Delhi District Court
Sh. Jagmohan Gupta vs The State on 13 July, 2017
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJAY KUMAR: ADDL.
DISTRICT JUDGE, (WEST)-02, TIS HAZARI COURTS:DELHI.
Probate Case No.- 149/10/07
New P.C. No. 16015/16
Sh. Jagmohan Gupta
S/o late P.R. Gupta
R/o F-228, Sainik Farms,
New Delhi- 110062
..........Petitioner
Vs.
1 The State
through Delhi Administration
2 Ashok Aggarwal ( Since deceased)
through L.Rs
Mrs Sudha Aggarwal
W/o Late Sh. Ashok Aggarwal
R/o L1/16, Hauz Khas Enclave,
New Delhi-110016
3 Mrs Neeta Kumar,
W/o Sh. Vikas Kumar
D/o late Sh. Ashok Aggarwal,
R/o P-6, Green Park Extension,
New Delhi-110016
4 Ms Shruti Aggarwal
D/o late Sh. Ashok Aggarwal,
R/o L1/16, Hauz Khas Enclave,
New Delhi- 110016
5 Smt. Nisha Singhal,
W/o Sh. Arun Kumar Singhal,
D/o Late Sh. Ram Pratap,
R/o R-202, Greater Kailash-I,
New Delhi- 110048
PC No. 149/10/07 Jagmohan Gupta Vs State & Ors 1/35
6 Smt. Sudha Aggarwal,
S/o Sh. Satya Prakash Aggarwal,
D/o Late Sh. Ram Pratap
R/o N-234, Greater Kailash-I,
New Delhi- 110048
7 Smt. Asha Gupta,
W/o Sh. Jagmohan Gupta,
D/o Late Sh. Ram Pratap
R/o F-228, Sainik Farms,
New Delhi-110062
......Respondents
Date of institution of the case : 08.10.2007
Date reserved for judgment on : 08.06.2017
Date of pronouncement of judgment: 13.07.2017
JUDGMENT:
1 A petition for grant of Probate under Section 276 & 278 of the Indian Succession Act on behalf of petitioner for grant of Probate in respect of "Will" dated 11.07.2004 of deceased Smt. Vidya Wati W/o Late Sh. Ram Pratap and letter of administration in respect of immovable property bearing No. L- 1/6, Hauz Khas Enclave, New Delhi has been filed.
2 In brief the facts are that Smt. Vidya Wati W/o late Sh. Ram Pratap (hereinafter referred to as "deceased"). The deceased has left behind one son who is respondent no. 2 herein above and three daughters who are respondent no. 3 to 5 and the petitioner is the son-in-law of deceased being husband of Smt. Asha Gupta, respondent no. 5, the youngest daughter of the deceased. Late husband of deceased, namely. Sh. Ram Pratap during his life time had executed Will dated 17.4.1986 and the said Will has been acted upon after the death of Sh. Ram Pratap Aggarwal who died on 28.11.1997.
PC No. 149/10/07 Jagmohan Gupta Vs State & Ors 2/35 3 It is stated that as per Will dated 17.4.1986 executed by late Sh. Ram Pratap during his life time, deceased his wife became sole and absolute owner in respect of the properties both movable and immovable mentioned in the Will dated 17.4.1986, which included property L-1/6, Hauz Khas Enclave, New Delhi. The deceased during her life time also executed last and final Will dated 11.07.2004 and as per the said Will the entire first floor of the property no. L-1/6 Hauz Khas Enclave, New Delhi has been bequeathed in favour of the petitioner and the ground floor and second floor of the said property has been bequeathed in favour of respondent no. 2 her son and it has been clearly mentioned in the said Will that her successors and assigns shall have no claim, title and interest in the said property and any objection raised by them regarding this Will shall be deemed as null and void and ineffective.
4 It is stated that the Will dated 11.07.2004 executed by Smt. Vidya Wati mother in law of the petitioner is witnesses by two witnesses, namely, Mrs Adesh Manjeet Singh W/o Sh. Manjeet Singh, R/o C-II-28 Hauz Khas, New Delhi-16 and Sh. Ajit Kothari S/o Sh. J.M. Khotari, R/o Y-24, Green Park, New Delhi-16. The said Will has been executed by the deceased out of her own fee will and consent and has been executed as last and final will voluntarily without any pressure in full senses. The deceased was having a mind of sufficient soundness and was discretely managing her affairs in general at the time of execution of the Will dated 11.07.2004. It is stated that deceased died on 7.102004 at Delhi leaving behind the Will dated 11.07.2004 and the petitioner is claiming probate of the said Will.
PC No. 149/10/07 Jagmohan Gupta Vs State & Ors 3/35 5 It is stated that petitioner was not fully aware about the Will dated 11.07.2004 of deceased but at the time of her death and has been told later on by one of the attesting witness of the Will, namely, Sh. Ajit Kothari that the deceased had executed a Will which as per the wishes of the deceased was kept in the custody of the said attesting witness and he had handed over the will to him, therefore, petitioner seeks Probate of Will dated 11.07.2004 executed by late Smt. Vidya Wati as well as letter of administration in respect of immovable property left behind by the deceased in respect of L-1/6, Hauz Khas Enclave, New Delhi in his favour.
