their intention to bequeath their property in favour of their children i.e. petitioner and respondent No.2 along with Rs.4,00,000/ each to their grandchildren i.e. children of their PC No. 5869/2016 Page no. 15 of 123 Shubh K. Kumar Range vs. State & Ors.
deceased daughter Dr.(Mrs.) Manjulika Bahl; that she prepared the Wills which was signed and executed by Sh. Harish Chandra on 15.03.2006 in the presence of Dr. Madhuri Bihari and Ms. Urmil Khurana; that on 20.04.2006, officials from the office of Registrar at Kapashera visited the residence of Sh. Harish Chandra; that Sh. Harish Chandra read the Will dated 20.04.2006 and signed the same in the presence of other attesting witness Sh. Dhirender Bihari; that Testator executed the Will in sound disposing mind without any coercion, misrepresentation and fraud; that on the asking of Harish Chandra, she & Sh. Dhirender Bihari had signed the Will.
20. In her cross examination on behalf of respondent No.2, PW2 stated that there were 2 concurrent Wills of Sh. Harish Chandra and Smt. Sushila Chandra in which they claimed to be the owners of the property in question to the extent of half share each; that she did not see the conveyance deed and lease deed while drafting the Wills; and that she did not know if any other Will were executed apart from the one prepared by her. She volunteered that she prepared 4 Wills i.e. 2 registered Wills dated 20.04.2006 and 2 unregistered Wills dated 15.03.2006. She further stated that the contents of the Wills were same just the date was changed for the purpose of registration and stated that she did not know the PC No. 5869/2016 Page no. 16 of 123 Shubh K. Kumar Range vs. State & Ors.
beneficiaries or that she never met them before making the Will.
21. In the cross examination on behalf of respondent No.3 to 5, she deposed that she came to know of the petitioner on the death of her mother; that she met the executant and his wife at their residence sometime in December/ January about 23 years back; that it was in January of the year in which the Will was executed or December of the previous year, and that when she met the executant for the first time, his wife and servants were present. She denied that besides the executant and his wife, petitioner and her husband were also present. She denied that the mental and physical condition of the executant and his wife was fragile and unstable, and stated that the executant and his wife did not show any of their medical record nor did she ask as they were performing their duties normally and checked the Will 23 times before executing the same. She stated that she did not have personal knowledge about the previous Will dated 11.10.2002; that she could not give the exact date of the finalization of the Wills but the same was somewhere in March, 2006 only; that as far as she remembered only one final print out of each Will was taken and perhaps photocopies of the same were got done; that when she reached their residence, two witnesses were already present but again said that one was present PC No. 5869/2016 Page no. 17 of 123 Shubh K. Kumar Range vs. State & Ors.
and other was called within 510 minutes by the servant; that she did not know the witnesses to the Will dated 15.03.2006; that she did not remember which witness signed the Will first and which signed the Will later; that she did not remember as to how many pens were used in execution and witnessing of the Wills; that as far as she remembered, the witnesses themselves signed their names and addresses; that she did not remember how many copies of the Wills dated 15.03.2006 were signed and executed. She denied that on 15.03.2006, the petitioner and her husband were present at the residence of the Executor or that the Executor and his wife were not in sound disposing mind and health at the time of execution of the Wills dated 15.03.2006 or that the Wills dated 15.03.2006 have been executed by the Executor and his wife under undue influence, pressure, force and coercion of the petitioner; and that when she identified the executor and his wife on their Wills, the Wills dated 15.03.2006 had already been signed by them.
22. PW2 further stated that she did not give them suggestion to get their Wills notarized; that they informed her that they had got their Wills notarized but did not tell as to through whom; that after 15.03.2006, she had given one more print out of the final Wills by changing the date, in April, 2006 but did not remember the exact PC No. 5869/2016 Page no. 18 of 123 Shubh K. Kumar Range vs. State & Ors.
date; that she disclosed them the procedure of getting the Will registered; and that because of old age, Executor and his wife wanted the SubRegistrar to visit their residence to register the Will. On a specific question regarding the Executor and his wife being bed ridden in March/April, 2006, she replied no and submitted that they were walking and moving freely. She further deposed that she did not know SubRegistrar personally; that she did not submit any medical certificate of the Executor or his wife but only informed that they are old and senior citizen; that she was not carrying any authority letter given by them; that she went to the office of Sub Registrar and after picking him up, reached the residence of the Executor and his wife at about 2.30 2.45 p.m.; that one more person from the office of SubRegistrar had accompanied her; that when she reached the residence, the other witness to the Will dated 20.04.2006 was not present but the servant had already gone to call him; that she did not personally know the other witness; that she did not know how that witnesses knew the Executor or his wife; that after execution, the Will might have retained by the Executor; that whenever the Executors made any corrections in the Will the same were done in English; that she did not remember which attesting witness signed the Will dated 20.04.2006 first and denied that the PC No. 5869/2016 Page no. 19 of 123 Shubh K. Kumar Range vs. State & Ors.
Executor and his wife had already signed the Wills dated 20.04.2006, when she reached their residence and volunteered that they signed the Wills in the presence of SubRegistrar; and that she did not remember in whose handwriting the correction of date in Wills dated 20.4.2006 was made. She further denied that the petitioner and her husband were present at the residence of the Executor at the time of execution of Will dated 20.04.2006; that the Executor and his wife were not in sound disposing mind and health at the time of execution of the Wills dated 20.04.2006; that the Wills dated 20.04.2006 have been executed by the Executor and his wife under undue influence, pressure, force and coercion of the petitioner; and further denied that at the time of her signing the Will dated 20.04.2006, the same had already been signed by the Executor and the other attesting witness. She stated that 23 days prior to her last deposition, she came to know about the present matter and before that she never met with the petitioner; but later volunteered that she signed the petition as required by law before its filing in the court and the affidavit of evidence was also signed by her; and that she did not know that the executor or his wife had good relations with Late Dr. Manjulika Bahl or his children.
23. Sh. Kiran Thapliyal, UDC from the office of SubRegistrarIX PC No. 5869/2016 Page no. 20 of 123 Shubh K. Kumar Range vs. State & Ors.
was examined as PW3, who brought the record in respect of registered Will dated 20.04.2006. He deposed that the Will dated 20.04.2006 Ex.PW1/4 and the Will brought by him were same and the same was duly registered by the SubRegistrarIX, New Delhi. In his cross examination on behalf of respondent No.3 to 5, he deposed that he did not have personal knowledge about the present case; that Will was neither executed or registered in his presence; that the Will was executed and registered at D3/4, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi; that at per procedure, for execution and registration of Will at residence, request in writing is required to be made; that he did not bring any record to show that any such request in writing was made or what was the procedure at that time and denied the suggestion that written request is attached with the Will in the office of Sub Registrar.
No other witness deposed on behalf of the petitioner.
On behalf of the respondents
24. Respondent No.2 examined Dr. Madhuri Behari as R2W1 who tendered her evidence by way of affidavit R2/X and relied on the Wills dated 15.03.2006 as Ex.RW3/P3 and Ex.RW3/P4. She deposed about the execution of Will dated 15.03.2006 and PC No. 5869/2016 Page no. 21 of 123 Shubh K. Kumar Range vs. State & Ors.
supported the version of the petitioner. In her cross examination on behalf of the petitioner, she submitted that she had been living at the given address since 1984 and Harish Chandra and Smt. Sushila Chandra shifted to Vasant Vihar in 1988; that she, personally, had not seen Sandeep Behl and Shalini Behl visiting their grandparents but had seen Dr. Baldev Raj visiting them, however, did not remember when he last visited them; that Dr. Baldev Raj was present in the memorial service of Dr. Manjulika Behl; that she also attended the prayer meeting of Dr. Manjulika Behl; that she met Sh. Harish Chandra there and had expressed her condolences, to which he properly responded; and that she had not seen Dr. Baldev Raj visiting his inlaws house after 2005.
25. In the cross examination on behalf of respondent No.3 to 5, she stated that Smt. Mala Chandra wife of Sh. Ashok gave her affidavit R2/X by calling her at D3/4, Vasant Vihar; that she signed the said affidavit at her residence; that it was evening time of 6 p.m. when she went there; that when she signed the affidavit, Mrs. Mala, Mrs. Shubh and Mr. David were present; that as far as she remember 12.11.2014 was her working day and she was not on leave; that she did not receive summons of the Court and she came to the Court on the request of the petitioner; that from the period PC No. 5869/2016 Page no. 22 of 123 Shubh K. Kumar Range vs. State & Ors.
1984 till 1988, the premises bearing No. D3/4, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi was let out; that Sh. Ashok Chandra was not residing at D 3/4 but he used to visit frequently; that she did not remember the dates of his visit to India but he came to India about 8 to 10 times; she was not aware that Sh. Harish Chanra and Smt. Sushila Chandra did not get well with both Sh. Ashok Chandra and his wife Smt. Mala; that she could identify the signatures of Sh.Harish Chandra and Smt. Sushila Chandra as she had seen them writing and signing. She further stated that she did not remember as to when Sh. Harish Chandra and Smt. Sushila Chandra visited Sh. Ashoka Chandra in USA; that she was not aware whether in summer of 1992, despite sanction of Visa to Sh. Harish Chandra and Smt. Sushila Chandra, they did not visit USA since Mala & Ashok Chandra asked them to not to come to USA as parents of Mala Chandra were visiting them during that time or that despite visiting USA for the graduation ceremony of Sandeep in the year 1993, they refused to go to the residence of Ashok Chandra, however, she was aware of their visit to USA in 1993 for the Graduation Ceremony of Sh. Sandeep Behl; that the house of Harish Chandra and Smt. Sushila Chandra was D 4/9 and not D3/4, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi; that she had never been to the house of Sh. Harish Chandra and Smt. Sushila Chandra PC No. 5869/2016 Page no. 23 of 123 Shubh K. Kumar Range vs. State & Ors.
when Sh. Ashok Chandra and Mala Chandra had visited them; that she was not a friend of Ashok Chandra and Mala Chandra; that she generally did not exchange pleasantries or inquiry about the general welfare with Sh. Ashok Chandra and Mala Chandra; that she did not remember as to on what date did Mala Chandra came to India at the time of signing of affidavit R2/X, however she came alone when she signed the affidavit; that she met Smt. Mala Chandra before signing R2/X about a week before.
26. She denied that her statement was false that Smt. Mala Chandra called her to sign the affidavit in evidence; or that the petitioner got her affidavit prepared and she signed the same mechanically without reading. She further stated that Smt. Sushila Chandra was well educated and used to write her signatures and was not using her thumb impression as her signature; that she signed Ex.RW3/P3 (Ex.RW1/P3) and Ex.RW3/P4 on 15.03.2006; that a male servant has come to her house to call her for some urgent work in the evening but did not remember the exact time; that she did not know that Sh. Harish Chandra and Smt. Sushila Chandra did not have male servant but had only full time maid Arti; and that she had no occasion to speak to Sh. Harish Chandra and Smt. Sushila Chandra on phone. She stated that Harish PC No. 5869/2016 Page no. 24 of 123 Shubh K. Kumar Range vs. State & Ors.
Chandra and Smt. Sushila Chandra did not express their desire to her regarding the execution of the Will or that they wanted her to be the witness of their Will of that they ever took her consent earlier that they wanted you to be a witness of their Will; that on 15.03.2006, when she reached the residence of Sh. Harish Chandra and Smt. Sushila Chandra, another witness Urmila Khurana and one person from the Court for registering the Will were present; that she is aware of the name of that person from court; that before her signing the Will, Harish Chandra and Sushila Chandra asked her to read the Will; that she did not know who prepared the Wills; and that two copies of the Wills were prepared and she signed both copies but did not ask for copies of the Wills. She denied that the petitioner and her husband were present on 15.03.2006 at the time of execution of the Wills. She stated that she did not know as to exactly how much time it took to complete the entire exercise of the execution of the Wills. She deposed that the person who came from court signed the Wills and did not take photographs either of Sh. Harish Chand & Smt. Sushila Chandra or herself and Smt. Urmila Khurana; that the person from the Court, came for registering the Wills, did not sign the Wills dated 15.03.2006 in her presence; that Sh. Harish Chandra informed her that the Wills had been signed by PC No. 5869/2016 Page no. 25 of 123 Shubh K. Kumar Range vs. State & Ors.
the said person from the court subsequently; that she did not go to any Notary for the purpose of execution of the Wills; that she did not sign the Wills in the presence of the Notary and volunteered that the person came from the Court, whom she did not know, might be or might not be Notary Public. She further stated that after 15.03.2006, Sh. Harish Chandra and Smt. Sushila Chandra never approached her or asked her to witness any other Will; that she was not aware whether any other Will was executed by Sh. Harish Chandra and Smt. Sushila Chandra or not; that her brother, Sh. Dhirendra Bihari who resides in Mumbai, visited on holiday in March, 2006; that he did not inform her that any other Will had been executed by Sh.Harish Chandra and Smt. Sushila Chandra or that the Will had been registered by the Subregistrar; that she was not aware about the cause of death of Smt. Sushila Chandra; that Smt.Sushila Chandra died at home; that before 02.05.2006, Smt. Sushila Chandra was alright and was in position to sign; that Smt. Sushila Chandra might have been admitted to Holy Child Hospital for about a week to fortnight in the ICU before her death. She denied that both Sh. Harish Chandra and Smt. Sushila Chandra were not in position to move out of their house on account of frail mental & physical condition after 2004, or that they did not go for PC No. 5869/2016 Page no. 26 of 123 Shubh K. Kumar Range vs. State & Ors.
walk or that they were bedridden, or that they were not in a position to carry out their day to day activities on their own or even that because of their frail health and mental condition, they were not in a position to go to the market.
27. R2W1 further stated that she had been friend with the petitioner for 15 years. R2 W1, after reading the portion of her statement recorded on 23.10.2015, stated that as far as she recollect, the person came from the court for registering the Will was a woman. She stated that she had no idea about the husband or children of Smt. Manjulika Behl; that she did not know that children of Smt. Manjulika Behl, who were studying at Dehradun, during vacations, used to visit Sh. Harish Chandra and Smt. Sushila Chandra at Vasant Vihar, New Delhi, by denying that she had ever seen them at the residence of Sh. Harish Chandra and Smt. Sushila Chandra. She further stated that Sh. Harish Chandra and Smt. Sushila Chandra never discussed their family affairs with her; that she was not aware if Manjulika Behl was the main care giver of Sh. Harish Chandra and Smt. Sushila Chandra. She denied that Sh. Harish Chandra and Smt. Sushila Chandra were closest to Dr. Manjulika Behl and her children. She stated that Ms. Urmil Khurana and herself were signatories of the Will and were present in the PC No. 5869/2016 Page no. 27 of 123 Shubh K. Kumar Range vs. State & Ors.
memorial service of Dr. Manjulika Behl. She stated that she knew Dr. Swarna Bhardwaj but did not remember whether she met her at memorial service or seeing her there so could not say whether she was present there or not; and that she was aware that Dr. Swarna Bhardwaj was very close to Sh. Harish Chandra and Smt. Sushila Chandra, however, did not know whether they considered her as their daughter.
28. R2W1 further stated that she never met Sh. Ashok Chandra after the year 1993; that she met him a year or two earlier to 1993 at Vasant Vihar but did not remember the exact date, month or year; that after return from USA in 1993, Sh. Harish Chandra and Smt. Sushila Chandra never discussed anything about Sh. Ashok Chandra with her. She stated that she did not put any signatures on any register at the time or after the Will was executed; that she did not carry any ID proof on 15.03.2006, when she went to the house of Sh. Harish Chandra and Smt. Sushila Chandra or that she was not asked for ID proof at the time of execution of the Will on 15.03.2006; that she had seen Sh. Harish Chandra to go to Kalyan Kendra for deposition of bills but did not remember the exact date, month or year and admitted that Kalyan Kendra is not within the line of sight from her house. She stated that she did not remember PC No. 5869/2016 Page no. 28 of 123 Shubh K. Kumar Range vs. State & Ors.
either the date of arrival or departure of her brother from Delhi, however, volunteered that he remained in Delhi for a week. She denied that Sh. Harish Chandra never went to the market or Kalyan Kendra either for shopping or for depositing any bills or went for any walk, as he was not in a position after 2004 on account of his frail mental and physical condition; or that no signatures were put either by Sh. Harish Chandra or by Smt. Sushila Chandra on any Will in her presence; or that she did not sign the Wills in the presence of either Sh. Harish Chandra or Smt. Sushila Chandra or any person from the Court. She denied that her statement that Sh. Harish Chandra had told her that the Wills had been signed by the person from the Court subsequently is false; or that she did not meet either Sh. Harish Chandra or Smt. Sushila Chandra on 15.03.2006 or few days thereafter. She denied that neither Sh. Harish Chandra nor Smt. Sushila Chandra were in a position due to their ailment, frail physical and mental condition either to understand the contents of the Will or to execute the same of their own will; or that the petitioner in connivance with Sh. Ashok Chandra and by taking the undue advantage of the frail mental & physical conditions of their parents as well as by exercising coercion and misrepresentation, got the Will prepared.