6 Upon filing of petition, notices were issued to all the legal heir of the deceased, respondents, state through collector and citation to general public got published in daily newspaper "Hindustan Times dated 14.01.2008 ".
7 The valuation report in respect of immovable property was called from the concerned SDM/Collectors, accordingly Assistant Collector Grade-I, Hauz Khas filed valuation report in respect of property bearing No. L-1/6, Hauz Khas Enclave, New Delhi and assessed the value of the same as Rs. 3,76,95,569/- ( Rupees Three Crore Seventy Six Lakh Ninety Five Thousand Five Hundred & Sixty Nine Only).
8 Respondent no. 2 Sh. Ashok Aggarwal filed his written Statement/objections to the petition and denied that as per the Will dated 17.4.1986 executed by late Sh. Ram Pratap during his life time, deceased became sole and absolute owner in respect of properties both movable and immovable mentioned in the Will PC No. 149/10/07 Jagmohan Gupta Vs State & Ors 4/35 dated 17.4.1986. It is stated that in his Will dated 17.4.1986 Sh. Ram Pratap had bequeathed only his share in the property bearing No. L-1/6, Hauz Khas Enclave, New Delhi to Smt. Vidya Wati and not the said entire property.
9 It is stated that the alleged Will dated 11.07.2004 is forged and fabricated documents and it is not signed by deceased as she was confined to bed on 11.07.2004. It is stated that deceased had fallen down in the house on 14.4.2003 and suffered fractures of various bones including neck and Rt. Femur. She was treated for the same but she could not fully recover from the said injury and thereafter remained confined to bed and was undergoing physiotherapy practically daily thereafter. A Female attendants were employed for taking care of her round the clock. She remained bed ridden till her death after the said injury. The alleged will has been manufactured forged and fabricated by the petitioner. The fabrication of the Will is patent even on the allegations made in the said Will.
10 It is stated that the property in question was purchased in the name of Sh. Ram Pratap. Later on by virtue of decree of partition dated 27.5.1965 passed by the Court of Sh. R.K. Synghal, P.C.S. Sub-Judge, Ist class, Delhi in suit No. 238/65. Sh. Ram Pratap remained the owner of 40% undivided share in the said property, the respondent no. 2 Sh. Ashok Kumar became the owner of 40% undivided share in the said property and deceased, Smt. Vidhwati became the owner of 20% undivided share in the said property. Sh. Ram Pratap had bequeathed his 40% undivided share in the said property to deceased by virtue of his last Will dated 17.4.1986. The deceased became the PC No. 149/10/07 Jagmohan Gupta Vs State & Ors 5/35 owner on the death of Sh. Ram Pratap to the extent of 60% undivided share in the said property. The said property was never partitioned between deceased and the respondent no. 2. Smt. Vidya Wati had left behind her last Will dated 17.4.1986 bequeathing her share to respondent no. 2. The respondent no. 2 became the exclusive and absolute owner of the entire house on the death of deceased.
11 It is stated that late Sh. Ram Pratap was running Copper Wire Factory under the name and style of M/s Swastik Wire Industries at 2747, Chatta Pratap Singh, Kinari Bazar, Delhi and he was tenant of the said property at Kinari Bazar, Delhi. Since the petitioner was out of job, Sh. Ram Pratap called him to work with him. The petitioner got the tenancy rights of the said premises transferred in his name in collusion with the landlord without the consent of Sh. Ram Pratap. Since the petitioner was his son in law, he did not take any action against him. However, the relations between Sh. Ram Pratap and his family became strained with the petitioner and his family. The petitioner and his wife were not on visiting terms with deceased for the last more than 10 years. The deceased was living in the care and custody of respondent no. 2 and she was having strained relations with the petitioner and his family.
12 It is stated that the alleged attesting witnesses are not related to deceased in any manner. As a matter of fact deceased or the respondent no. 2 did not and does not know the alleged two witnesses. It is stated that the alleged will dated 11.07.2004 has been executed by deceased out of her own fee will and consent and having a mind of sufficient soundness. It is PC No. 149/10/07 Jagmohan Gupta Vs State & Ors 6/35 stated that deceased had executed a registered Will dated 17.4.1986 and in the said Will deceased had given the details of her previous wills and had revoked them.
13 It is stated that it is unbelievable that deceased had handed over the alleged will to Sh. Ajit Kothari was was not related or known to her. The name of Sh. Ajit Kothari has been introduced by the petitioner only to save himself from the prosecution for fabrication the alleged Will.
14 It is stated that petition of the petitioner is false, frivolous and vexatious and respondent no. 2 seeks dismissal of the petition and initiating proceedings under Section 340 Cr.P.C. against the petitioner for seeking probate/letter of administration in respect of the forged and fabrication document.
15 Petitioner also filed replication to the objections filed by respondents no. 2 and denied all the objections and reiterated the averments mentioned in the petition.
16 Respondent no. 3 & 4 also filed their Reply/objections to the petition and stated that Sh. Ram Pratap during his life time had not executed will dated 9.4.1986. As a matter of fact Sh. Ram Pratap had executed a registered Will on 17.4.1986. It is denied that deceased became the sole and exclusive owner of both the immovable and movable properties of late Sh. Ram Pratap.
17 It is stated that at the time of death Sh. Ram Pratap was not the owner of entire property bearing No. L-1/6, Hauz PC No. 149/10/07 Jagmohan Gupta Vs State & Ors 7/35 Khas Enclave, New Delhi-110016. He was only owner of an undivided portion of the said property. It is stated that alleged Will is forged and fabricated document. It is impossible to believe that deceased execute the alleged will dated 11.07.2004 in view of the strained relations between deceased with the petitioner and her daughter, respondent no. 5. It is stated that for the last more than 10 years the petitioner and his wife, respondent no. 5 were not even on visiting terms with deceased and other family members of deceased.
18 It is stated that deceased was confined to bed since 14.4.2003 till her death and on the date i.e 11.07.2004 of the alleged will was under the care of respondent no. 2 and his wife. The alleged Will dated 11.07.2004 is not natural and genuine as deceased very well knew that she was not the exclusive owner of property bearing No. L-1/6, Hauz Khas Enclave, New Delhi- 110016. She was having only an undivided share in the said property.
19 It is stated that alleged witnesses are unknown to the family of deceased and her family never had any concern with the alleged witnesses. Deceased was physically unfit and was confined to bed since 14.4.2003. It is stated that alleged Will dated 11.07.2004 has been forged and fabricated by the petitioner. Other contents of the petition are also denied. Respondent no. 3 & 4 seeks dismissal of the petition with cost.
20 Petitioner filed replication to the reply/objections filed on behalf of respondent no. 3 & 4 and denied all the objections and reiterated the averments mentioned in the petition.
PC No. 149/10/07 Jagmohan Gupta Vs State & Ors 8/35 21 On the pleading of the parties following issues were framed by my ld. Predecessor vide order dated 23.09.2008:-
1. Whether the Will dated 11.07.2004 executed by late Smt. Vidhyawati is her last testament and executed validly and genuinely in her sound disposing mind? OPP
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the grant of Probate as prayed for on the basis of Will dated 11.07.2004? OPP
3. Relief
22 Petitioner in order to prove his case examined himself as PW-1 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW-1/A and rely upon the documents i.e copy of death certificate of late Sh. Ram Pratap Aggarwal as Mark A, Will executed by deceased Smt. Vidya Wati dated 11.07.2004 as Mark B, Death certificate of deceased as Ex. PW-1/3.
23 In the cross-examination he deposed that he married on 7.2.1978 and at that time residing at C-3/6 Safdarjung Development Area, Hauz Khas, New Delhi and doing jewellery business. He deposed that Sh. Ajit Kothari is also doing jewellery business but he has no business dealing with him. He met Sh. Ajit Kothari first time in the year 1989 in the evening at the residence of Sh. Ram Paratap, thereafter he never met him. He again said he met Sh. Ajit Kothari again in the year 2005 but he does not remember the date and month. He was residing at Sainik Farm in the year 2005. He again said he cannot say whether he met Sh. Ajit Kothari in January, 2005.
PC No. 149/10/07 Jagmohan Gupta Vs State & Ors 9/35 24 He further deposed that he was having shop bearing no. 23, Ansari Road, Daryaganj from 1976 to 1980 and thereafter he shifted his shop to Hauz Khas in the year 1980 where he still running his jewellery shop. He deposed that Smt. Adesh Manjit Singh is known to him since 1999-2000 as she came to his shop alongwith Smt. Vidhya Wati 2-3 times.
25 He further admitted the suggestion that a godown where a factory was being run situated at 2747, Chhata Partap Singh, Kinari Bazar, Delhi was under the tenancy of Sh. Ram Partap. He denied the suggestion that he had forcibly occupied this godown. He is in possession of this godown since 1981. The rent receipt was being issued in the name of Sh. Ram Partap though he is paying the rent. He is having rent receipts right from 1980-81.
26 In further cross-examination PW-1 produced the receipt dated 31.5.1981 and original receipt after 26.06.2002 whereas other four receipts are only photocopies. He deposed that he suppose M/s Ram Partap and Company used to run the business at one time from this tenanted premises. He does know whether his father in law used to work from this place in the name of Swastic Wire Industries. He had never worked from this premises. Rent receipts were issued in the name of Sh. Ram Partap till 2003. He expired in the year 1997.
27 He further deposed that he was occupying this tenanted premises even in the year 1997 but never tried to get the rent receipt in his name after 1997.
He came in possession of rent receipts from 1981 to 1995-96 but PC No. 149/10/07 Jagmohan Gupta Vs State & Ors 10/35 Sh. Ashok Kumar came to him in the year 1998 and took the original receipts, the photocopies of which were retained by him. He further deposed that he had not seen the original receipt Ex. PW-1/R-1 to R-3 lying on the record which pertains to the property in dispute. He admitted the suggestion that photocopies of receipts produced by him do not match with Ex. PW-1/r-1 & R-
2. 28 In further cross-examination he deposed that the tenancy in the name of Sh. Ram Parsad remained till year 2003 and the original receipt of this period were with him which he has filed on record. After 2003 the rent receipts were issued in his name.