PC No. 5869/2016 Page no. 29 of 123 Shubh K. Kumar Range vs. State & Ors.
29. RW1 Dr. J. K Tandon was examined by respondent No.3 to 5, who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.RW1/A. He supported the version of the said respondents. During his cross examination on behalf of petitioner, he deposed that he and Smt. Manjulika Behl were colleagues but did not remember for how long as they were in different departments of same Hospital; that after her marriage, he met her in 1989 when he was negotiating for the marriage of his daughter; that his daughter got married Smt. Manjulika Behl's son in 1990; that he last met Dr. Manjulika Behl in early 2000 but did not remember the exact date or may be in 2001 2002. He denied that he hardly met Chandra's between 20002006. He stated that he did not remember the dates but he used to meet them in a year once or twice; that he did not examine or give treatment either to Sh. Harish Chandra or Smt. Sushila Chandra.
30. During his further cross examination on behalf of respondent No.2, RW1 denied the suggestion that Dr. Manjulika Behl and Dr. Baldev Raj Behl used to stay with him as relative, whenever they visited India and volunteered that they never stayed with him as they had their own establishment in South Extension. He stated that Sh. Sandeep Behl and his family used to stay with him and volunteered that they used to stay with him when his parents were PC No. 5869/2016 Page no. 30 of 123 Shubh K. Kumar Range vs. State & Ors.
not in India; that Dr. Manjulika Behl and Dr. Baldev Raj Behl never asked him to do any work related to Shr. Harish Chandra and Smt. Sushila Chandra while they were abroad.
31. Sh. Dinesh Bahl was also examined by respondent No.3 to 5 as RW2. He tendered his affidavit in evidence as Ex.RW2/A. He deposed on similar lines. In his cross examination on behalf of the petitioner, he stated that he knew Dr. Manjulika Behl and Dr. Baldev Raj Behl since 1987; that they visited him at his Nehru Place office for professional consultation and since then he had been filing their Tax Returns; that his relations with them were professional; that he had not been filing Tax Returns either of Sh. Harish Chandra or Smt. Sushila Chandra; that he was not giving any financial advice to them but whenever they asked any question, he answered them; that he had been doing profession work for Sh. Sandeep Behl and Ms. Shalini Behl, but he does not remember the year from which he was doing professional work for them; that he had known Sh. Harish Chandra and Smt. Sushila Chandra since 1999 and visited them at their residence for 6 or 8 times but not frequently; that between January, 2003 and June, 2006, he visited them once; that he visited them in the year 2004 in the evening for an hour but did not remember the month; that he visited only to know whether his PC No. 5869/2016 Page no. 31 of 123 Shubh K. Kumar Range vs. State & Ors.
pension account and other accounts can be consolidated as he had too many small balances lying in the different banks and due to his advanced age it was becoming difficult for him to manage; that Will dated 11.10.2002 of Sh. Harish Chandra and Smt. Sushila Chandra was drafted at his office but was not signed there. He admitted that Sh. Harish Chandra was doing his normal household chores whenever he visited him but volunteered that he did not appear to be in control of his faculties. He stated that he used to look after the tax & return work of the Trust of Dr. Manjulika Behl and Dr. Baldev Raj Behl at Almora. He denied that both Sh. Harish Chandra and Smt. Sushila Chandra were in perfect health whenever he met them by stating that they certainly were not in 2004 and afterwards.
32. RW2 further stated that he had also filed tax returns for the petitioner for sometime but did not remember the year; that petitioner met him in the year 2005 in respect of her return.
33. During his cross examination on behalf of respondent No.2, RW2 stated that he himself wrote the affidavit Ex.RW2/A in a piece of paper; that he did not give that piece of paper to anybody and got the same typed by going to Delhi High Court sometime in December, 2012; that the same was typed in the office of counsel for respondent No.3 to 5 without any modification in the material PC No. 5869/2016 Page no. 32 of 123 Shubh K. Kumar Range vs. State & Ors.
prepared by him; that he could not comment as to para 7 of his affidavit having exactly same contents as of the other witnesses of respondent No.3 to 5. He denied that he never visited Sh. Harish Chandra and Smt. Sushila Chandra or that he was deposing falsely.
34. Ms. Shalini Behl examined herself as RW3 by way of affidavit Ex.RW3/A. She proved email dated 09.02.2009 as Ex.RW3/1; certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act as Ex.RW3/2 and relied upon the documents already exhibited as Ex.PW1/R3A, Ex.PW1/R3B, Ex.PW1/DX1, Ex.PW1/DX2 and Ex.PW1/DX3.
35. During her cross examination on behalf of the petitioner, she deposed that her paternal grandparents were settled in Dehradun and they were her local guardian there; that her maternal grandparents were settled in New Delhi and whenever she came from Nigeria, they used to pick her up from airport and take her to Dehradun, where she was studying, and for going to Nigeria, at Delhi, her maternal grandparents used to pick them (herself and her brother Sandeep Behl) and drop at airport; that after 16 years of age, she studied for two years in DPS, R. K. Puram and thereafter went to UK for higher studies; that she did not remember who was her local guardian at DPS R. K. Puram; that she could not admit or PC No. 5869/2016 Page no. 33 of 123 Shubh K. Kumar Range vs. State & Ors.
deny that Dr. Swarna Bhardwaj was her local guardian; that her mother was suffering from Cancer in 1982 which kept coming back and every relapse was more severe; that in the year 20012002, she was detected to have Spread Cancer in the lungs also and she tried the new treatment for his complication, which was successful for further remission for about 3 years; that her condition became worst in 2004; that she expired in 05.06.2005 in the hospital; and that her mother used to talk to her parents regularly before her death but did not know the frequency of her talk as she was not living with her. She denied that she did not talk to her maternal grandparents after the death of her mother by stated that she did not know as to when she talked with them after her mother's death. She admitted that neither she, nor her father and brother informed her maternal grandparents about the death of her mother; and that her maternal grandparents did not go out of India after 1993 and remained in Vasant Vihar till the time of their death. She stated that she received the email dated 09.02.2009 from the petitioner; that she could not say that alongwith the email, she received attachment of Wills from the petitioner by admitting that in her affidavit she mentioned that she received the Wills with email dated 09.02.2009 and that she did not file the copies of Will received with email dated 09.02.2009 PC No. 5869/2016 Page no. 34 of 123 Shubh K. Kumar Range vs. State & Ors.
Ex.RW3/1. She further admitted that she received the Wills of his grandparents dated 24.02.1995, 11.10.2002 & 15.03.2006 but does not remember if she received these Wills of both her grandparents separately. She stated that with email Ex.RW3/1, she received Wills dated 24.04.1985 (copies were exhibited as Ex.RW3/P1and Ex.RW3/P2); that she also received the copies of Wills dated 11.10.2002 and Wills dated 15.03.2006 with email Ex.RW3/1. She denied that she intentionally did not file the attachments i.e. Wills received with email Ex.RW3/1 and admitted that she had filed incomplete Ex.RW3/1. She stated that all the three affidavits filed before DDA for mutation of property were false as her maternal grandparents were suffering from Dementia but she did see any affidavits and denied that the same was her guesswork; that she had not seen any affidavit filed before DDA; that she had not seen any NOCs filed by petitioner, respondent No.2 and her maternal grandparents; that she was aware of the policy of DDA regarding requirement of NOCs by all Class1 legal heirs but did not see any policy of DDA requiring NOCs of Class1 legal heirs for the purpose of mutation in case of registered Will; and that she was not aware that there is a policy of DDA that no NOC is required in case there is a registered Will. She admitted that both her parents were in Nigeria PC No. 5869/2016 Page no. 35 of 123 Shubh K. Kumar Range vs. State & Ors.
till 19881989 and were in service; that she did not visit India from March, 2004 to December, 2006, and that she lost her mother during that time. She stated that she did not come for memorial service of her mother at Delhi in October, 2005, and that she met her maternal grandparent in January, 2007, after the marriage of Dinesh Behl's daughter and stated that she met her maternal grandparents during that trip but did not remember the number of times she met her maternal grandfather. She admitted that at the time of execution of any of three Wills, she was not in India; and that during her visits in 2001 & 2004, she did not take her grandparents to Doctor for any consultation nor she took her maternal grandfather to doctor in 2006, while denying that in 2006 he had congestion of Chest. She denied that her maternal grandparents were not suffering from Dementia or any mental disease and submitted that she never shown her maternal grandparents to any doctor. She admitted that she did not have any medical prescription/ documents pertaining to abovemention disease and did not know what medication was followed by them for said disease. She denied that the Wills of her maternal grandparents were not executed under coercion, undue influence, force, intimidation, cheating, extortion, fraud, betrayal, deception or PC No. 5869/2016 Page no. 36 of 123 Shubh K. Kumar Range vs. State & Ors.
any other infirmity; that due procedure had been followed in the registration of the Will dated 20.04.2006 by the Registrar and he made sure that the same was an outcome of free will and in free disposing mind of the testator.
36. RW3 stated that she never interacted with any neighbor of her maternal grandparents, whenever she visited them. She denied the suggestions that she only opposing the present petition as legal heirs of her mother were excluded from the Will in question. She denied that during her father's visit in 20052006, he was informed about the execution of Will by her maternal grandparents and division of property between petitioner and respondent No.2, to which he threatened them to sue them in court.
37. RW3 stated that property No.D3/4, Vasant Vihar was converted into freehold in 2007 by her maternal grandparent, petitioner and respondent No.2; that she did not know the procedure of conversion and mutation; that she did not know the number of visits made by them in the office of DDA. She admitted that when she visited India in March 2004 and December 2006, petitioner was staying in Chhatarpur. She denied that her maternal grandparents never required 24x7 care; or that no nurse was ever employed by them or for them. She stated that she did not know if PC No. 5869/2016 Page no. 37 of 123 Shubh K. Kumar Range vs. State & Ors.
her mother, father ever employed any nurse for them and that she did not employ any nurse for them. .... She denied any discussion with petitioner about probate of any Will in 2006, or that her maternal grandparents were in sound disposing mind, or that they had willingly and without any coercion or undue influence executed the Will dated 15.03.2006 and 20.04.2006.
38. In cross examination on behalf of respondent No.2, she stated that her affidavit was prepared by her counsel on her instructions and admitted that the facts mentioned in her affidavit were based on the information given by her father; that she never inspected the record of Will in the office of SubRegistrar; that she denied the execution of Will as her maternal grandparents were not mentally and physically sound to execute the same and get the same registered; that she did not file any complaint with DDA or any authority pertaining to mutation in question.
39. RW4 Dr. Sandeep Bahl tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.RW4/A and relied on the certificate under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act as Ex.RW4/1 and documents already exhibited as Ex.RW3/1, Ex.PW1/R3A, Ex.PW1/R3B, Ex.PW1/DX1, Ex.PW1/DX2 and Ex.PW1/DX3.
40. During his cross examination, he stated that he came to India PC No. 5869/2016 Page no. 38 of 123 Shubh K. Kumar Range vs. State & Ors.
in 2000, March 2001, 20022003, December, 2006, December, 2007 and December, 2008 alongwith his family to visit his grandparents and familiarize his children with India; that he did not come on the death of her grandmother as he did not apply for leave for this purposes (Volunteered that he could not get leave); that he did not meet his grandmother between January, 2003 till her death and his grandfather between January, 2006 to December, 2008; that he met them in December, 2002 and at that time they were in their normal health and were performing their normal duties on their own; that he used to call his maternal grandparents 23 times in a month; that in late 2005 when he called, his grandfather did not recognize him and hang the phone and volunteered that he had records of such emails. He stated that he did not file such email. He denied that he was not calling them regularly from 2003 to 2006 or that there is no records of such emails. He stated that he did not inform his maternal grandparents about the serious illness and death of his mother as it was her wish to not to distress them and on the asking of the petitioner that his father did not inform them about the death of his mother. He admitted that his grandparents used to talk to his mother during illness even when she was on death bed. He stated that in 20022003, when he was in India, he did not get his PC No. 5869/2016 Page no. 39 of 123 Shubh K. Kumar Range vs. State & Ors.
maternal grandparents to doctor; that he never interacted with any of their neighbours; and that he never discussed about Will with them. He denied that they did not have full time servant while stating that Arti was their fulltime servant. He stated that he did not see any fulltime nurse for his maternal grandparents; and that petitioner used to stay at Chhatarpur on rent. He denied that his maternal grandparents were doing their normal day to day shopping themselves. He denied that his maternal grandparents were of sound disposing mind while executing the Will dated 20.04.2006 or fully aware of what they were doing. He admitted that his maternal grandparents executed 4 identical Wills dated 24.04.1985, 11.10.2002, 1503.2006 and 20.04.2006.
41. During cross examination on behalf of respondent No.2, RW4 stated that in 2009 he came to know about the Will of year 2006 for the first time; and that there was no other Will after 2006 as his grandparents were not mentally capable of making the Will; that he did not file any probate petition with regard to Will dated 11.10.2002 or anybody else filed petition; that he did not file any objection with DDA; that he did not personally know the witnesses of Will dated 20.04.2006 and denied that the witnesses of Will dated 11.10.2002 were office colleagues of Dinesh Behl.
PC No. 5869/2016 Page no. 40 of 123 Shubh K. Kumar Range vs. State & Ors.
42. RW5 Dr. Swarna Bhardwaj tendered her evidence by way of affidavit R5. She during her cross examination on behalf of petitioner, stated that she knew Harish Chandra and Sushila Chandra as parents of Dr. Manjulika Behl and denied that she used to meet Chandra's only when either Dr. Manjulika Behl or her husband and children were in India. She stated that whenever Dr. Manjulika Behl used to be in India, she was the primary care taker of her parents. She stated that maid Arti was arranged by her and denied that Chandra's did not have full time employee but only part time employee. She admitted that in 2003 petitioner was not staying with Chandra's and that from 2003 to around about 2007, petitioner stayed at Chhatarpur with her husband. She stated that she did not give medical treatment either to Sh. Harish Chandra or Smt. Sushila Chandra regarding their mental or emotional health but referred them to Dr. Suniti Bal, Dr. Jeevan Singh Arora and may be one or two ENT Specialists; that she was not welcome at the house of the Chandra's by petitioner; that she did not refer them to any specialist for mental and emotional health. She denied that Sh. Harish Chandra was absolutely normal, except for ageing problem, and was performing his day to day duties; or that even in chautha ceremony of his wife Smt. Sushila Chandra, he was normal or was PC No. 5869/2016 Page no. 41 of 123 Shubh K. Kumar Range vs. State & Ors.
communicating with visitors except for the grief of death of his wife.
43. RW6 Sh. Jeevan Singh Arora tendered his evidence through affidavit R6 and supported the respondents' version. During his cross examination, he stated that his wife Dr. Nirmaljeet Arora, Dr. Swarna Bhardwaj and Dr. Manjulika Behl were close friends since school; that after 2000 he did not meet Sh. Harish Chandra and Sushila Chandra too frequently but whenever they need, he was available; and that mostly he used to meet Chandra's when Dr. Manjulika Behl used to be in India. He denied that he did not meet Chandra's after the death of Dr. Manjulika Behl and volunteered that he met them more often. He denied that Sh. Harish Chandra was not suffering from Alzheimer or forgetfulness or that he knew what he was doing; or that apart from back pains and shoulder pains, Sh. Harish Chandra had no other problem. He denied that he was understanding and recognizing people fairly well.
44. In his cross examination on behalf of respondent No.2, he stated that he did not read the subject probate petition; that he had not been told about the contents of the petition; that he had no occasion to read the reply of respondent No.3 to 6; that he drafted the present affidavit; and that contents of para 11 have been told to him, and he did not read it before signing it. He denied that he had PC No. 5869/2016 Page no. 42 of 123 Shubh K. Kumar Range vs. State & Ors.
deposed falsely in para 11 of his affidavit even without reading the petition.
45. I have heard the Learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the material available on record as well as the written submissions filed on behalf of the parties.