29 He further deposed that one suit was instituted in the year 1965 in respect of the property in question which was pending in the court of Sh. R.K. Singhal the then Sub Judge, Delhi. It was a case between Sh. Ram Partap, Vidya Wati and Sh. Ashok. He does not know whether at suit was decreed on 27.5.1965. He admitted the suggestion that as per decree 40% undivided share in the Hauz Khas Enclave property goes to Sh. Ram Partap, 40% to Sh. Ashok and remaining 20% to Smt. Vidya Wati.
30 In further cross-examination he admitted that both Sh. Ram Partap and Smt. Vidya Wati executed Wills on 17.04.1986. He came to know about these Wills first time from the reply filed by respondent no. 2. He had no knowledge about execution of any other Wills of both Sh. Ram Partap and Smt. Vidya Wati prior to filing of the petition. He again said he might have read the Will the copy of which was given to him by his PC No. 149/10/07 Jagmohan Gupta Vs State & Ors 11/35 father in law. He voluntarily that he had got amended the petition and changed the date of the Will from 19.4.1986 to 17.4.1986.
31 He further deposed that he had read the Wills of Sh. Ram Partap and Smt. Vidya Wati dated 17.4.1986 first time when the same were filed in the court by respondent. He had not seen any document which shows that Smt. Vidya Wati is the exclusive owner of Hauz Khas Enclave property. He was never told by Smt. Vidya Wati that she was owner of any specific portion of the property. He had came to know now that 40% share in the property belongs to respondent no. 2 and Smt. Vidya Wati was having only 60% share in the property after the death of Sh. Ram Partap. He met Smt. Vidya Wati after death of Sh. Ram Partap till 1999-2000. He admitted the suggestion that he believed that Sh. Ram Partap was owner of whole property and after his death Vidya Wati become owner as it was told to him by them when they were alived.
32 In further cross-examination he deposed that from 1978 till 1997 the premises situated at Chhata Partap Singh remained closed and no work or business were run from there. The premises was given to him in the year 1981 and after that for some period business of making necklaces were run from there. Even from 1981 to 1997 no books of accounts were maintained in respect of any business. He never remained as owner or partner in any business run from Chhata Partap Singh property.
PC No. 149/10/07 Jagmohan Gupta Vs State & Ors 12/35 33 He further deposed that his wife had visited Smt. Vidya Wati several times after 1997. He had not attended the cremation ceremony of Smt. Vidya Wati but his wife had attended her cremation and she told him about it. He was asked by Smt. Vidhyawati not to visit her as behaviour of respondent no. 2 & 3 was not proper so he stopped visiting her after year 2000. He stayed out of Delhi for 3-4 days when Smt. Vidhaywati had expired. He further deposed that his wife told him that Smt. Vidya Wati could not get down from bed and her physical condition was not well when the Will in question was executed. He had heard about her accident also. She was having fracture so she always remained on bed. Smt. Vidya Wati fell down in the house and suffered fracture in the year 2003. He denied the suggestion that she was not able to get down from the bed till her death. His wife told him that she had recovered from fracture either in the end of December 2003 or in January 2004. He admitted the suggestion that he had not personally knew the physical condition of Smt. Vidya Wati but his wife and relative Manu, Nisha, his sister-in laws and other had informed him about her conditions from time to time.
34 He further deposed that he cannot say whether Smt. Vidya Wati knew that she was the owner of 60% share only in the property. He does not know that on 11.07.2004 mental condition of Smt. Vidya Wati was not proper to understand the nature of the Will and consequences of this execution. He never remained in possession of any other documents containing handwriting and signatures of Smt. Vidya Wati. She had not signed on any document in his presence. He never visited the doctors who were treating Smt. Vidya Wati. Either the children or attendants PC No. 149/10/07 Jagmohan Gupta Vs State & Ors 13/35 had taken care of Smt. Vidya Wati in the period of her accident till her death.
35 He further deposed admitted the suggestion that deceased testatrix and respondent no. 2 were having food from the same kitchen. He does not know that food was being prepared by the wife of respondent no. 2 and no servant was employed. The deceased testatrix expired after 3-4 months of execution of Will. The deceased testatrix used to telephone him at least once in a month and used to visit his shop once in 5-6 months and he also used to telephone her. He does not remember the date when he talked deceased testatrix on telephone last time. The deceased testatrix never informed him about her Will dated 11.07.2004. He does not remember the dates of visit of with his wife to deceased. He denied the suggestion that his wife and children had no visiting terms with deceased testatrix. He deposed that he does not know whether the Will dated 11.07.2004 is forged and fabricated which is prepared by him.
36 Petitioner further examined the attesting witness to the Will Sh. Ajit Kothari, attesting witness to the Will in question as PW-2 who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. P-2. He deposed that he has seen the original Will Mark B on the court record and identified his signatures at point Y on the Will.
37 In the cross-examination he deposed that he met petitioner first time about 20-21 years back. He is in jewellery business and do not know the business of petitioner. He had visited the house of Sh. Ram Pratap father in law of petitioner in PC No. 149/10/07 Jagmohan Gupta Vs State & Ors 14/35 connection with some jewellery business where he met the petitioner. He further deposed that he met petitioner in 2005 when he handed over this Will to him as the Will was lying with him. The deceased testatrix had told him the address of petitioner's shop where he had gone to deliver the will. He met the second witness of the Will at the time when the Will was executed and thereafter never met him. Earlier to the execution of the Will, the second witness Adesh Manjit Singh was not known to him. He had not inquired about his address and his work at that time.
38 He further deposed that he met Smt. Vidya Wati about 4-5 times during period of 20-21 years. He does not remember the date and months of meeting with Smt. Vidya Wati but he met her once in year 1998 and secondly when the Will was given to him in the year 2004. He met her also in the year 1990 or 1991. He used to maintain account book for his jewellery transaction. He does not remember whether any account of Sh. Ram Pratap or Smt. Vidya Wati was opened in his account books. Sh. Ram Pratap had purchased some jewelery in cash in 1994-95. Except in 1994-95 Sh. Ram Pratap had not purchased any jewelery from him at any time. Petitioner was the son in law of Smt. Vidya Wati as told to him when he met her first time as well as when Will was handed over to him. Petitioner did not meet him at any time in the house of Smt. Vidya Wati during period of 20-21 years. Petitioner met him first time about 20-21 years back and then at his shop in year 2005 and then at his residence when he approached him for giving evidence in this case.
PC No. 149/10/07 Jagmohan Gupta Vs State & Ors 15/35 39 In further cross-examination he deposed that Smt. Vidya Wati, deceased testatrix was normal physical condition when he met her in year 2004. He does not know whether she ever met with an accident. He does not know that she fell in her house in April 2003 and her backbone was fractured. He denied the suggestion that from April 2003 till she expired she remained bedridden. He deposed that Smt. Vidya Wati died in year 2004- 2005. He had tried to call her on phone after 4-6 months then came to know that she had already expired. He admitted the suggestion that he had not attended her cremation or last ceremonies. He deposed that he was not informed about her death. He cannot tell who is the family member of Smt. Vidya Wati known to him. He was told about her family members but he did not know anyone. He only remember about one son of Smt. Vidya Wati but do not know about any of her daughter.
40 In further cross-examination he deposed that he had gone to the house of Smt. Vidya Wati he saw one lady who might be servant and Smt. Adesh Manjit Singh. He admitted the suggestion that in the year 2004, Smt. Vidya Wati and her family members were occupying the property in question. Thereafter he denied the knowledge of about one kitchen, or relationship with her son, about her daughter or attending of any function of Smt. Vidya Wati.
41 In further cross-examination he deposed that Sh. Ram Pratap expired in the year 1997-98. He had not attended his cremation or last ceremony as he came to know about his death after six months. Smt. Vidya Wati was residing on the ground floor of the property in question. He visited only that room in PC No. 149/10/07 Jagmohan Gupta Vs State & Ors 16/35 which Smt. Vidya Wati was present in year 2004. However, from Baramdha there was one chowk and one room of Smt. Vidya Wati was situated. That room was situated at a distance of about 20 steps from the main gate. He directly visited her room and no one has escorted him.
42 In further cross-examination he deposed that When the Will was handed over to him then only he came to know about her intention to execute the Will. Prior to that day she never called him and showed her intention to execute any Will. He does not know whether Smt. Vidya Wati knew English or was literate. Smt. Vidya Wati never signed on any document except her Will in his presence. The Will was written in English. He does not know who had drafted that Will and where it was got typed. He visited the house of deceased at about 4-5 p.m. and remained in her house for abut ½ hour. He read the contents of the Will. As per Will, the ground and second floor was given to the son and first floor was given to petitioner by deceased. He was not informed that Smt. Vidya Wati was the owner of all the floors. She also not told him that she was the owner of entire house. He does not know whether Smt. Vidya Wati was the owner of the entire house or not.
43 He further deposed that his affidavit was prepared by his advocate in his office behind Hyatt Hotel at his instructions. He admitted the suggestion that after drafting of affidavit and obtaining his signatures on it, it was kept by advocate. Petitioner had taken him to the advocate for drafting of the affidavit. He deposed that Smt. Vidya Wati signed in Hindi at two places on Will. He denied the suggestion that the Will is not signed by Smt. PC No. 149/10/07 Jagmohan Gupta Vs State & Ors 17/35 Vidya Wati or that it is forged with the connivance of the petitioner, or that will is not bearing genuine signatures of Smt. Vidya Wati.
44 In further cross-examination he denied the knowledge of since when the relation of deceased were strained with her son in law. He does not know that petitioner had no visiting terms with deceased. He had not inquired from deceased why she was giving her property to son in law instead of daughters. He does not know that beside petitioner deceased have two alive daughters and son in laws. He admitted the suggestion that he does not know the family background of deceased. He has not brought any documentary evidence to show that he had some business relations with deceased. He has also not in possession of any documentary evidence to show his business relation with Sh. Ram Pratap. He denied the suggestion that on the day of the execution of the Will Smt. Vidya Wati was bed ridden and was not able to understand the things or even not able to sit on the bed. He deposed that he was asked by advocate of petitioner to appear in the court but petitioner had not ever asked him to appear in the court.