46. The main contentions of the Learned counsel for the petitioner are:
(i) The Testator had executed his last and final registered Will dated 20.04.2006 and had revoked all his previous Wills and Codicils. Vide the Will in question, late Sh. Harish Chandra had bequeathed his 1/3rd share in the property in favour the petitioner and respondent No.2 in equal proportions and Rs.4,00,000/ each to his grandchildren i.e. children of his predeceased daughter Smt. Manjulika Bahl/ respondent No.4 & 5;
(ii) The Will dated 20.04.2006 was executed by the Testator voluntarily and without any coercion, mispresentation etc. and in sound disposing mind;
(iii) The petitioner is the sole executor and one of the beneficiaries of the Will;
(iv) The probate court has limited jurisdiction to the extent of genuineness, legality and validity of the Will placed before it;
(v) The petitioner has succeeded to prove the valid and proper execution of the Will by examining herself, one of the attesting witnesses Smt. Manjeet Arya and official from the office of SubRegistrar;
(vi) Nothing material had come out in the cross examination
PC No. 5869/2016 Page no. 43 of 123
Shubh K. Kumar Range vs. State & Ors.
of the witnesses which could create doubt in the proper execution of the Will;
(vii) It is an admitted fact that none of the witnesses, on behalf of respondent No.3 to 5, ever physically examined the Testator during his lifetime or gave any medical care either before or after the execution of the Will;
(viii) Objectors have failed to establish that the Testator was not in sound disposing mind at the time of the execution of the Will;
(ix) The Testator lived for about 2 years after the execution of the Will dated 20.04.2006, which proves the claim of the petitioner that he was in sound disposing mind and was physically fit to execute the Will;
(x) The evidence adduced/ affidavit filed by respondent No.4 & 5 was hearsay as whatever was stated by them was passed on to them by their father i.e. respondent No.3;
(xi) A bare look at Ex.PW1/DX2 clearly establish that the Testator had made up his mind and informed the same to respondent No.3, who in turn threatened him to take them to court in case of any change of Will, and the same upset the Testator;
(xii) The endorsement made by Registrar at the back of the Will to the extent of recording petitioner's presence is erroneous and mere irregularity and as the petitioner is the sole Executor of the Will, office of the Registrar might have mentioned her as Second Party;
(xiii) The respondents/ objectors did not lead evidence to establish that petitioner had taken any active participation and prominent role in the execution and registration of the Will.
47. Learned counsel for the petitioner also relied upon the PC No. 5869/2016 Page no. 44 of 123 Shubh K. Kumar Range vs. State & Ors.
following case laws:
1. AIR 1964 SC 529 Shashi Kumar Bangerjee & Ors vs. Subodh Kumar Banerjee & Ors.
2. (2005) 8 Supreme Court Cases 67 Pentakota Satyanarayana & Ors vs. Pentakota Seetharatnam & Ors.
3. (2005) 2 Supreme Court Cases 784 Sridevi & Ors vs. Jayaraja Shetty & Ors.
4. 209 (2014) DLT 144 DB Prem Nath Chopra Thr. LRs vs. Arun Chopra & Ors.
5. AIR 1995 SC 1852 P.P.K. Gopalan Nambiar vs. P.P.K. Balakrishnan Nambiar & Ors.
6. (2007) 11 Supreme Court Cases 621 Savitri & Ors vs. Karthayayini Amma & Ors.
7. 158 (2009) DLT 631 DB Capt. (Retd.) O. P. Sharma & Ors vs. Kamla Sharma & Ors.
8. 212 (2016) DLT 562 Rajesh Sharma vs. Krishan Kumar Sharma PC No. 5869/2016 Page no. 45 of 123 Shubh K. Kumar Range vs. State & Ors.
9. 226 (2016) DLT 150 DB Sita Kashyap Thr. LR Ms. Benu Puri vs. Harbans Kashyap & Ors.
10.192 (2012) DLT 228 DB Prem Bhagnagar (Dr.) Thr. LRs vs. Ravi Mohan Bhatnagar & Ors.
11.157 (2009) DLT 769 DB Rakesh Kumar Gaur & Ors vs. Vipin Gaur
12. 242 (2017) DLT 181 Surender Rana vs. State & Ors.
13.JT 2000 (7) SC 47 Palanivelayutham Pillai & Ors. vs. Ramachandran & Ors.
(i) In Sita Kashyap Thr. LR Ms. Benu Puri vs. Harbans Kashyap & Ors 226 (2016) DLT 150 DB, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi had observed as under:
"20. It is well established that the intention of a testator, in executing a Will, is to disturb or interfere with the normal line of succession. Therefore, unless something unusual and grossly unfair is shown in the disposition, the mere fact that some heirs are excluded is not a ground to conclude that it was executed under suspicious circumstances............... The Supreme Court listed out PC No. 5869/2016 Page no. 46 of 123 Shubh K. Kumar Range vs. State & Ors.
what are the "usual suspects" in terms of unnatural circumstances which would make courts pause, and consider whether such features are "suspicious circumstances"
(ii) In Rakesh Kumar Gaur & Ors vs. Vipin Gaur 157 (2009) DLT 769 DB, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi observed that:
"27. ................ mere presence of the beneficiary at the time of execution cannot be a suspicious circumstance.
28. In P.P.K. Gopalan Nambiar vs. P.P.K. Balakrishnan Nambia, AIR 1995 SC 1852 it has been observed that to support the proposition that in a registered Will, the endorsement by the Registrar / SubRegistrar would show that the testator was of sound disposing mind and that it was executed out of her free will and volition and that there must be real, germane and valid suspicious features and not fantasy of the doubting mind. Reliance was also placed upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Naresh Charan Das Gupta v. Paresh Charan Das Gupta AIR 1955 SC 363 to contend that once it has been proved that a Will has been executed with due solemnities by a person of competent understanding and apparently a free agent, the burden of proving that it was executed under undue influence is on the party who alleges it.
..........
34. In Rani Purnima Debi and Anr. v. Kumar Khagendra Naryan Dev and Anr's case (supra), the Supreme Court had noted that a Will being registered is a circumstance to prove its genuineness. This is an important factor, but that by itself, will not imply that nothing more needs to be proved. If there are suspicious circumstances PC No. 5869/2016 Page no. 47 of 123 Shubh K. Kumar Range vs. State & Ors.
regarding its execution, they can certainly be looked into."
(iii) In Pentakota Satyanarayana & Ors vs. Pentakota Seetharatnam & Ors. (2005) 8 Supreme Court Cases 67, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that:
"Will - Onus to prove and manner of proving Held, initial onus on the propounder to prove execution of the Will thereafter it shifts.
.........
Since the appellants are the propounders of the Will, the initial onus will be on them to prove execution of the Will. Thereafter, the onus would shift to the respondents. They have to establish their case of under influence or coercion. Then the onus would shift to the appellants to remove the suspicious circumstances, if any. In the instant case, the Will has been duly proved and the High Court and the lower court in their discussion have even held so. It has also been held that the testator was hale and hearty and in a sound state of mind. The Will is a registered will. The attestor and the scribe have been examined to prove the Will. The statement made by P in the written statement is one of the most important factors which authenticates the genuineness of the Will. No evidence has been led in by the respondents to show the exercise of any fraud or undue influence at the time of execution of the Will. No evidence was adduced to show that the testator was not in sound state of mind and in fact, the findings is that he was of sound mind. Thus, the evidence adduced by the appellant propounders is sufficient to satisfy the conscience of the court of law that the Will was duly executed by the testator.
PC No. 5869/2016 Page no. 48 of 123 Shubh K. Kumar Range vs. State & Ors.
The findings recorded by the High Court and the trial court with regard to the alleged suspicious circumstances are not only contrary to the facts on record but also overlooked the law governing the aspect of proof of Will. Section 68 of the Evidence Act, 1872 deals with proof of execution of document required by law to be attested. Execution consists in signing a document written out, read over and understood and to go through the formalities necessary for the validity of legal act. In the instant case, the propounders were called upon to show by satisfactory evidence that the Will was signed by the testator, that the testator the at relevant time was in a sound and disposing state of mind, that he understood the nature and effect of the dispositions and put his signatures on the document on his free will. In another words, the onus of the propounders can be taken to be discharged on proof the said essential facts.
In the instant case, there was an unequivocal admission of the Will in the written statement filed by P in the suits filed by S and K. He has also described the appellants as his sons and A as his wife. Such admission cannot be easily brushed aside. However, the testator could not be examined as he was not alive at the time of trial. All the witnesses deposed that they had signed as identifying witnesses and that the testator was in sound disposition of mind. Thus, the appellants have discharged their burden and established that the Will in question was executed by P and that the same was his last Will. It is true that the registration of the Will does not dispense with the need of proving, execution and attestation of a document which is required by law to be proved in the manner provided in Section 68 of the Evidence Act. The Registrar made the following PC No. 5869/2016 Page no. 49 of 123 Shubh K. Kumar Range vs. State & Ors.
particulars on the Will which was admitted to registration, namely, the date, hour and place of presentation of the document for registration, the signatures of the person admitting the execution of the Will and the signatures of the identifying witnesses. The document also contains the signatures of the attesting witnesses and the scribe. Such particulars are required to be endorsed by the Registrar along with the signature and date of document. A presumption by a reference to section 114 of the Evidence Act shall arise to the effect that particulars contain in the endorsement of the registration were regularly and duly performed and correctly recorded. Therefore, the burden to prove the Will has been duly and satisfactorily discharged by the appellants. In such circumstances, the onus shifts to the contestant opposing the Will to bring material on record meeting such prima facie case in which event the onus shifts back on the propounder to satisfy the court affirmatively that the testator did know well the contents of the Will and in sound disposing capacity executed the same.
Even in a case where active participation and execution of the Will by the propounders/ beneficiaries was there, it has been held that that by itself is not sufficient to create doubt either about the testamatory capacity or the genuineness of the Will.
The circumstances of depriving the natural heirs should not raise any suspicion because the whole idea behind the execution of the Will is to interfere in the normal line of succession and so natural heir will be debarred in every case of the Will. It may be that in some cases they are fully debarred and in some cases partly.
...........
PC No. 5869/2016 Page no. 50 of 123 Shubh K. Kumar Range vs. State & Ors.
Even if Appellant 1, one of the beneficiary sons from the second wife, was present at the time of registration by mere that fact no case of undue influence, coercion or fraud is made out negate the Will. Moreover, mere presence does not mean that prominent part was played."
(iv) In Rajesh Sharma vs. Krishan Kumar Sharma 212 (2016) DLT 562, the Hon'ble High Court has held that:
"20. Finally, on behalf of the respondent/objector it was argued that the deceased objector should be held not to be of sound disposing mind inasmuch as the death certificate Ex. PW2/1 shows that the deceased was suffering for 12 years prior to her death. In my opinion, this argument urged on behalf of the respondent/objector is misconceived because illness of 12 years cannot be equated to mental illness of 12 years for holding lack of soundness of mind by the deceased testatrix at the time of making of Will. Probate court has rightly rejected this contention in para 12 of the impugned judgment. It is relevant to note that the probate court has noted that the objector met the deceased testatrix for the last time in the year 197273, and therefore, he was in no position to depose about mental condition of the testatrix at the time of execution of the Will in the year 1989. Also, before holding that a person is of unsound mind, in my opinion, that there must be sufficient medical record showing on preponderance of probabilities any lack of soundness of mind, but in the present case I note that the respondent/objector has not filed any medical record showing unsoundness of the deceased testatrix, much less at the time of the execution of the subject Will dated 13.7.1989."
PC No. 5869/2016 Page no. 51 of 123 Shubh K. Kumar Range vs. State & Ors.
(v) In Palanivelayutham Pillai & Ors. vs. Ramachandran & Ors. JT 2000 (7) SC 47, Hon'ble Supreme Court held that:
9. So far as the proof of will (Ex. B487) dated 171955 is concerned, a mere look at the said will shows that apart from two attesting witnesses S. Ramachandran and R. Balakrishnan, T. K. Sankara Narayanan, who is the scribe of the will, has also witnessed the same.
The description of Sankara Narayanan mentions that it is written and witnessed by him and when he was examined in proof of the said will before the trial court, it cannot be said that the attesting witnesses were not examined in proof of the said will. The submission of learned counsel, Shri Sampath appearing for the appellants to the effect that Sankara Narayanan is shown to be a witness in the other will (Ex. B
488) dated 171955 is now not shown to be a witness simpliciter so far as the disputed will is concerned and, therefore, he should not be treated as an attesting witness to the latter will, cannot be countenanced. It is difficult to appreciate this contention. If the will (Ex. B487) had shown Sankara Narayanan only as a scribe, Shri Sampath would have been right. But the will shows that Sankara Narayanan ascribed his signature apart from describing himself as a scribe. It must, therefore, be held that the disputed will was attested by three attesting witnesses out of which one Sankara Narayanan was examined in the trial court for proving the said will. The trial court as well as the High Court were justified in taking the view that the will (Ex. B487) was duly executed. It has also to be kept in view that on the very same day the testator executed and got the will registered along with the other will (Ex. B488) in favour of Defendants 1, 5 and
6. Point 1 is, therefore, answered in the affirmative in favour of the contesting respondents and against the appellants.
10. So far as this point is concerned, it has to be kept in view that PC No. 5869/2016 Page no. 52 of 123 Shubh K. Kumar Range vs. State & Ors.
both the trial court as well as the High Court have concurrently held on facts that the deceased testator was in a sound disposing state of mind and was capable of executing the will and that there were no suspicious circumstances surrounding the will. Merely because Defendant 9 was present at the time of execution of both the wills, it could not be said that it was a suspicious circumstance.
........
Even though an attempt was made to show that the testator was unwell and confined to bed and the plaintiffs went to the extreme and submitted that the testator was a lunatic, the evidence on record shows to the contrary. He might be old and suffering from illness but his testamentary capacity is not shown to be affected adversely in any manner when on the same day he executed two wills and got them registered. The findings reached about testamentary capacity of the testator by the trial court and confirmed by the High Court are well sustained on evidence and cannot be said to be suffering from any patent error of law or being perverse which would call for our interference in appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India."
(vi) In Prem Nath Chopra Thr. LRs vs. Arun Chopra & Ors, 209 (2014) DLT 144 DB, Hon'ble High Court had held that:
"88. The nature of proof required to prove a will is not different from those required to prove other documents except the requirement of attestation prescribed under Sector 63 of the Indian Succession Act. The proof is to be tested on the usual satisfaction of a prudent mind. What distinguishes a will from other document is that the testator would not be available to testify the same as his last will. This introduces an element of solemnity in the decision. Even then the Court PC No. 5869/2016 Page no. 53 of 123 Shubh K. Kumar Range vs. State & Ors.
has to proceed with the enquiry in the same manner as is done in respect of any other document. The propounder is called upon to show by satisfactory evidence that (i) the will was signed by the testator in the presence of two attesting witnesses; (ii) at the relevant time he was in sound and disposing state of mind; (iii) he understood the nature and effect i.e., the content of the disposition; (iv) he put the signature to the document of his own free will. The onus of the propounder can be said to be discharged on proof of the above essential facts.
89. However, in a case surrounded by suspicious circumstances viz.:
the disposition may appear to be unnatural, improbable or unfair in the light of the relevant circumstances; or there may be indications that the disposition was not the result of the testator's free will and mind, such suspicious circumstances make the initial onus very heavy; and unless satisfactorily discharged, the Court would be reluctant to treat the document as the last will of the testator. Where the propounder takes a prominent part in the execution of the will conferring benefit upon him, that is a suspicious circumstance attending the execution of the will; the propounder is required to remove the doubt by clear and satisfactory evidence. In other words the propounder must satisfy the conscience of the Court that the document is the last will and testament of the testator.
90. Where the caveator alleges undue influence, fraud and coercion, the onus is on him to prove the same. Even if there is no such plea but the circumstances give rise to doubts, it is for the propounder to satisfy the conscience of the Court. If the propounder is able to satisfy the conscience of the Court, the Court shall grant the probate, even if the will cuts off, wholly or in part, near relations. It is the will of the testator that is reflected in the will. Being the testator's own property, he has the liberty to deal with it absolutely. It is not for the Court to find out justification or equity or otherwise in the action of the PC No. 5869/2016 Page no. 54 of 123 Shubh K. Kumar Range vs. State & Ors.
testator. It is not for the Court to make it fair or to sermonize. It is not for the Court to refuse the grant on account of the fact that the disposition is not just and fair or is unnatural or improbable when the conscience of the Court is clear about the proof of the execution of the will on the face of the evidence, satisfactorily sufficient, to remove the suspicious circumstances.
91. As the wills are too frequently made by the sick and dying, the degree of understanding and memory which the law requires is such as may be reasonably expected from persons in that condition. Therefore, it is wrong to suppose that those qualities of mind should be possessed by the testator in the highest degree, position or to the same extent as before the illness in order to enable him to validly make his will. Section 59 of the Indian Succession Act requires that the testator should have a sound mind. The sound mind referred to does not mean that the testator should have his mental faculty in their fullest vigour, but means that he should have the capacity to understand the nature of his property; memory to remember the relations and persons normally having claims on his bounty and has also a judgment. As observed by their Lordships of Privy Council in the decision reported as AIR 1945 PC 174 Judah Vs. Isolyne Shrojbashini Bose & Anr., the fact that the testator was unwell when he executed the will is a long way from saying that he had no testamentary capacity. The testator does not have to be found in perfect state of health to have his will declared valid. It is sufficient to prove that he was able to outline the manner in which his estate was to be disposed of.
92. The general principles governing the presumption of due execution and attestation are, if a will appears on the face of it to have been duly executed and attested in accordance with the requirements of the Act, the maxim 'omnia presumuntur rite esse acta' applies, unless it is clearly proved that the will in fact, was not duly executed. The Court of PC No. 5869/2016 Page no. 55 of 123 Shubh K. Kumar Range vs. State & Ors.
probate has long being accustomed to give great weight to the presumption of due execution arising from the regularity ex facie of the testamentary paper produced where no suspicion of fraud has occurred.
93. Where once it has been proved that a will has been executed by a person of competent understanding, the burden of proving that it was executed under undue influence is on the party who alleges it. The Bombay High Court laid it down in the decision reported as (1950) 52 BOMLR 5 Mst.Gomtibai Vs.Kanchhedilal that undue influence in order to invalidate a will must amount to coercion or fraud. Its extents must be established and it must also appear that it was actually exercised on the testator.
94. The burden of proving undue influence is not discharge by merely establishing that the person had power unduly to overbear the will of the testator. It must be shown that in any particular case that power was, in fact, exercised and that it was by means of exercise of that power that the will was obtained. This was observed by the Calcutta High Court in the decision reported as AIR 1960 Cal 1551 Chandra Majumdar Vs. Akhil Chandra Majumdar. Relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the decision reported as (1955) 1 ITR 1035 (SC) Naresh Charan Das Gupta Vs. Paresh Charan Das Gupta & Anr. it was observed that it is elementary that law does not regard or characterize every interest which is brought to bear upon a testator as undue. It is open to a person to plead his case before the testator and to persuade him to make a disposition in his favour and if the testator retains his mental capacity and there is no element of fraud or coercion, the will cannot be attacked on the ground of undue influence. Not all importunities are undue influence. While making said observation, the Supreme Court in Naresh Charan Das Gupta's case (supra) quoted the observation of Lord Penzance in the decision reported as 1868 (1) P & PC No. 5869/2016 Page no. 56 of 123 Shubh K. Kumar Range vs. State & Ors.
D 481 Hall v. Hall but all influences are not unlawful. Persuasion, appeals to the affections or ties of kindred, to a sentiment of gratitude for past services, or pity for future destitution, or the like these are all legitimate and may be fairly pressed on a testator. On the other hand, pressure of whatever character, whether acting on the fears or the hopes, if so exerted as to overpower the volition without convincing the judgment, is a species of restraint under which no valid will can be made. In a word, a testator may be led, but not driven; and his will must be the offspring of his own volition, and not the record of someone else's.
95. The golden rule in interpreting a will is to give effect to the testator's intention as ascertained from the language, which he has used. The overriding duty of a Court is to construe the language which the testator has in fact employed giving due weight to all the words and rejecting none to which a meaning can reasonably be assigned. The Court is entitled to put itself into the testator's arm chair to construe a will and to form an opinion apart from the decided cases and then, to see whether those decisions require any modification of that opinion and not to beckon by considering as to how far the will in question resemble other will upon which the decisions have been given. The proposition that the will has to be read as a whole cannot be disputed. Whether there is a will on the basis of the document, the probate Court certainly will not proceed to consider as to whether or not the disposition of the property was good or bad. The primary duty of the probate Court is to see first whether prima facie, the document constituted a will.
96. Any and every circumstance is not a suspicious circumstance. A circumstance would be suspicious when it is not normal or is not normally expected in a normal situation or is not expected of a normal person.
PC No. 5869/2016 Page no. 57 of 123 Shubh K. Kumar Range vs. State & Ors.
97. If evidence adduced by the propounder is legal and convincing and satisfies the conscience of the court, mere conjecture or unfounded suspicion should not be permitted to sway the verdict that the will has not been proved. The law of evidence does not permit conjecture or suspicion having the place of legal proof nor permit them to demolish a fact otherwise proved by legal and convincing evidence. Well founded suspicion may be a ground for closer scrutiny of the evidence but suspicion alone cannot form the foundation of a judicial verdict positive or negative."
(vii) In P.P.K. Gopalan Nambiar vs. P.P.K. Balakrishnan Nambiar & Ors. AIR 1995 SC 1852, it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that:
"Though it is the duty of the propounder of the Will to prove the Will and to remove all the suspected features, but there must be real, germane and valid suspicious features and not the fantasy of the doubting mind. In the present case, the suspicion entertained by the trial court and the High Court was without any basis."
(viii) In Prem Bhagnagar (Dr.) Thr. LRs vs. Ravi Mohan Bhatnagar & Ors., 192 (2012) DLT 228 DB, it has been held by the Hon'ble High Court has held that:
"15. Questioning the finding returned by the learned Single Judge with respect to the will Ex.DW1/2, learned counsel for the plaintiff/appellant urged that the learned Single Judge overlooked the fact that Roop Rani (Roop Chandra) was an interested witness, inasmuch as the will Ex.DW1/2 records that Ravi Mohan could not PC No. 5869/2016 Page no. 58 of 123 Shubh K. Kumar Range vs. State & Ors.
sell the property without the consent of his sister Roop Chandra. Secondly, it was urged that the learned Single Judge overlooked the suspicious nature of the will; being the unnatural and disproportionate bequest i.e. only one child being bequeathed the estate by the father and others getting nothing. Learned counsel urged that the wedding cards Ex.PW2/1, Ex.PW2/3 and also Ex.PW2/5 and the marriage photographs Exs.P2, P3 etc. showed that during his lifetime, Amar Nath was having good social relations with all his family members and thus counsel urged that there was no reason for Amar Nath not to give anything to his other children. Letter Ex.PW 2/4 addressed to the appellant by Amar Nath on January 31, 1995 was also relied upon as proof of good relationship between the plaintiff/appellant and his father.
17. People making disproportionate bequest, is not an unknown thing in law. After all, one object of a will is to alter the natural line of succession or a share in a property which may be inherited by devolution of interest. A disproportionate bequest by itself is not a suspicious circumstance. That relationship between a father and all his children was equally good and yet in spite thereof only one child is made the beneficiary is again not a suspicious circumstance by itself. If we read the will Ex.DW1/2, which runs into four pages, we get a reason as to why the deceased decided to bequeath his only property to one son. He records that during his lifetime, the daughters have been married and are happily settled and that all sons are well settled and living separately, except two sons i.e. Vijay Mohan and Ravi Mohan. He notes that Ravi Mohan has been looking after him and when he i.e. Amar Nath faced financial hardship on account of his business as a contractor suffering loss, it was Ravi Mohan who looked after him and discharged duties as an obedient son, not only towards him but even towards the other family members.
PC No. 5869/2016 Page no. 59 of 123 Shubh K. Kumar Range vs. State & Ors.
18. We find that the will has been registered before the SubRegistrar the day next of his execution. There being additions made in line No.17 at page 3 of the will, the Sub Registrar has made an endorsement at the back of the will to the effect; 'Addition made at page No.3, line No.17 is attested by the testator'. Not only has each page of the will been signed by Amar Nath, the executor of the will, he has also signed the will at the place where he was required to sign when he appeared before the SubRegistrar for getting the will registered. The endorsement on the will by the SubRegistrar would show that Roop Rani (Roop Chandra) and Ram Avtar Aggarwal were also present in the office of the SubRegistrar when the will was registered.
19. With reference to the crossexamination of Roop Rani (Roop Chandra), we find not even a suggestion made to Roop Chandra that there is contrivance in the will be registered.
20. In the decision reported as (22) 1982 DLT 301 (DB) Rajinder Nath Sharma & Ors. vs. Rani Chander Kanta & Ors., a Division Bench of this Court had opined that if a will is registered, there is a presumption of genuineness; of course the presumption is rebuttable. The same view has been reiterated by another Division Bench in the decision reported as 157 (2009) DLT 769 (DB) Rajesh Kumar Gaur & Ors. vs. Vipin Gaur. The decision also holds that where a will is registered and the testator has got the will registered by appearing before the Sub Registrar, it would primafacie show a sound disposing mind of the testator and unless some defect in registration could be shown, the Court would primafacie support such a will."
(ix) In Sridevi & Ors vs. Jayaraja Shetty & Ors. (2005) 2 Supreme Court PC No. 5869/2016 Page no. 60 of 123 Shubh K. Kumar Range vs. State & Ors.
Cases 784, Hon'ble Supmere Court held that:
"14. The propounder of the will has to show that the will was signed by the testator; that he was at the relevant time in sound disposing state of mind; that he understood the nature and effect of dispositions and had put his signatures to the testament of his own free will and that he had signed it in the presence of the two witnesses who attested in his presence and in the presence of each other. Once these elements are established, the onus which rests on the propounder is discharged. DW2, the scribe, in his testimony has categorically stated that the will was scribed by him at the dictation of the testator. The two attesting witnesses have deposed that the testator had signed the will in their presence while in sound disposing state of mind after understanding the nature and effect of dispositions made by him. That he signed the will in their presence and they had signed the will in his presence and in the presence of each other. In crossexamination, the appellants failed to elicit anything which could persuade us to disbelieve their testimony. It has not been show that they were in any way interested in the propounders of the will or that on their asking they could have deposed falsely in court. Their testimony inspires confidence. The testimony of the Scribe (DW2) and the two attesting witnesses (DWs. 3 & 4) is fully corroborated by the statement of handwriting expert (DW5). The will runs into 6 pages. The testator had signed each of the 6 pages. Handwriting expert compared the signatures of the testator with his admitted signatures. He has opined that the signatures on the will are that of the testator. In our view, the will had been duly executed.
15. Coming to the suspicious circumstances surrounding the will, it may be stated that although the testator was 80 years of age at the time of the execution of the will and he died after 15 days of the execution of the will, the two attesting witnesses and the scribe have categorically stated that the testator was in sound state of health and PC No. 5869/2016 Page no. 61 of 123 Shubh K. Kumar Range vs. State & Ors.
possessed his full physical and mental faculties. Except that the deceased is 80 years of age and that he died within 15 days of the execution of the will, nothing has been brought on record to show that the testator was not in good health or possessed of his physical or mental faculties. From the cross examination of the scribe and the two attesting witnesses, the appellants have failed to bring out anything which could have put a doubt regarding the physical or mental incapacity of the testator to execute the will. Submission of the learned counsel for the appellants that the testator had deprived the other heirs of his property is not true. The family properties had been partitioned in the year 1961. The shares which were given to Dharmaraja Kadamba and Raviraja Kadamba were in possession of tenants and vested in the State Government after coming into force of Karnataka Land Reforms (Amendment) Act, 1973 whereas the properties which had been given to the daughters were in the personal cultivation of the family. The testator while executing the will bequeathed the properties which had fallen to his share in the partition and which he had inherited from his brother which were in his personal cultivation in favour of his two sons Dharmaraja Kadamba and Raviraja Kadamba and gave the right to receive compensation to other heirs of the properties which were under the tenants and had vested in the State Government. It is not a case where the father had deprived his other children totally from inheritance. Reasons for unequal distribution have been given in the will itself. This had been done by him to balance the equitable distribution of the properties in favour of all his children.
16. Counsel for the appellants argued that Respondent No. 13 had taken prominent part in the execution of the will as he was present in the house at the time of the alleged execution of the will. We do not find any merit in this submission. Apart from establishing his presence in the house, no regarding the execution of the will. Mere presence in PC No. 5869/2016 Page no. 62 of 123 Shubh K. Kumar Range vs. State & Ors.
the house would not prove that he had taken prominent part in the execution of the will."
(x) In Savitri & Ors vs. Karthayayini Amma & Ors., (2007) 11 Supreme Court Cases 621, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:
"The Will was admittedly registered. The testator lived for seven years after execution of the Will. He could change his mind; he did not. The very fact that he did not take any step for cancellation of the Will is itself a factor which the Court may take into consideration for the purpose of upholding the same."
(xi) In Surender Rana vs. State & Ors. 2017 SCC Online Del 9892, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi observed as under:
"13.(i) Finally, the appellant argued that petitioner Sh. Sanjay Rana had actively participated in making of the Will, and he was also a beneficiary and executor of the Will, and therefore, in terms of various judgments of the Supreme Court once propounder actively participates in making of the Will of which he is the beneficiary, such a Will should be held to be shrouded in suspicious circumstances and set aside.
(ii) In my opinion this argument urged on behalf of the appellant is also liable to be rejected because the issue of suspicious circumstances existing is a question of fact depending upon the facts of each case. The law that when a propounder participates in making of the Will and thus suspicious circumstances exist is not an absolute statement in fact and law and this statement is only for the purpose of deciding as to whether by the propounder taking active part in making of the Will the thinking of the testator was overwhelmed and he was not made to PC No. 5869/2016 Page no. 63 of 123 Shubh K. Kumar Range vs. State & Ors.
think naturally i.e the Will is not a natural outcome of a natural mind of the testator. In the present case, it is seen that there is nothing unnatural about the Will, inasmuch as, both the objectors were living separately from the family not only for residence but also for their business, with one objector being the respondent no. 3 herein having settled in USA since 1988 i.e around 12 years prior to the death of the testator and other objector being the appellant had separated after his marriage and the parents had never visited him ever after his marriage and in fact the appellant/objector was not even called to the marriage of his own/real sister Smt. Hema Chaddha. Also, it was the petitioner Sh. Sanjay Rana/respondent no. 2 herein who was not only living with his parents, but he was also taking care of them and incurring medical expenses for the treatment of his father/deceased testator. In my opinion, therefore it cannot be held in the facts of the present case that simply because the propounder has taken active part in making and registration of the Will, the Will is necessarily to be held to be shrouded in suspicious circumstances for the same to be rejected. This argument of the appellant is also therefore rejected."
48. The main contentions of the Learned counsel for respondent No.2 are:
(i) The factum of the registration of the Will was duly proved by examination of a witness from Registration Authority;
(ii) The attesting witness namely Manjeet Arya deposed that the Testator Sh. Harish Chandra had signed the Will in the presence of the attesting witnesses and the attesting witnesses signed the Will in the presence of the Testator;
(iii) The once the execution of the Will stands proved by the
PC No. 5869/2016 Page no. 64 of 123
Shubh K. Kumar Range vs. State & Ors.
petitioner, it is for the objectors to prove the existence of suspicious circumstances;
(iv) The objectors must clearly and specifically mention in their pleadings/ objections as to what are the allegations with details of their opposition. The objectors did not specify the allegation of undue influence or other suspicious circumstances and general allegations shall not suffice the purpose;
(v) All the allegations regarding suspicious circumstances raised by the objectors/ respondent No.3 to 5 are in the nature of suggestive inferences and without any absolute proof and there is no cogent or direct evidence either to prove the allegations regarding the mental ability of the Testator at the time of the execution of the Will or any undue influence upon the Testator;
(vi) The Will in question was executed on 20.04.2006 i.e. after the death of Smt. Manjulika Bahl and nonmentioning of the name of respondent No.3/ Baldev Raj Bahl (husband of Smt. Manjulika Bahl) in the Will by the Testator clearly shows that he was not liked by the Testator and the love and affection of the Testator was limited to his daughter;
(vii) The scope of the probate petition is limited to the proof and genuineness of the Will and the court is not required to go in any details with regard to the quantum and nature of the bequest made in the Will;
(viii) The allegations with regard to mental ability of the Testator to execute a Will has to be proved through medical records/ documents or by examination of medical expert.
However, the objectors led only suggestive evidence through individuals who have displayed their observations and there is no proof by any medical record. On the other hand, Dr. Madhuri Behari, being neighbour and Head of Department of PC No. 5869/2016 Page no. 65 of 123 Shubh K. Kumar Range vs. State & Ors.
Neurology at AIIMS, had deposed that the Testator was in good mental state at the relevant time; and
(ix) The petitioner has been able to prove that the Will was validly executed on 20.04.2006 and the objectors have failed to prove the existence of any suspicious circumstances.