45 Respondents examined Sh. Anil Vershney, Officer from Bank of India and placed on record two original cheques bearing no. 280546 dated 30.10.2000 and 280547 dated 3.9.2001 drawn on their bank. He further deposed that these cheques have been encashed.
46 Respondent no. 2 Sh. Ashok Aggarwal examined himself as RW-2 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.
PC No. 149/10/07 Jagmohan Gupta Vs State & Ors 18/35 R-2. He relied upon the certified copy of order as Ex. R2W1/1, certified copy of decree as Ex. R2W1/2, certified copy of the Will dated 17.4.1986 as Ex. R2W1/3 and original Will as Ex. R2W1/4 and certified copy of will dated 17.4.1986 as Ex. R2w1/5 and original will as Ex. R2W1/6, the description of the fractured bones as of Dr. B.S. Kapoor as Ex. R2W1/7, the discharge memo as Ex. R2W1/8, Bills are Ex. R2W1/9 & 10, Certificate of Rana Nursing Care Services as Ex. R2W1/11. He further identified the signatures of his mother, deceased testator on cheques Ex. R2W1/12 and 13.
47 In the cross-examination he deposed that his father Lala Ram Partap was owning joint property. It belong to Sh. Ram Partap, Vidya Wati and himself. Sh. Ram Partap was also having properties bearing no. 1498, 1496 Bhagirth Place and 423, 424 at G.T. Road, Shahdara. All the properties mentioned above and L- 1/6, Haus Khas Enclave are joint properties. The shares in these properties were fixed of all the three joint owners by the court of Sh. R.K. Singhal, Ld. Sub-Judge in Suit No. 238/1965. He admitted the suggestion that Lala Ram Partap executed a Will on 17.08.1986. He had seen that Will dated 17.8.1986. He as per Will paid Rs. 25,000/- vide draft dated 22.12.1997 to his sister, Smt. Asha Gupta.
48 In further cross-examination he admitted the suggestion that there was partition suit between him and his father and in view of the said suit he received 40% share in the suit property. He further admitted that vide said suit his father also obtained 40% share and his mother 20% share. But the property was never actually partitioned in said proportion. He PC No. 149/10/07 Jagmohan Gupta Vs State & Ors 19/35 admitted that his father executed a Will dated 17.04.1986 bequeathing said 40% share in favour of his mother Smt. Vidya Wati. He also admitted that on the same day on 17.4.1986 his mother also executed a will bequeathing the entire 60% share in his favour.
49 He further admitted that both the Will were duly registered with the Registrar but he does no know which will was registered first. On 14.04.2003 his mother fell on ground and as result she sustained fracture in her hip bone, thereafter she became bed ridden as she was not able to move due to fracture in her hip bone. He denied the suggestion that Will Mark B dated 11.07.2004 is genuine one duly executed by Smt. Vidya Wati. He denied the suggestion that Smt. Vidya Wati knew Sh. Aji Kothari and Mrs. Adesh Manjit Kaur. He denied the suggestion that petitioner had cordial relations with their mother late Smt. Vidya Wati.
50 Respondent no. 2 further examined Sh. Suresh Kumar Gupta, the attesting witness to the Will of late Sh. Ram Pratap as RW-3 who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. RW3/A. He rely upon the Will of late Sh. Ram Pratap Gotewale already Ex. AS Ex. R2W1/4 and Will of Smt. Vidhya Wati, deceased testatrix already Ex. R2W1/6.
51 In the cross-examination he deposed that on the day of signing the Will Ex. R2W1/4 he was approximately 42 years old. He was told by the deceased Ram Pratap Gotaiwala to sign the Will Ex. R2W1/4 as attesting witness. He does not know the contents of the will. He voluntarily that contents of the Will Ex.
PC No. 149/10/07 Jagmohan Gupta Vs State & Ors 20/35 R2W1/4 were read over to testator Sh. Ram Pratap by the will writer Sh. Sumre Chand Jain. He does not know about the properties mentioned in the Will Ex. R2W1/4. He does not remember the date, month and year when the deceased testator was died but he died 15 years back. He admitted the suggestion that on the same day deceased Smt. Vidya Wati also executed a Will Ex. R2W1/6. He does not know the contents of Will Ex. R2W1/6. He does not know that deceased Vidya Wati bequeathed all her properties to whom. He has no knowledge with regard to the fact that on 17.04.1986 deceased Vidya Wati was owner of which properties. He also does not know lala Ram Pratap bequeathed his properties to whom. He does not know whether Vidhyawati became 60% owner of the Haus Khaz property after the death of Lala Ram Pratap Gotewala. Smt. Vidhyawati died around the year 2010. He used to visit house of Vidhyawati offenly being relative after the signing of Will Ex. R2W1/6. He has no knowledge whether deceased Vidhyawati executed any Will on 11.07.2004.
52 It is pertinent to mention here that at the stage of respondent's evidence, respondent no. 2 Sh. Ashok Kumar, expired and vide order dated 23.10.2015 his L.Rs were brought on record.
53 Respondent no.2 further examined Dr. V.C. Mishra, Forensic Expert as RW-4 who tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. RW-4/A. He proved the documents in support of his evidence as Ex. RX, the photographs are Ex. RY ( Colly), CD is Ex. RZ and the certificate under Section 65-B of Evidence Act is Ex. RZ-1.