49. The main contentions of the Learned counsel for the objectors/ respondent No.4 & 5 are:
(i) Respondent No.2 earlier opposed the petition filed by the petitioner by submitting that their parents signed the last Will without fully reading the contents of the same under the influence of the petitioner/daughter; that the petitioner concealed the material facts from the Court and that the petitioner, on his visit to India, tried to stop him from staying with his father in the property. However, later on by way of amendment, respondent No.2 withdrew his opposition to the grant of probate in favour of the petitioner and even examined the sole witness Dr. Madhuri Behari to fill in the lacunae of the case of the petitioner;
(ii) Will dated 20.04.2006 was manipulated and procured by the petitioner through misrepresentation and by exercising undue influence and coercion etc. upon the deceased and despite having special relations with elder daughter & grandchildren, they being deprived of any benefit in the Will is unnatural;
(iii) The Will was registered at home not at the office of the SubRegistrar and the petitioner neither led any evidence nor PC No. 5869/2016 Page no. 66 of 123 Shubh K. Kumar Range vs. State & Ors.
pleaded that any application was made to the SubRegistrar to show special cause for exemption of Sh. Harish Chandra and Smt. Sushila Chandra from personal appearance before the office of SubRegistrar and the registration of a document at home. Further, the endorsement on the Will dated 20.04.2006 reads "In the office of Registrar/Sub Registrar, Delhi this 20.04.2006 day Thursday between the hours of";
(iv) Immediately after the registration of the Will, Smt. Sushila Chandra was admitted to the Hospital in ICU and ultimately expired on 0205.2006 i.e. 11 days after the execution of the Will;
(v) The printed date on the Will dated 20.04.2006 is 15.03.2006;
(vi) The perusal of the Will dated 20.04.2006 would show the presence and active participation of the petitioner at the time of the execution and registration of the same. The Will record the petitioner as the second party whereas there is no second party in the Will;
(vii) The statement of witness of respondent No.2 clearly show that the alleged witness Sh. Dhirender Bihari was not even present in Delhi on 20.04.2006;
(viii) As per Will dated 20.04.2006, the photocopy of the Will was to be handed over to Ms. Urmil Khurana to ensure execution of the Will as desired by the executor. But the petitioner did not examine Ms. Urmil Khurana, who was a neighbour and would be the best witness to depose upon the circumstances in which the Will was created;
(ix) The deceased, despite having gone through the contents of the Will, did not correct the spelling of names of daughter and granddaughter and further that they despite being highly qualified individuals, put their thumb impressions on the Wills PC No. 5869/2016 Page no. 67 of 123 Shubh K. Kumar Range vs. State & Ors.
instead of signing. All this together prove that the Will was not executed by the testator in a good state of mind;
(x) The mental and physical condition of Sh. Harish Chandra and Smt. Sushila Chander was very frail and they did not have the cognitive ability to comprehend the nature of the document;
(xi) The petitioner did not lead any evidence with regard to the health conditions of Sh. Harish Chandra and Smt. Sushila Chandra;
(xii) The relations of respondent No.2 with his parents were strained unlike Ms. Manjulika Bahl, who was very close to them and that in the Will dated 24.04.1985, there was an explanation as to why bigger share was given to the petitioner but in the Wills dated 15.03.2006 and 20.04.2006, there is no such explanation;
(xiii) There is no evidence on behalf of the petitioner that respondent No.3 threatened Sh. Harish Chandra and Smt. Sushila Chandra or that he was informed about their intend to make a new Will;
(xiv) Despite inquiries from time to time, petitioner suppressed the fact of execution of new Will after 11.10.2002 till the year 2009.
50. The case laws relied upon by respondent No.3 to 5 are as under:
1. Smt. Jaswant Kaur vs. Smt. Amrit Kaur & Ors (1977) 1 SCC 369
2. Guro vs. Atma Singh & Ors.
(1992) 2 SCC 507 PC No. 5869/2016 Page no. 68 of 123 Shubh K. Kumar Range vs. State & Ors.
3. S.R. Srinivasa & Ors vs. Padmavathamma (2010) 5 SCC 274
4. H. Venkatachala Iyengar vs. B.N. Thimmajamma & Ors AIR 1959 SC 443
5. Smt. Hardial Kaur vs. Hazur Singh & Anr (1998) 119 PLR 592
6. Rani Purnima Devi & Anr. vs. Kumar Khagendra Narayan Dev & Anr.
AIR 1962 SC 567
7. State of Jharkhand & Ors vs. Ambay Cements & Anr.
(2005) 1 SCC 368; AIR 2005 SC 4168
8. Natarajan & Anr vs. Sree Narayana Dharma Sanghom Trust 1985 (2) KLF 577
9. Rani Purnima Devi vs. V. Kumar Khagendra Narayan Dev & Anr. AIR 1962 SC 567
10. Raja Ram Singh vs. Arjun Singh & Anr.
AIR 2002 Delhi 338
11. Kishan Singh Ahluwalia vs. Sheela Saxena & Ors.
12. Niranjan Umeshchandra Joshi vs. Mrudula Jyoti Rao & Ors.
AIR 2007 SC 614
13. M. B. Ramesh (Dead) by LRs vs. K. M. Veeraje Urs (Dead) by PC No. 5869/2016 Page no. 69 of 123 Shubh K. Kumar Range vs. State & Ors.
LRs & Ors (2013) 7 SCC 490 and
14. Prataprai Trumbaklal Mehta vs. Jayant Nemchand Shah & Anr. AIR 1992 Bom 19
(i) In Jaswant Kaur v. Amrit Kaur, (1977) 1 SCC 369, the Supreme Court following H. Venkatachala Iyangar observed as under:
"9. In cases where the execution of a Will is shrouded in suspicion, its proof ceases to be a simple lis between the plaintiff and the defendant. What, generally, is an adversary proceeding becomes in such cases a matter of the Court's conscience and then the true question which arises for consideration is whether the evidence led by the propounder of the Will is such as to satisfy the conscience of the Court that the Will was duly executed by the testator. It is impossible to reach such satisfaction unless the party which sets up the Will offers a cogent and convincing explanation of the suspicious circumstances surround the making of the Will."
(ii) In Guro vs. Atma Singh & Ors. (1992) 2 SCC 507, Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:
"4. With regard to proof of a will, the law is wellsettled that the mode of proving a will does not ordinarily differ from that of proving any other document except as to the special requirement prescribed in the case of a will by section 63 of the Indian Succession Act. The onus of proving the will is on the propounder and in the absence of suspicious circumstances PC No. 5869/2016 Page no. 70 of 123 Shubh K. Kumar Range vs. State & Ors.
surrounding the execution of the will, proof of testamentary capacity and signature of the testator as required by law is sufficient to discharge the onus. Where, however there were suspicious circumstances, the onus would be on the propounder to explain them to the satisfaction of the court before the will could be accepted as genuine. Such suspicious circumstances may be a shaky signature, a feeble mind and unfair and unjust disposal of property or the propounder himself taking a leader part in the making of the will under which he receives a substantial benefit. The presence of suspicious circumstances makes the initial onus heavier and the propounder must remove all legitimate suspicion before the document can be accepted as the last will of the testator."
(iii) In S.R. Srinivasa & Ors vs. Padmavathamma (2010) 5 SCC 274, Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under:
"39. Since there were suspicious circumstances, it was necessary for the defendants to explain the same. The registration of the Will by itself was not sufficient to remove the suspicion. The first appellate court also notices that even in cases where the execution of the Will is admitted, at least one attesting witness of the Will has to be examined to receive the Will in evidence. DW2, who has been examined is the scribe of the Will, has given no plausible reasons as to why the Will was presented twice before the Sub Registrar for registration. Nor is it stated by this witness as to why the Will was not registered on the first occasion. It is also held by the First Appellate Court that non examination of the Sub Registrar creates suspicion about the genuineness of the Will. Even the attesting witnesses to the Will have not been examined. There is no evidence whether the Will PC No. 5869/2016 Page no. 71 of 123 Shubh K. Kumar Range vs. State & Ors.
was read over by the Sub Registrar or anybody else before it was registered. It is not explained as to how the Will came into possession of defendant No.1. There is no evidence when he was put in proper custody of the Will. Considering the cumulative effect of all the circumstances, the First Appellate Court has held that execution of the Will is surrounded by suspicious circumstances. Consequently, the appeal was allowed and the judgment of the Trial Court was set aside."
(iv) In H. Venkatachala Iyengar vs. B.N. Thimmajamma & Ors AIR 1959 SC 443, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that:
"19. What is the true legal position in the matter of proof of wills?
It is wellknown that the proof of wills presents a recurring topic for decision in courts and there are a large number of judicial pronouncements on the subject. The party propounding a will or otherwise making a claim under a will is no doubt seeking to prove a document and, in deciding how it is to be proved, we must inevitably refer to the statutory provisions which govern the proof of documents. Sections 67 and 68 of the Evidence Act are relevant for this purpose. Under s. 67, if a document is alleged to be signed by any person, the signature of the said person must be proved to be in his handwriting, and for proving such a handwriting under ss. 45 and 47 of the Act the opinions of experts and of persons acquainted with the handwriting of the person concerned are made relevant. Section 68 deals with the proof of the execution of the document required by law to PC No. 5869/2016 Page no. 72 of 123 Shubh K. Kumar Range vs. State & Ors.
be attested; and it provides that such a document shall not be used as evidence until one attesting witness at least has been called for the purpose of proving its execution. These provisions prescribe the requirements and the nature of proof which must be satisfied by the party who relies on a document in a court of law. Similarly, ss. 59 and 63 of the Indian Succession Act are also relevant. Section 59 provides that every person of sound mind, not being a minor, may dispose of his property by will and the three illustrations to this section indicate what is meant by the expression " a person of sound mind " in the context. Section 63 requires that the testator shall sign or affix his mark to the will or it shall be signed by some other person in his presence and by his direction and that the signature or mark shall be so made that it shall appear that it was intended thereby to give effect to the writing as a will. This section also requires that the will shall be attested by two or more witnesses as prescribed. Thus the question as to whether the will set up by the propounder is proved to be the last will of the testator has to be decided in the light of these provisions. Has the testator signed the will? Did he understand the nature and effect of the dispositions in the will? Did he put his signature to the will knowing what it contained? Stated broadly it is the decision of these questions which determines the nature of the finding on the question of the proof of wills. It would prima facie be true to say that the will has to be proved like any other document except as to the special requirements of attestation prescribed by s. 63 of the Indian Succession Act. As in the case of proof of other PC No. 5869/2016 Page no. 73 of 123 Shubh K. Kumar Range vs. State & Ors.
documents so in the case of proof of wills it would be idle to expect proof with mathematical certainty. The test to be applied would be the usual test of the satisfaction of the, prudent mind in such matters.
20. However, there is one important feature which distinguishes wills from other documents. Unlike other documents the will speaks from the death of the testator, and so, when it is propounded or produced before a court, the testator who has already departed the world cannot say whether it is his will or not ; and this aspect naturally introduces an element of solemnity in the decision of the question as to whether the document propounded is proved to be the last will and testament of the departed testator. Even so, in dealing with the proof of wills the court will start on the same enquiry as in the case of the proof of documents. The propounder would be called upon to show by satisfactory evidence that the will was signed by the testator, that the testator at the relevant time was in a sound and disposing state of mind, that he understood the nature and effect of the dispositions and put his signature to the document of his own free will. Ordinarily when the evidence adduced in support of the will is disinterested, satisfactory and sufficient to prove the sound and disposing state of the testator's mind and his signature as required by law, courts would be justified in making a finding in favour of the propounder. In other words, the onus on the propounder can be taken to be discharged on proof of the essential facts just indicated.
PC No. 5869/2016 Page no. 74 of 123 Shubh K. Kumar Range vs. State & Ors.
21. There may, however, be cases in which the execution of the will may be surrounded by suspicious circumstances. The alleged signature of the testator may be very shaky and doubtful and evidence in support of the propounder's case that the signature, in question is the signature of the testator may not remove the doubt created by the appearance of the signature; the condition of the testator's mind may appear to be very feeble and debilitated; and evidence adduced may not succeed in removing the legitimate doubt as to the mental capacity of the testator; the dispositions made in the will may appear to be unnatural, improbable or unfair in the light of relevant circumstances; or, the will may otherwise indicate that the said dispositions may not be the result of the testator's free will and mind. In such cases the court would naturally expect that all legitimate suspicions should be completely removed before the document is accepted as the last will of the testator. The presence of such suspicious circumstances naturally tends to make the initial onus very heavy; and, unless it is satisfactorily discharged, courts would be reluctant to treat the document as the last will of the testator. It is true that, if a caveat is filed alleging the exercise of undue influence, fraud or coercion in respect of the execution of the will propounded, such pleas may have to be proved by the caveators; but, even without such pleas circumstances may raise a doubt as to whether the testator was acting of his own free will in executing the will, and in such circumstances, it would be a part of the initial onus to remove any such legitimate doubts in the matter.
PC No. 5869/2016 Page no. 75 of 123 Shubh K. Kumar Range vs. State & Ors.
22. Apart from the suspicious circumstances to which we have just referred, in some cases the wills propounded disclose another infirmity. Propounders themselves take a prominent part in the execution of the wills which confer on them substantial benefits. If it is shown that the propounder has taken a prominent part in the execution of the will and has received substantial benefit under it, that itself is generally treated as a suspicious circumstance attending the execution of the will and the propounder is required to remove the said suspicion by clear and satisfactory evidence. It is in connection with wills that present such suspicious circumstances that decisions of English courts often mention the test of the satisfaction of judicial conscience. It may be that the reference to judicial conscience in this connection is a heritage from similar observations made by ecclesiastical courts in England when they exercised jurisdiction with reference to wills; but any objection to the use of the word 'conscience' in this context would, in our opinion, be purely technical and academic, if not pedantic. The test merely emphasizes that, in determining the question as to whether an instrument produced before the court is the last will of the testator, the court is deciding a solemn question and it must be fully satisfied that it had been validly executed by the testator who is no longer alive."
(v) In Smt. Hardial Kaur vs. Hazur Singh & Anr (1998) 119 PLR 592, the Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana has held that:
"The registration endorsement made on the Will shows that it PC No. 5869/2016 Page no. 76 of 123 Shubh K. Kumar Range vs. State & Ors.
was presented before the Sub Registrar at his office in the afternoon. It is not specifically mentioned that the Will was registered at Dr. Goyal's, Hospital. For registering the document at some other place other than the office of the Sub Registrar, an application to that effect has to be made. The same has to be entered in the register maintained in the office of Sub Registrar. Section 31 of the Registration Act provides the procedure for registering a document. According to the said Section, the registration of the document shall be made only at the office of the Officer authorised to accept the same for registration, but it also provides that on special cause being shown, the officer may attend at the residence of any person desiring to present a document for registration."
(vi) In Rani Purnima Devi & Anr. vs. Kumar Khagendra Narayan Dev & Anr. AIR 1962 SC 567, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that:
"The question therefore is whether in the circumstances of the present case the evidence as to registration discloses that the testator knew that he was admitting the execution of a will when he is said to have put down his signature at the bottom of the will in the presence of Arabali. We have scrutinized that evidence carefully and we must say that the evidence falls short of satisfying us in the circumstances of this case that the testator knew that the document the execution of which he was admitting before Arabali and at the bottom of which he signed was his will. Therefore we are left with the bald fact of registration which in our opinion is insufficient in the circumstances of this case to dispel the suspicious circumstances which we have enumerated above. We are therefore not satisfied about the due execution and attestation of this will by the PC No. 5869/2016 Page no. 77 of 123 Shubh K. Kumar Range vs. State & Ors.
testator and hold that the propounder has been unable to dispel the suspicious circumstances which surround the execution and attestation of this will. In the circumstances, no letters of administration in favour of the respondent can 'be granted on the basis of it."
(vii) In State of Jharkhand & Ors vs. Ambay Cements & Anr. (2005) 1 SCC 368; AIR 2005 SC 4168, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:
"27. Whenever the statute prescribes that a particular act is to be done in a particular manner and also lays down that failure to comply with the said requirement leads to severe consequences, such requirement would be mandatory. It is the cardinal rule of the interpretation that where a statute provides that a particular thing should be done, it should be done in the manner prescribed and not in any other way. It is also settled rule of interpretation that where a statute is penal in character, it must be strictly construed and followed. Since the requirement, in the instant case, of obtaining prior permission is mandatory, therefore, noncompliance of the same must result in canceling the concession made in favour of the grantee the respondent herein."
(viii) In Natarajan & Anr vs. Sree Narayana Dharma Sanghom Trust 1985 (2) KLF 577, the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala has held as under:
"18. If a Will has been registered, that is a circumstance, which may having regard to the circumstances, prove its genuineness.
PC No. 5869/2016 Page no. 78 of 123 Shubh K. Kumar Range vs. State & Ors.
But, the mere fact that a Will is a registered Will, will not by itself be sufficient to dispel all suspicion regarding it where suspicion exists without submitting the evidence of registration toa close examination See Rani Purnima Debi v. Kumar Khagendra Narayan MANU/SC/0020/1961 : A.I.R. 1962 S. C.
567. One of the suspicious circumstances may be with regard to the attestation of the Will. Hence, the propounder is under the obligation to prove by clear evidence that the Will was executed by the testator and duly attested by the witnesses and at the time of the execution he was a free agent and possessed of a sound and disposing state of mind."
(ix) In Raja Ram Singh vs. Arjun Singh & Anr. AIR 2002 Delhi 338, it has been held by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi that:
"13. ......... In all these cases the Apex Court considered as to what are the suspicious circumstances and came to the conclusion that those have to be judged in the facts and circumstances of each particular case. If, however, the propounder has taken a prominent part in the execution of the Will which confers substantial benefits on him that itself is a suspicious circumstance attending the execution of the Will and in appreciating the evidence the Court should proceed in a vigilant and cautious manner. Moreover, if the circumstance raises a suspicion of the Court that the Will does not express the mind of the testator then the Court would be right in rejecting the evidence of the attesting witnesses and scribe as well as of the propounder of the Will with regard to the execution of the Will by the testator. In order to appreciate the credibility of the witnesses, the Court can look into the surrounding circumstances. The mere fact that the Will was registered by PC No. 5869/2016 Page no. 79 of 123 Shubh K. Kumar Range vs. State & Ors.
itself is not a circumstance to show that the Will is genuine. Nor this circumstance in itself is sufficient to dispel the suspicion regarding the validity of the Will where suspicion exists."
(x) In Kishan Singh Ahluwalia vs. Sheela Saxena & Ors., the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh (Gwalior Bench) observed as under:
"In cases where the execution of a Will is shrouded in suspicion, its proof ceases to be a simple his between the plaintiff and the defendant. In such cases, it becomes a matter of Court's conscience and then the true question which arises for consideration is whether the evidence led by the propounder of the Will is such as to satisfy the conscience of the Court that the Will was duly executed by the testator. It is impossible to reach such satisfaction unless the party which sets up the Will offers a cogent and convincing explanation of the suspicious circumstances surrounding the making of the Will.
The onus, therefore, is on the propounder to prove that the Will was by a free and capable testator and if there are suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the Will and its attestation the propounder has to remove them to the satisfaction of the Court. The burden is still greater where the execution of the Will is surrounded by suspicious circumstances in which case the propounder has to prove affirmatively that the testator knew and approved of the contents of the Will.
Further, the proof of the signature of the testator in the Will is a vital matter which requires to be proved. It is true that the evidence insisted by the law is that of the attestator but that is not to say that any other kind of evidence is shut out by law. If PC No. 5869/2016 Page no. 80 of 123 Shubh K. Kumar Range vs. State & Ors.
there is anything suspicious about the signature of the testator then the evidence of the attestator could be corroborated or contradicted by expert opinion.
It should also be not lost sight of that under the law there can be no attestation before the execution and the deprivation of the natural heirs by the testatrix by itself should not give rise any suspicion, because the whole idea behind execution of the Will is to interfere with the normal rule of succession. The execution of the Will itself presupposes a change in the normal rule of succession. But if the natural heir is disinherited, it may give rise to a suspicion (considering the attending circumstances) which has to be explained.
If a person takes an active part in getting a Will prepared or executed and gets a benefit under the Will, the propounder must adduce the best evidence to remove suspicion regarding the Will on account of such a circumstance. While active participation or taking undue interest in the execution of the Will by a person who is a beneficiary under the Will may raise legitimate suspicion, the mere presence of such a person without more cannot be a ground for suspecting the genuineness of the Will."
(xi) In Niranjan Umeshchandra Joshi vs. Mrudula Jyoti Rao & Ors. AIR 2007 SC 614, it has been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that:
"21. We may not delve deep into the decisions cited at the Bar as the question has recently been considered by this Court in B. Venkatamuni v. C.J. Ayodhya Ram Singh & Ors. MANU/SC/4692/2006: AIR2007SC311, wherein PC No. 5869/2016 Page no. 81 of 123 Shubh K. Kumar Range vs. State & Ors.
this Court has held that the court must satisfy its conscience as regards due execution of the Will by the testator and the court would not refuse to probe deeper into the matter only because the signature of the propounder on the Will is otherwise proved. The proof a Will is required not as a ground of reading the document but to afford the judge reasonable assurance of it as being what it purports to be."
51. I have heard the Learned Senior Counsel for the Petitioner and Ld. Counsel for the Respondent no.2 and Respondent no. 3 to 5, and have also gone through the material on record as well as the written submissions filed by the parties.
52. ISSUES no. 1 and 2
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to grant of letter of administration/ letter of probate in respect of Will dated 20.04.2006 executed by Sh. Harish Chandra in property No.D3/4, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi?(OPP) (date of Will was wrongly written as 20.04.2004 in the issues)
2. Whether the objections filed by the respondents are valid? (OPP)
53. Time now to deal with the issues. Issues no. 1 and 2 are taken up together being connected.
54. While the Petitioner side has examined the Scribe /Attesting PC No. 5869/2016 Page no. 82 of 123 Shubh K. Kumar Range vs. State & Ors.
witness to prove that the will dated 20.04.2006 ExhPw1/4 has been validly executed, Respondent no. 2 has also supported the petitioner by examination of Dr. Madhuri Bihari, who is one of the attesting witnesses to the will dated 15/03/2006 ExhRW1/P3. Both the witnesses have asserted that the Testator were physically and mentally fit, implying that the execution of the will dated 15.03.2006 ExRW1/P3, and will dated 20.04.2006, was voluntary and free from any influence or any other suspicious circumstances. The Respondents no. 3 to 5, on the other hand, have assailed the Will dated 20.04.2006, interalia, on the grounds of lack of testamentary capacity arising out of physical and mental faculties, unnatural and unfounded digression from bequeath vide will of the year 2002, unnatural exclusion, presence of the petitioner /her husband and their influence upon the Testator.
55. Although there are certain objections by respondent No.2, having semblance of objections as to title and the extent of holding of the Testator, but the same are neither pressed, and are not being dealt with as the same would be beyond the jurisdictional confines of this court.
56. The Respondents no. 3 to 5 have examined various witness in support of their claim that the Testator, and his wife as well, did not PC No. 5869/2016 Page no. 83 of 123 Shubh K. Kumar Range vs. State & Ors.
have proper frame of health, physical and mental, and were too weak to have executed the will on 20.04.2006, and in relation with the family history, past events and experiences.
57. While dealing with the execution of the will, the testimonies of witnesses who form part and parcel of the preparation and execution of the will would rank much higher on the scales of relevance and probativeness, then other witnesses who may depose on history of family relations and events involved in the life of the Testator.
58. The two most proximate witnesses to the execution of the will are the attesting witnesses to the will . The case of the Petitioner side is that the Ms. Manjeet Arya is the scribe as well as the attesting witness of the will dated 20.04.2006ExPW1/4. It has been pressed by the Ld. Senior Counsel for the Petitioner, with the support of the case law, that there is no bar for a Scribe to act as an attesting witness as well. The proposition is neither opposed, nor is there any infirmity in her acting in dual capacity, in so far it is objectively considered. The other attesting witness to the Will dated 20.04.2006 Shri Dhirender Behari, has not been examined. It has been pressed that the examination of one of the attesting witness can suffice the proof of the will. The said legal proposition, as well, PC No. 5869/2016 Page no. 84 of 123 Shubh K. Kumar Range vs. State & Ors.
is neither opposed, nor can be, on objective considerations, disregarded.
59. Another witness examined on behalf of the Respondent no. 2 Ms. Madhuri Behari R2W1, who is attesting witness to the will dated 15.03.2006 ExRW1P3. It may be mentioned here that Respondent no. 2 has supported the case of the Petitioner and the Witness Ms. Madhuri Behari has deposed in her affidavit, amongst other things, about the Testamentary capacity of the Testator Shri Harish Chandra. Even though the will dated 15.03.2006 Ex RW1/P3, is not the subject matter of the present proceedings, but as said will dated 15.03.2006 the same is brought in as a parallel, and in support of the Will dated 20.04.2006, the Testimony of Ms. Madhuri Behari becomes significant, if not conclusive qua the will in question.
60. The testimonies of PW2 Ms. Manjeet Arya, Advocate and Ms. Madhuri Behari - R2W1, thus, are too central and crucial for the present lis.
61. PW2 Ms. Manjeet Arya has deposed that she was engaged through Ms. Urmil Khurana and after various rounds of consultations, she finalized the will dated 15.03.2006, for the Testator and his wife as will. Copies of these wills have been proved PC No. 5869/2016 Page no. 85 of 123 Shubh K. Kumar Range vs. State & Ors.
as ExRW1/P3 and ExRW3/P4. So far as the will dated 20.03.2006 ExPW1/4 is concerned, she has stated that it was prepared on the request of the Testator for registration of the Will. She has also stated to have contacted the office of the SubRegistrar for facilitating the Registration at the residence of the Testator. She is the one who brought the Officials from the office of Sub Registrar on 20.04.2006, in whose presence, the Testator and attesting witnesses are stated to have signed for execution of the will dated 20.04.2006ExPW1/4.
62. The Testimony of the said witness, however, found to be fraught with certain glaring inconsistencies and exhibits various shortcomings which, subtly as well as grossly, reflects upon the execution, casting justifiable doubts as to the authenticity of the process as well as the document in question. Before the same can be dilated upon further, a reference to certain portions of her evidence seems to be desirable. The relevant portions from within her affidavit and her cross examination held on different dates, are reproduced as under: "Shri Harish Chandra had read the Will dt.
20.04.2006 and understood the contents of the same. He had signed the Will dt.
PC No. 5869/2016 Page no. 86 of 123 Shubh K. Kumar Range vs. State & Ors.
20.04.2006 on all four pages at in my presence as attesting witness and in the presence of other attesting witness Mr. Dhirender Bihari. When Shri Harish Chandra executed the Will on 20.04.2006, he was in sound disposing mind. Will was executed voluntarily without any coercion, misrepresentation and fraud. On asking of Shri Harish Chandra, Shri Dhirender Bihari and myself had signed the Will at point 'B' & 'C' respectively as Attesting Witnesses. All three of us had signed the Will dt.
20.04.2006 in the presence of each other."
"Registrar enquired from Shri Harish Chandra about the Will and after satisfying himself that Shri Harish Chandra is in sound disposing mind and understood the contents of Will, registered the Will on 20.04.2006.
The Will dt. 20.04.2006 was presented after its due execution to Registrar who had obtained the signatures of Harish Chandra in his presence at point 'D' on the back side of the pages of Will and also obtained the thumb and finger marks on the pages of Will at point 'E' & 'F' respectively. The Deponent has also signed the Will as Attesting Witness to the Will on the asking of Shri Harish Chandra in the presence of Registrar at point 'G' and the other Attesting Witness to the PC No. 5869/2016 Page no. 87 of 123 Shubh K. Kumar Range vs. State & Ors.
Will Sh. Dhirender Bihari signed at point 'H'.
The deponent and other witness also put their thumb marks on the back page of the Will at point 'I' & 'J'. (Ms. Manjeet Arya and Sh. Dhirender Bihari respectively).
Photographs were also taken by the Registrar. I identify the photograph of Shri Harish Chandra at point 'K' and my photographs is at point 'L' and that of other witness at point 'M'. This also shows that we were all present at the same time and Will was executed and signed by Shri Harish Chandra and signed by me as Attesting Witness to the Will and other Attesting Witness, witnessing the due execution of Will in the presence of each other. Both the Wills dt. 15.03.2006 and 20.04.2006 are identical."
(pages 4 and 5 of Affidavit)
63. The relevant portions from within her cross examination conducted on different dates, are reproduced as under: "The executant and his wife were probably in their 80s but I do not know their exact ages.."
..
PC No. 5869/2016 Page no. 88 of 123 Shubh K. Kumar Range vs. State & Ors.
"After 15.03.2006, I had given one more print out of the final Wills by changing the date, to the executant and his wife in April."
..
"I do not remember the exact date when this print out was given to them."
..
"Q. What were the circumstances, under which the executant and his wife requested you to request the Sub Registrar to come to their house for execution and registration of the Wills?
Ans. Because of their old age they wanted the Sub Registrar to visit their house and register the Wills at their residence. "
"Q2.Were the Executant and his wife bedridden in March/April,2006?
Ans. No."
"They were walking and moving freely. I went to the SubRegistrar Office and made an oral request for execution and registration of the Wills at their residence, the SubRegistrar informed me that when he has time for the same he would inform me I left my telephone number with him. It is incorrect to suggest that there is no procedure for making an oral request to the Sub PC No. 5869/2016 Page no. 89 of 123 Shubh K. Kumar Range vs. State & Ors.
Registrar. I did not know the SubRegistrar personally. I did not submit any medical certificate of the executant or his wife and only informed the SubRegistrar that they are old and senior citizens. I was not carrying any authority letter given by the executant or his wife. The SubRegistrar informed me telephonically at about 12.30 pm in April, 2006 that he could visit the residence of the executant and his wife after lunch and I informed the executant and his wife accordingly. I first went to the SubRegistrar office picked him up and reached the residence of the executant and his wife at about 2.30 2.45 pm. There was one more person from the staff of SubRegistrar Office who companied us. When I reached their residence the other witness to the Will dated 20.04.2006 was not present but the servant had already gone to call him. I do not personally know this witness also. I did not see any identity card of this witness. I do not know as to how that witness knew the executant or his wife. One copies each Of the Wills dated 20.04.2006 were signed and executed. After the execution, executant may have retained the executed Will. The SubRegistrar had brought a camera and one or two registers with him. I do not know whether the executant had any computer or printer at their residence or not. Whenever executant or his wife made any corrections to the Wills they made it in English. I do not remember as to which witness signed first the Wills dated 20,04.2006 and who signed later on. It is incorrect to suggest that both the executants and his wife had already Signed the Wills dated 2004.2006, when I reached at their residence. Vol. both the executant and his wife signed their respective Wills in front of SubRegistrar do not remember in PC No. 5869/2016 Page no. 90 of 123 Shubh K. Kumar Range vs. State & Ors.
whose handwriting the correction of date in Wills date"
20.04.2006 was made."
64. The above answers create doubts as to credibility of the witness as the same are found to be not fitting in the scheme of facts projected by the Petitioner side but also lacking at various places.
65. While she claimed that she was not told about the age of the Testator, the opening lines of the will -ExPW1/4 clearly mention the age of the Testator. It is her statement that she had prepared the will twice i.e. 15.03.2006 and on 20.04.2006 and even in the will dated 15.03.2006 of the Testator and his Wife, which have come on record ExRW1/P3 and ExRW3/P4, the age of the Testator and his wife are clearly recorded in the 2nd line of the said documents. She has also stated that she had several rounds of discussion before the preparation of will dated 15.03.2006.
66. Besides, while she has claimed that she had given another print out of the Will dated 15.03.2006, after changing the date of execution, there is no explanation as to how the document continued to have printed date as "15th day of March 2006". In addition, she has stated in her further cross examination dated 29.08.2006, that she does not remember in whose handwriting the correction of the date in wills dated 20.04.2006 were made. These PC No. 5869/2016 Page no. 91 of 123 Shubh K. Kumar Range vs. State & Ors.
statements, though subtly but conclusively, indicate that the corrections as to date were at least not made by her and her stand in her prior cross examination, to the effect that after 15.03.2006, she had given one more print out to the Testator an his wife, after changing the date is rendered absolutely incorrect and falsified.
67. Mother of the petitioner Smt Sushila Chandra, who is stated to have executed another will same day i.e. 20.04.2006, was admittedly so weak that she could not sign and as such , is stated to have put her thumb impressions. It was argued that she was admitted in ICU the very next day and has died on 2.05.2006, i.e around 12 days later. There is no evidence on record to show that she was admitted to hospital immediately or some time after the execution of her will dated 20.04.2006 but it is not in dispute that she had expired on 02.05.2006.
68. Although her will is not in question before this court, these facts becomes a subject of consideration as the witness on has claimed that Smt. Sushila Devi as also fit and moving/walking freely. The court is quite conscious that her will is not in question, but these parallels are hard to ignore, as both Shri Harish Chandra and Smt. Sushila Chandra are stated to have executed their separate wills on 20.04.2006, with the assistance of this witness.