PC No. 149/10/07 Jagmohan Gupta Vs State & Ors 21/35 54 In the cross-examination he replied to the question put to him and explain that the most habitual individual characteristics of hand wiring ware the result of brain reflexes sent by the brain of a particular individual which are almost fixed in the brain. It is based on scientific principles and his observations is based on those scientific methods. He further deposed about scientific principle that scientific principle says due to the thousands of repetitions, the handwriting becomes engraved into the brain as a fixed individual habit and every time that is reflect in the handwriting due to the force of habit. The scientific principle has been applied by him in writing this opinion. There is no specific name of this scientific principle. However, commonly known as "Principle of individuality" This principle is part of his report.
55 He further deposed that the basis of finger movement was the slow speed and poor skill in D series and the basis of Advance wrist movement was the medium speed and superior skill in A Series. According to the scientific principle regarding the observation of finger movement that when a person writes very slowly while copying some genuine model, the writing act is only done by moving fingers and when a person writes in medium to rapid speed with horizontal action wrist plays major role in writing act. These principles are part of his report.
56 In further questioned he deposed that there are fundamental differences in A series and D series signatures. He admitted the suggestion that even if there is a difference in D series signatures, it is because of time and the age of the executor. He deposed that in a A series there are natural PC No. 149/10/07 Jagmohan Gupta Vs State & Ors 22/35 variations but in D series there are no natural variations. He admitted the suggestion that he has been approached by the respondents to give evidence as a witness in the present case. He denied the suggestion that since respondents have approached him, he has give a report in favour of respondents and deposing falsely. Vide separate statement of L.Rs of respondent no. 2, evidence on behalf of respondent no. 2 was closed on 24.05.2016.
57 It is pertinent to mention here that affidavit of Smt. Adesh Manjeet Singh, one of the attesting witness to the Will dated 11.07.2004 was also filed on record she has not been examined in the court.
58 I have gone through the written submissions filed by Sh. Praveen Chauhan, counsel for the petitioner and also gone through the judgments relied by the petitioner i.e in Ashish C Shah Vs Sheth Developers Pvt. Ltd., the State of Maharashtra and Aparna Ashish Shah, High Court of Bombay, in Criminal Writ Petition No. 40 of 2011 decided on 16.03.2011, Mahesh Kumar (D) By Lrs Vs Vinod Kumar & Ors Supreme Court of India, Civil Appeal No.s 7587- 7588 of 2004, in Lalitaben Jayantilal Popat Vs Pragnaben Jamnadas Kataria and Ors. Supreme Court of India, Civil Appeal No. 7434 of 2008 ( Arising out of SLP (c) No. 17161 of 2006) decided on 19.12.2008, in Kanwarjit Singh Dhillon Vs Hardyal Singh Dhillo and Ors. Supreme Court of India, Civil Appeal No. 4890 of 2007 ( Arising out of SLP © No. 20127 of 2005) decided on 12.10.2007, in Prof. B.R. Grover Vs State, High Court of Delhi, Test Cas. No. PC No. 149/10/07 Jagmohan Gupta Vs State & Ors 23/35 41/1995 decided on 23.07.2012, in Deepak Kumar Mendiratta Vs Surender Kumar, High Court of Delhi, FAO (OS) 328/2010 decided on 04.04.2013, in Kewal Krishan Mayor Vs Kailash Chand Mayor and Ors, High Court of Delhi, Suit Appeal No. 519 of 1973 decided on 27.05.1976, in Hari Singh and Anr, Vs The State and Anr, High Court of Delhi, FAO(OS) Nos. 386 and 387/1996 decided on 03.12.2010 and in Smt. Indu Bala Bose and Ors. Vs Manindra Chandra Bose and Anr. Supreme Court of India, Civil Appeal No. 1872 of 1970 decided on 18.11.1981.
59 Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 2 Sh. Sanjay Aggarwal also filed detailed written arguments. I have considered the written arguments and the judgments relied on behalf of respondent no. 2 i.e in Vijayben Vahram Vs State of Gujarat and others, in AIR 1989 Gujarat 75, first appeal no.. 1058 of 1977, decided on 21.06.1988, Mrs Sumangala T. Pai Vs S. Sundaresa Pai and others, in AIR 1991 Kerala 259 A.S. No. 56 of 1986 decided on 19.12.1990 and om Kanchhedilal Jain & Ors. Vs. Niranjan Kumar Jain, AIR 2011 Madhya Pradesh 158, Second Appeal No. 117 of 2002 decided on 29.3.2011.
60 My findings on issues is as under:-
Issue no. 1 & 2 Issue no. 1 & 2 are taken simultaneously being inter connected.
61 In order to appreciate the detailed discussed testimony of all the witnesses of both petitioner and respondent PC No. 149/10/07 Jagmohan Gupta Vs State & Ors 24/35 no. 2, let us glance the recent judgment of Apex court in Jagdish Chand Sharma vs. Narain Singh Saini, (2015) 8 SCC 615.