PC No. 5869/2016 Page no. 92 of 123 Shubh K. Kumar Range vs. State & Ors.
69. While it has otherwise come on record from the statements in Petitioner's side, that the Mother of the Petitioner Smt. Sushila Chandra, had also executed the will on 20.04.2006 by putting thumb impressions as she was not able to sign on account of physical weakness, Ms. Manjeet Arya has, quite unconvincingly, proceeded to say that the Testator and his wife were walking and moving freely, while also logically defying the very reason for bringing SubRegistrar at Residence for the purpose of registration of the Will. It is unbelievable, as also unacceptable, that the Testator was capable of walking and moving freely and yet there was a necessity felt for bringing SubRegistrar at Residence for registration.
70. What dents her credibility further is her ignorance about the number of copies of the will signed, as well as her ignorance to whether she signed first or later than the other attesting witness. These do not appear to be some innocuous memory lapse, and that too coming from the sole witness who has deposed that she was instrumental in preparation of the document, arranging for Registration, and signing as the attesting witnesses on the will dated 20.04.2006 ExPW1/4.
71. There are other aspects as well. However before dwelling on PC No. 5869/2016 Page no. 93 of 123 Shubh K. Kumar Range vs. State & Ors.
the same, a reference to the Will seems to be useful. The rear portions of relevant pages of Ex.PW1/4 are reproduced as under: PC No. 5869/2016 Page no. 94 of 123 Shubh K. Kumar Range vs. State & Ors.
72. A perusal of the Will Ex.PW1/4, would show that the PC No. 5869/2016 Page no. 95 of 123 Shubh K. Kumar Range vs. State & Ors.
signatures of the Testator at Point "D" and the signatures of the Attesting witness at Point "G" are made over the printed text, which constitutes the endorsement made by the SubRegistrar. It may be relevant to mention here that it has been claimed by the witness that these signature were made by the Testator and the Attesting witness , in the presence of the SubRegistrar. What is also noticeable is the fact that it does also bears the Registration number of the Will/Document i.e. 620.
73. The above facts admits of four possibilities (i) The endorsements were already printed on the back side even before the Sub Registrar came to the residence of the Testator, or (ii) The endorsements were printed at the Residence of the Testator while during the visit of the Sub Registrar, or (iii) The Document was sent out for printing of endorsement, while the Sub Registrar was at the Residence of the Testator, and (iv) The SubRegistrar visited twice that day and got the signatures done at point "D" and Point "G" after the printing of the endorsements.
74. However, when it comes to the deposition of the Attesting Witness, there is absolutely no evidence or explanation as to either of these effects. The only statement is that the Sub Registrar obtained the Signatures of the Testator at Point "D" as well as PC No. 5869/2016 Page no. 96 of 123 Shubh K. Kumar Range vs. State & Ors.
thumbs and fingers impressions and that the Attesting Witness also singed at Point "G" on the asking of the Testator, in the presence of the Registrar. The witness in her cross examination has stated that she does not know whether the Testator had any computer or printer at his residence, which is quite suggestive of the fact that the print was not taken at his residence. All she has claimed that the Sub Registrar brought camera and one or two Registers with him, ruling out the other possibility as well. It is not even her case that the document was sent outside anywhere, or even the office of the SubRegistrar for printing or that the Sub Registrar had visited again and got the signatures done at Point "D" and Point "G" respectively.
75. Considering the fact that such endorsements are most sacred, material and central part of the process of any Registration, it warranted categorical, clear and adequate evidence, having regard to the fact that it relates to a will. The absence of any explanation in her affidavit in evidence to this extent, casts serious doubts over the credibility of the witness, as also raises suspicion qua the document. The narrative of the witness lacks in material particulars and does not inspire any confidence, as the gap is so stark that is strikes at the very authenticity of the process of Registration, as also it renders her testimony as not reliable to a considerable extent.
PC No. 5869/2016 Page no. 97 of 123 Shubh K. Kumar Range vs. State & Ors.
76. Coming now to the other witness Ms. Madhuri Bihari, who has, primarily deposed about her signing as a witness to Will dated 15.03.2006. The relevant portion of the cross examination of RW2 Ms. Madhuri Behari reads as under: "Q: Who prepared your affidavit R2/X?
A: Mr. Ashok's wife Smt. Mala Chandra gave me the affidavit."
..
"The day I signed the affidavit, the persons were Smt. Mala Chandra, Mrs. Shubh and Mr. David. So far I recollect, on 12.11.2014, it was my working day and I was not on leave. I remained there for 5 to 10 minutes. After signing of the affidavit, I came back to my residence."
..
"Q: Did Shri Harish Chandra and Smt. Sushila Chandra had ever asked you for your telephone number, so that they could call in case of emergency, since you are a doctor and your house is bang opposite to their house?
A: Not from me.
Q: Did Shri Harish Chandra and Smt. Sushila Chandra ever expressed their desire to you earlier regarding the execution of any Will?
A: NO Q: Did Shri Harish Chandra and Smt. Sushila Chandra ever tell you earlier that they wanted you to be a witness of their Will?
A: NO
PC No. 5869/2016 Page no. 98 of 123
Shubh K. Kumar Range vs. State & Ors.
Q: Did Shri Harish Chandra and Smt. Sushila Chandra
ever took your consent earlier that they wanted you to be a witness of their Will?
A: NO When I reached the house of Shri Harish Chandra and Smt. Sushila Chandra on 15.03.2006, Shri Harish Chandra, Smt. Sushila Chandra, the another witness Urmila Khurana and one more person from Court for registering the Will were present. I am not aware about the name of the person who was present from the Court for' registering the Will. Before I signed the Will, both Shri Harish Chandra and Smt. Sushila Chandra told me to read the Will. I read the Wills Ex.RW 3/P3 (= Ex.RW1/P3) and Ex. RW3/P4. I do not know who prepared the said two Wills. The said Wills were not typed in my presence. I am not even aware as to who had got typed the Wills. Two copies of each Will had been prepared and I had signed on both the copies of the Wills."
....
"Q: What had been done by the person who had come from the Court for registering the Wills?
A: The said person had signed the Wills.
Q: Did the person who had come from Court for registering the Will take any photographs of Shri Harish Chandra, Smt. Sushila Chandra, Smt. Urmila Khurana and yours? A: NO.
Q: Did the person who had come from the Court for registering the Wills signed the Wills dated 15.03.2006 in your presence?
A: The said person had not signed in my presence."
PC No. 5869/2016 Page no. 99 of 123
Shubh K. Kumar Range vs. State & Ors.
....
"Today I came with Shubha in Court. Yes, Shubha mean petitioner Shubh Kumar Range. Still I am working. I go my office by car and also come back by car at my residence. I am friend of Shubha. I have been in our friendship for last about 15 years."
....
"Shri Dhirendra Bihari is my brother. He stays in Mumbai. He is hale and hearty. Shri Dhirendra Bihari was staying in Mumbai in the year 2006. He had come on holiday in March 2006. Shri Dhirendra Bihari reside at D3/9, where I am also residing."
77. The above statements exhibits that the witness was not only a random witness to the Will dated 15.03.2006 but also the fact that she was wrongfully claimed that anybody from the office of Sub Registrar was present as on 15.03.2006. Though in her subsequent cross examination she has sought to improve upon, the credibility of the witness stands shaken to a considerable extent. By all means, she cannot replace the attesting witness. Sh. Dhirendra Bihari, her brother, who has signed the Will dated 20.04.2006.
78. Coming now to the other limb of the arguments. The Respondent side had vehemently contended that the Testator and his wife, had a very fragile health and given their age, they could not be stated to be having a fit state of mind and physical health. It PC No. 5869/2016 Page no. 100 of 123 Shubh K. Kumar Range vs. State & Ors.
is also impressed that the Respondents not 3 to 5 have examined various witnesses who have categorically stated that the Testator was suffering from physical and mental infirmities of the kind, which affected his testamentary capacity. The Petitioner side on the other hand, have contended that the Testator was physically and mentally capable and was working on his own, and that he had himself arranged for engaging the scribe, get the will prepared and registered. It is also impressed that the mere fact that the Will was registered at Home, does not imply that the Testator was physically or mentally incapable and had that been the case, nothing prevented the SubRegistar to have refused to register the Will or to make such noting. It is also contended that the Testimony of the Petitioner, the Scribe as well as Dr. Madhuri Bihari has gone unrebutted in this context and there is nothing on record to suggest that the Testator was not maintaining proper mental or physically health so as to form a rational opinion. It is also contended by the Petitioner side that the Cross examination of the witnesses from the Respondent side, also makes it clear that the said allegations are raised for mere opposition purposes and that the Testator had continued to live for around 2 years even after the execution of the will, and has also executed a deed in the year 2007, which indicates that he PC No. 5869/2016 Page no. 101 of 123 Shubh K. Kumar Range vs. State & Ors.
continued to be having good Physical and Mental health.
79. Before these arguments can be dwelled upon, certain facts need to noticed. The Testator was admittedly 95 years old at the time of execution of the Will dated 20.04.2006. As per the narration of the Petitioner side, he was quite on his own was capable of performing his daily chores. It is stated that he suffered from chest infection sometime later and had treatment for the same. The only medical condition which the Petitioner side has referred to is the chest infection, but there are no medical records filed in that respect too. The Respondent side has examined a few witnesses, including Medical Practitioners, who deposed that he was mentally infirm, owing to his age, but no conclusion can be drawn from their testimonies as they have neither treated the Testator, nor had been personally involved in his treatment for any ailment.
80. While the Petitioner side claimed that the Testimonies of Petitioner, the Scribe /Attesting WitnessMs. Manjeet Arya and RW2 Dr. Madhuri Behari is sufficient to conclude the Testamentary capacity of the Testator and it fell upon the Respondent side, squarely, to prove the contrary, as onus shifted upon them, the Respondent side, on the other hand, has contended that it is not.
81. The Court cannot be oblivious of the fact that it is dealing PC No. 5869/2016 Page no. 102 of 123 Shubh K. Kumar Range vs. State & Ors.
with a case of execution of will by a 95 year old person, and having regard to his age, a considerably high degree of physical and mental frailty would be a general and natural consequence. The evidence placed, thus, needs to be looked into quite cautiously so as to infer whether it could reach the threshold of shifting the onus of proof.
82. The question that arises in succession is that whether there is any convincing or credible evidence on record to prove the requisite degree of testamentary capacity, or even the absence of it. It may be noticed there here that no medical Record of the Testator has been placed by either of the sides.
83. If the pleadings, statements of witnesses and documents placed by the Petitioner, are to be gone with, the 95 years old was absolutely on his own, was capable of performing his daily chores, walking and moving freely and even got a deed executed/registered, in the year 2007, i.e. much later then the execution of the will. The said narrative doesn't look to be unacceptable, per se, but doesn't seem to be sufficient by itself. The natural consequences associated with age, cannot be countered lightly, much less by mere statements of beneficiary of the will or those interested. It is pressed that the even the neighbor and attesting witness to the will dated PC No. 5869/2016 Page no. 103 of 123 Shubh K. Kumar Range vs. State & Ors.
15.03.2006Ms Madhuri Behari have categorically stated that the Testator was physically fit and mentally alert and was performing his daily work quite efficiently, but her statement cannot be accepted as her cross examination reveals that she might be interested to depose in favour of the Petitioner. This is besides the fact that she is herself stated to have signed the will 15.03.2006 as an attesting witness without any prior communication from the Testator as to roping her in for attestation. The Testimony of the PW2 in this respect, as well cannot be accepted as conclusive as she has proceeded to depose that even his wife was moving freely and openly , who by the very statements of the Petitioner side, was so weak that she could not sign and had to put her thumb impressions on Will dated 20.04.2006.
84. Although, it has been clearly stated in the Replication/Reply to objections filed by the Petitioner side, that the Testator was regularly attended by Dr. Shekhar Sachdev, his non examination creates certain amount of doubt on the assertion of the Petitioner that the Testator was physically fine and mentally alert as on the date of execution of the Will.
85. The hindsight that the will was sought to be registered at home of the Testator, on account of age of the Testator, as is stated PC No. 5869/2016 Page no. 104 of 123 Shubh K. Kumar Range vs. State & Ors.
by PW2 Ms. Manjeet Arya, is highly suggestive of the fact that the Testator was, at least, physically, not capable of visiting the Registrar's office. It was, thus, incumbent upon the Petitioner to bring the best evidence in the form of the medical records, the testimony of attending doctor/ General Physician and the attendants/ Servants.
86. Even the other attesting witness has not been examine.
Though the same may be legal exception or an omission permitted by law, having regard the requisite quotient of evidence from the Petitioner side, in respect to the Testamentary capacity of the Testator, thus is found to be lacking, in terms of satisfaction of Courts conscience. One may also tend to say that the examination of the attesting witness would suffice the proof of testamentary capacity, however, having regard to the fact that the will relates to a 95 year old person, and his Physical and mental are being claimed to be diminished severely on account of age and medical conditions, the requirement to prove physical and mental capacity rested heavily on the Petitioner and the proof of the Testamentary capacity cannot be diluted to the extent of giving absolute credence to mere statement of witnesses to the will. The court cannot be oblivious of the fact that the Testator was so old that certain physical and mental PC No. 5869/2016 Page no. 105 of 123 Shubh K. Kumar Range vs. State & Ors.
infirmities would be quite natural, and to make believe that it was not in case of Testator, it would require some concrete evidence.
87. The will suffers from some other inherent flaws. While the opening paras of the will appoints the Petitioner as the sole executor, the concluding paras record that a "photocopy" is being given to Smt. Urmil Khurana for execution of the will. The relevant portions are reproduced as under: "1. I, hereby appoint Dr. (Mrs) Shubha Kumar Range, w/o Mr. David Range, my younger daughter as the sole executor of my this Will. She is entitled to delegate her responsibilities to any chosen representative (s) who shall also be bound by the stipulations made in this Will.
.......
11. I declare the rights and benefits given to the legatees under this Will shall stand whether my daughter executes the Will herself or delegates her responsibilities to any chosen representative (s). A photocopy of this Will after putting my signatures and that of witnesses is handed over to Ms. Urmil Khurana at D3/3, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi to ensure the execution of the same."
88. One can possibly understand that the same might have been a PC No. 5869/2016 Page no. 106 of 123 Shubh K. Kumar Range vs. State & Ors.
grammatical or draftsmen error, but the same could have been clearly corrected if at all the case of the petitioner side is that the will was to be executed afresh in view of the request of the Testator for its Registration and the Testator, for the academic background he had, had gone through it knowing fully well its contents.
89. The Testator, an accomplished person and highly educated, could not have allowed errors to have crept in and in all probability if the will was to be executed afresh, the same would have been corrected, considering there was enough time lapse between 15.03.2006 and 20.04.2006.
90. Though the Testator has provided minute details of investments /deposits in relation with property in question, he has not given any reasoning qua revocation of the earlier Will, and setting up a different bequeath. True that the will_ ExP4 bears a formal mention of revocation of all previous wills, and the factum of death of Ms. Manjulika Bahl, there is no reason provided for excluding her heirs from any benefit in the immoveable property. The Court is not oblivious of well settled principles of law that a will itself implies digression from natural succession, the fact remains that the Testator being highly educated could have easily got the specific reasons recorded for revocation and digression from PC No. 5869/2016 Page no. 107 of 123 Shubh K. Kumar Range vs. State & Ors.
the previous Will of year 2002. It has been contended that it was the ill treatment by the Respondent no. 3, which led to the change of mind of the Testator. If this narrative is to be gone with, and if at all the Testator had changed his mind only because of the ill treatment or misbehaviour of the Respondent No.3, nothing prevented the Testator to get the reasons recorded with specific revocation of the Will of the year 2002. It was more imperative for him, as the Testator must have been aware of the fact his Son Ashok Chandra is already a co allotee and the petitioner has already acquired a share from Smt Sushila Chandra, though her will.
91. Smt. Urmil Khurana, who could have been the best witness to prove the independent engagement of Mrs Manjeet, for the purpose of the preparation of the Will on the direct request from the Testator. The fact that she has not signed the will dated 20.04.2006 and a different set of witnesses have been introduced in the will dated 20.04.2006, although not too suspicious by itself, deserved to be explained, together with the facts what prompted afresh execution of the will, when its 15.03.2006 version was very much available for registration. Going by the will in question, she was so trusted that a copy of the will was proposed to be given to her. Under these circumstances, her non examination factors in, PC No. 5869/2016 Page no. 108 of 123 Shubh K. Kumar Range vs. State & Ors.
significantly, against the presumption of correctness of the execution of the Will.
92. Time now to deal with contentions relating to registration of the will. It has been vehemently pressed by the Petitioner side that the will is registered and the factum of registration cannot be ignored, and further that the Registrar, has not found any physical or mental infirmity or any loss of Testamentary capacity of the Testator. It is further contended that since the Registration has been done on 20.04.2006 itself and the will is executed in the presence of witnesses and Registrar, there is no scope of any doubt as to the Testamentary capacity of Shri Harish Chandra.
93. True that Registration would generally be treated as a value addition to credibility, but the same cannot be treated as a conclusive determinant alone. Besides, the registration of the Will in the present case is also not free from infirmities. To begin with, there is no application filed for registration nor any fee deposited. It is not the case that Ms. Manjeet Arya, did not have any time to find out the process for filing necessary application for Registration. She herself stated that SubRegistrar told her that he does not have time that day and would come some other day, implying that she had all the time and opportunity to comply with the requirements. There is PC No. 5869/2016 Page no. 109 of 123 Shubh K. Kumar Range vs. State & Ors.
no explanation as to why did she skipped it or not consider following it as prudent. This may feed the perception that the Testator was either not physically/mentally capable of applying for Registration, or was not desirous of it. Assuming it to be a mere perception and ignoring the same, it also does not sound natural that the Registrar had agreed to come for Registration on mere asking or oral request of the Scribe/ Attesting Witness, waiving the settled procedures as per the manual. Even if the same is taken as a mere procedural glitch, there are other aspects which have gone unexplained.
94. As already discussed, the signatures of the Testator at Point "D" and the Signatures of the Scribe/ Attesting Witness Ms. Manjeet Arya at Point "G", are clearly above the printed text. Needless to say that they must have been made after the rear portion of the page 2 of the will must have been printed. It is has not been explained as to where the photographs of the Testator and the attesting witnesses and the details of registration were printed on the back side of the page 2 of the Will dated 20.04.2006 were printed. The Scribe / Attesting witness has failed to explain these circumstances. Having regard to the special arrangement / placement of the photographs and printed text, on the rear side of page 2 of the will - Ex PW1/4, PC No. 5869/2016 Page no. 110 of 123 Shubh K. Kumar Range vs. State & Ors.
the same can only be printed with such office like perfection, as is being generally done in the office of the Registrar, with the help of computer loaded with a special programme, and a printer. The Petitioner side or the attesting witness who arranged for the Registration, failed to testify on these aspects , leaving a significant aspect unexplained. This, in the opinion of the court, is a striking disconnect, which runs deep, and is a suspicious circumstance gone unexplained. The Registration of the will, in the opinion of this court, raises more questions rather than adding to credibility of the process of execution of the will. Since the Petitioner did not examine the Registrar/ Official concerned, these circumstances have not been explained, leaving an aura of suspicion around the Will.
95. Another contentious issue between the parties is the presence of the petitioner at the time of the execution of the Will - Ex.PW1/4. Ms. Manjeet AryaPW2 and witness examined on behalf of respondent No.2 Ms. Madhuri Behari have also impressed that the petitioner was not present at the time of the execution of the Will. However, the same seems to be unlikely in as much as the endorsement recorded by the SubRegistrar on the rear page i.e. page No.2, she has been recorded to be the presenter. It has been contended that her being recorded as present and as the one who PC No. 5869/2016 Page no. 111 of 123 Shubh K. Kumar Range vs. State & Ors.
presented the document is mere mistake as SubRegistrar might have treated the beneficiary as the presenter which is for the sake of filing the data in the endorsement. The argument does not convince the Court in as much as, if that was so, the Registrar in the first place could have mentioned the other beneficiaries as well or in the alternative have avoided recording her name at all. It is the common practice that the person who presents the document for registration is specifically recorded, in addition or apart from the parties who are executing the document. The petitioner though has been maintaining that she was not present and she was not aware of the Will till much later, the same also seems to be unlikely as both her parents were above 90 years of age and as per her reply to the objections, she had stated that she had been regularly visiting her parents to the extent of almost every day, which not only implies that her parents required continuous care and support, but also that she had all the opportunities to not only becoming aware of their affairs but also in a position to influence them. The endorsement as to her presence cannot be lightly countered by mere statement and the petitioner ran the risk of not examining the SubRegistrar who could have clarified whether the recording of her presence was merely a mistake as suggested by the petitioner side. The fact of her PC No. 5869/2016 Page no. 112 of 123 Shubh K. Kumar Range vs. State & Ors.
regularly visiting the Testator and his wife is also supported by RW 2 Ms. Madhuri Behari, who in categorical terms has stated that she had seen respondent No.2 and the petitioner regularly visiting the Testator and his wife. The statement of the witness cannot defy endorsement as to her presence during the time of execution of the Will.
96. The question which arises in succession is that whether her mere presence would amount of influencing the Testator. With the support of number of case laws, it has been contended by the petitioner side that mere presence would not be sufficient to infer any influence. The record, however, indicates towards a degree of influence as the other daughter Dr. Manjulika Behl, who was initially bequeathed 1/3 share in the immovable property of the Testator vide Will of the year 2002 has been excluded and her heirs have not been given any share in the immovable property of the Testator. Although such exclusion can be legitimate one and cannot be objectively questioned, however, having regard to the fact that the allegations as to the Testator's change of mind on account of some misbehaviour on behalf of respondent No.3 neither finds mention in the Will nor is otherwise proved by means of any convincing evidence. As per the documents placed and the evidence PC No. 5869/2016 Page no. 113 of 123 Shubh K. Kumar Range vs. State & Ors.
of the witnesses rather it was respondent No.2 with whom the Testator was upset and had sour relationship. The will is silent in this respect, and concrete reasons of exclusion or degression from Will dated 20.04.2006 is not available on record. The absolute exclusion of the daughter Dr. Manjulika Behl does raise some suspicion as the Will indicates there is no loss of love and affection so far as the grandchildren are concerned. These facts too indicate that the petitioner might have prevailed upon the Testator to change his earlier Will and exclude Dr. Manjulika Behl/ her heirs.
97. In Babu Singh & Ors. vs. Ram Sahai @ Ram Singh C.A. No.3124 of 2008, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as under:
"11...... When genuineness of a Will is in question, apart from execution and attestation of Will, it is also the duty of a person seeking declaration about the validity of the Will to dispel the surrounding suspicious circumstances existing if any. Thus, in addition to proving the execution of the Will by examining the attesting witnesses, the propounder is also required to lead evidence to explain the surrounding suspicious circumstances, if any. Proof of execution of the Will would, inter alia, depend thereupon."
98. In Benga Behera & Anr. vs. Braja Kishor Nanda & Ors C.A. No.3467/2003, reported in 2007 (VI), page 252, it is observed as under:
PC No. 5869/2016 Page no. 114 of 123 Shubh K. Kumar Range vs. State & Ors.
"Existence of suspicious circumstances itself may be held to be sufficient to arrive at a conclusion that the execution of Will has not been duly proved."
99. One can also profitably resort to C.S. Aggarwal vs. State, 259 (2019) Delhi Law Times 113 wherein the Hon'ble High Court observed as under:
"52. Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act is a useful device to aid the Court in its quest for truth by using common sense as a judicial tool. Section 114 recognizes the general power of the Court to raise inference as to the existence of non existence of unknown facts on proof or admission of other facts.
53. Whether or not a presumption can be drawn under the section in a particular case depends ultimately upon the facts and circumstances of each case. No hard and fast rule can be laid down. Human behaviour is so complex and room must be left for play in the joints. It is not possible to formulate a series of exact proposition and conflue human behaviour within straitjackets.
54. No rule of evidence can guide the Judge on the fundamental question whether evidence as to a relevant fact should be believed or not. Secondly, assuming that the Judge believes very few cases, guide him on the question what inference he should draw from it as to assist a Judge in the very smallest degree in determining the master question of the whole subject whether and how far he ought to believe what the witnesses say? The rules of evidence do not guide what inference the Judge ought to draw from the facts in which, after considering the statements made to him, he PC No. 5869/2016 Page no. 115 of 123 Shubh K. Kumar Range vs. State & Ors.
believes. In every judicial proceedings whatever these two questions Is this true, and, if it is true what then? ought to be constantly present in the mind of the Judge, and the rules of evidence do not throw the smallest portion of light upon them."
100. The Hon'ble Delhi High Court, while relying upon "Vidya Sagar Soni vs. State & Ors., AIR 2006 Delhi 354" observed as under:
"15. Judgment of this Court in the decision reported as Vidya Sagar Soni v. State & Ors., AIR 2006 Delhi 354 extensively dealt with the legal burden of proof when a will is propounded. What would constitute suspicious circumstances and what form of affirmative proof should be sought by the court to satisfy the judicial conscience that the document propounded is the last legal and valid testament. From a reading of the said decision, undernoted principals can be culled out: I The legal burden to prove due execution always lies upon the person propounding a will. The propounder must satisfy the judicial conscience of the court that the instrument so propounded is last will of a free and capable testator. II The onus is discharged by the propounder adducing prima facie evidence proving the competence of the testator and execution of the will in the manner contemplated by the law. The contestant opposing the will may bring material on record meeting such prima facie in which event the onus PC No. 5869/2016 Page no. 116 of 123 Shubh K. Kumar Range vs. State & Ors.
would shift back on the propounder to satisfy the Court affirmatively that the testator did know well the contents of the will and in sound disposing capacity executed the same. (see the decision of the Supreme Court in Madhukar D. Shende v. Tarabai Aba Shedge, AIR 2002 SC 637) III No specific standard of proof can be enunciated which must be applicable to all the cases. Every case depends upon its circumstance. Apart from other proof, conduct of parties is very material and has considerable bearing on evidence as to the genuineness of will which is propounded. Courts have to be vigilant and zealous in examining evidence. Rules relating to proof of wills are not rules of laws but are rules of prudence.
IV Expanding on the care and caution to be adopted by the courts, and presumptions to the raised, in the decision reported as (1864) 3 Sw & Tr. 431 In the Goods of Geale, it was opined that where a person is illiterate or semi illiterate or the will is in a language not spoken or understood by the executor, the court would require evidence to affirmatively establish that the testator understood and approved all the contents of the will.
V One from of affirmative proof is to establish that the will was read over by, or to, the testator when he executed it. If a testator merely casts his eye over the will, this may not be sufficient.
VI Courts have to evaluate evidence pertaining to the circumstances under which the will was prepared. If a will is prepared and executed under circumstances which raise a will grounded suspicion that the executor did not express his mind under the will, probate would not be granted unless that suspicion is removed.
PC No. 5869/2016 Page no. 117 of 123
Shubh K. Kumar Range vs. State & Ors.
VII A word of caution. Circumstances can only raise a
suspicion if they are circumstance attending, or at least relevant to the preparation and execution of the will itself. VIII Another point that has to be considered is about the improbability in the manner in which the instrument is scribed. Instance of suspicious circumstances would be alleged signatures of testator being shaky and doubtful, condition of the testator's mind being feeble and debilitated, bequest being unnatural, improbable and unfair.
IX Suspicious circumstances are a presumption to hold against the will. Greater is the suspicion more heavy would be the onus to be discharged by the one who propounds the will.
X A will is normally executed by a person where he intends to alter the rule of succession or where he desires a particular form of inheritance and to that extent, nature of bequest is not of such substance to invalidate a will, but consistent view taken by the courts is that this could be treated as a suspicious circumstance. What weightage has to be attached to this suspicion would depend upon case to case. XI Suspicion being a presumptive evidence, is a weak evidence and can be dispelled."
101. In Kavita Kanwar vs. State (NCT Delhi) Ors, 211(2014) DLT 448 wherein it has been observed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi as follows: "26. In view of above legal position, the contention of learned PC No. 5869/2016 Page no. 118 of 123 Shubh K. Kumar Range vs. State & Ors.
Counsel for appellant that if handwriting and signatures of testatrix are not challenged in crossexamination and it has come in the evidence that the testatrix was of sound disposing mind, the validity of Will stands proved, has no force. As per settled law discussed above the propounder has to satisfy the conscience of the Court as regards due execution of the Will by the testator and for that the Court can probe deeper into the matter to satisfy its conscience that the testator / testatrix had duly executed the Will after understanding its contents."
102. Summing up in the opinion of the court, there are various reasons which compel the court to treat the document- Ex.PW1/4 as shrouded by suspicious circumstances: (1) the nonexamination of Ms. Usha Khurana, who could have elaborated and proved the arrangement of Ms. Manjeet Arya was voluntary and independent of any fear or favour. Ms. Usha Khurana is the most immediate neighbor and admittedly qua hale and hearty, and there is no explanation given as to why she was not examined. (2) The Testator was 95 years of age and having regard to the general and common age related degeneration of physical and mental health, the burden too heavily rested upon the petitioner to prove that his mental faculties were intact and he was capable of making rational decisions. Having regard to the age of the Testator, threshold of shifting of onus was much higher and the initial onus cannot be treated to be dispensed with by a mere statement of one of the PC No. 5869/2016 Page no. 119 of 123 Shubh K. Kumar Range vs. State & Ors.
attesting witness as her credibility is also dented on account of various infirmities, lack of clarity and lack of evidence even on some of the most material and crucial aspects of the execution of the Will. (3) In so far as the registration is concerned, the same does not advance the case of the petitioner, and on the contrary it generates various questions as to the process of registration. The infirmities, coupled with the nonexamination of the SubRegistrar, and other witness do also contribute towards the suspicion. (4) The petitioner, even did not examine Dr. Shekhar Sachdev who, accordingly to her own pleadings, had been attending the Testator in case of medical needs. (5) There is no explanation as to why the original Will dated 5.03.2006 was not sought to be registered even though it is the case of the petitioner that the same was already executed, verbatim the same. There is no explanation as to why there was an necessity for having a fresh document prepared if there was no change in the bequeath. (6) There is no mention of the Will dated 15.03.2006 having been executed very recently by the Testator in the Will dated 20.04.2006 or as to why the said Will itself could not be presented for registration on 20.04.2006. (7) There is no explanation as to why the set of witnesses were changed and Sh. Dhirendra Behari was made an attesting witness despite the fact that he is stated to be PC No. 5869/2016 Page no. 120 of 123 Shubh K. Kumar Range vs. State & Ors.
a resident of Mumbai. The said witness has not mentioned himself to be a usual resident of Mumbai, as is otherwise stated by witness Ms. Madhuri Behari, his sister, and why he has opted to provide his address ad D3/9, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi. (8) The failure of the witness Ms. Manjeet Arya to give proper explanation as about the process of registration, the endorsement, as well as the printing thereof, her failure to even account as to how many copies were signed and when was the print of the Will dated 20.04.2006 was obtained and handed over to the Testator, coupled with the fact that despite her claiming that she changed the date of the Will, the Will continues to have the printed date as "15.03.2006", and her failure to account as to in whose hand the date had been corrected. There cannot be treated as mere lapse of memory or natural glitches, go on to add to the suspicion surrounding the preparation and execution of the Will. (9) The testimony of Ms. Madhuri Behari, also does indicate that she was also random witness and had never been told or asked to consent to be an attesting witness. Her friendship with the petitioner for the last 15 years, coupled with her statements, cross examination shows that she might have also an interested witness and nevertheless, her evidence has no relation with the Will dated 20.04.2006.
PC No. 5869/2016 Page no. 121 of 123 Shubh K. Kumar Range vs. State & Ors.
103. The mere fact that the Will bears the signatures, which have not been disputed, would not be a conclusive proof of testamentary capacity of the Testator, as the best evidence which could have been brought in the form of proving the medical records, examination of the servant and attending Doctor, has not been done irrespective of the fact that the opposition afforded by Respondent No.3 to 5 was timely and consistent ought to comprehend that the Testator's capacities requires to be proved with best possible evidence.
104. Resultantly, the Court is of the opinion that there are certain suspicious circumstances, from within and without the Will, and surrounding the Will, which have gone unexplained and the Court's conscience has not been satisfied with the evidence, credibility of the witness, testamentary capacity of the Testator and mannerism of the registration. As such the petition is liable to be dismissed. Both these issues are decided against the petitioner.
RELIEF
105. In view of the above discussion, petition stands dismissed.
106. The original Will shall remain part of the judicial file, in terms of section 294 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and it will not be PC No. 5869/2016 Page no. 122 of 123 Shubh K. Kumar Range vs. State & Ors.
returned to the petitioner. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
ANNOUNCED THROUGH
VIDEO CONFERENCING (NIKHIL CHOPRA)
ON 19.09.2020 ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE02
SOUTH, SAKET COURTS,
NEW DELHI
PC No. 5869/2016 Page no. 123 of 123