"19. The contentious pleadings and the assertions thereupon in the backdrop of the evidence as a whole have been analyzed. The pleading perspective notwithstanding, the purport and play of Section 63 of Indian Succession Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') read with Section 68 and 71 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter referred to as '1872 Act'), it would thus be apt, nay, imperative to refer to these legal provisions before embarking on the appreciation of evidence to the extent indispensable.
20. Section 63 of the Act and Sections 68 and 71 of the 1872 Act are thus extracted hereunder for ready reference:
20.1 Section 63 of the Act:
63. Execution of unprivileged wills - Every testatrix, not being a soldier employed in an expedition or engaged in actual warfare, or an airman so employed or engaged, or a mariner at sea, shall execute his will according to the following rules-
(a) The testatrix shall sign or shall affix his mark to the will, or it shall be signed by some other person in his presence and by his direction.
(b) The signature or mark of the testatrix, or the signature of the person signing for him, shall be so placed that it shall appear that it was intended thereby to give effect to the writing as a will.
(c) The will shall be attested by two or more witnesses, each of whom has seen the testatrix sign or affix his mark to the will or has seen some other person sign or will, in the presence and by the direction of the testatrix, or has received from PC No. 149/10/07 Jagmohan Gupta Vs State & Ors 25/35 the testatrix a personal acknowledgment of his signature or mark, or the signature of such other person; and each of the witnesses shall sign the will in the presence of the testatrix, but it shall not be necessary that more than one witness be present at the same time, and no particular form of attestation shall be necessary.
20.2 Section 68 & 71 of the 1872 Act:
68. Proof of execution of document required by law to be attested - If a document is required by law to be attested, it shall not be used as evidence until one attesting witness at least has been called for the purpose of proving its execution, if there be an attesting witness alive, and subject to the process of the Court and capable of giving evidence:
71. Proof when attesting witness denies the execution - If the attesting witness denies or does not recollect the execution of the document, its execution may be proved by other evidence.
21. As would be evident from the contents of Section 63 of the Act that to execute the will as contemplated therein, the testatrix would have to sign or affix his mark to it or the same has to be signed by some other person in his presence and on his direction. Further, the signature or mark of the testatrix or the signature of the person signing for him has to be so placed that it would appear that it was intended thereby to give effect to the writing as will. The section further mandates that the will shall have to be attested by two or more witnesses each of whom has seen the testatrix sign or affix his mark to PC No. 149/10/07 Jagmohan Gupta Vs State & Ors 26/35 it or has seen some other persons sign it, in the presence and on the direction of the testatrix, or has received from the testatrix, personal acknowledgment of a signature or mark, or the signature of such other persons and that each of the witnesses has signed the will in the presence of the testatrix. It is, however, clarified that it would not be necessary that more than one witness be present at the same time and that no particular form of attestation would be necessary.
22. It cannot be gainsaid that the above legislatively prescribed essentials of a valid execution and attestation of a will under the Act are mandatory in nature, so much so that any failure or deficiency in adherence thereto would be at the pain of invalidation of such document/instrument of disposition of property.
22.1 In the evidentiary context Section 68 of the 1872 Act enjoins that if a document is required by law to be attested, it would not be used as evidence unless one attesting witness, at least, if alive, and is subject to the process of the court and capable of giving evidence proves its execution. The proviso attached to this section relaxes this requirement in case of a document, not being a will, but has been registered in accordance with the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 unless its execution by the person by whom it purports to have been executed, is specifically denied.
22.2 These statutory provisions, thus, make it incumbent for a document required by law to be attested to have its execution proved by at least one of the attesting witnesses, if alive, and is subject to PC No. 149/10/07 Jagmohan Gupta Vs State & Ors 27/35 the process of the court conducting the proceedings involved and is capable of giving evidence. This rigour is, however, eased in case of a document also required to be attested but not a will, if the same has been registered in accordance with the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908 unless the execution of this document by the person said to have executed it denies the same. In any view of the matter, however, the relaxation extended by the proviso is of no avail qua a will. The proof of a will to be admissible in evidence with probative potential, being a document required by law to be attested by two witnesses, would necessarily need proof of its execution through at least one of the attesting witnesses, if alive, and subject to the process of the court concerned and is capable of giving evidence.
22.3 Section 71 provides, however, that if the attesting witness denies or does not recollect the execution of the document, its execution may be proved by the other evidence. The interplay of the above statutory provisions and the underlying legislative objective would be of formidable relevance in evaluating the materials on record and recording the penultimate conclusions. With this backdrop, expedient would be, to scrutinize the evidence adduced by the parties."
62 Now applying the well settled principles, let us scrutinize and examine the evidence led by the parties. The onus of both these issues on on the petitioner. The petitioner Jagmohan Gupta appeared in witness box being the perpounder of the Will. However, the star witness are PW-2 Sh. Ajit Kothari, the attesting witness. He had seen the original Will and identify PC No. 149/10/07 Jagmohan Gupta Vs State & Ors 28/35 his signatures at point Y. The detailed cross-examination established that he had handed over the Will to the petitioner in 2005 as the same was lying with him. The deceased Vidya Wati had told him the address of the shop when will was executed but thereafter he never met.
63 The second witness Sh. Adesh Manjeet Singh was not known to him. He explained that deceased testator Vidya Wati was of normal physical condition in the year 2004. He has no knowledge whether he fell down in 2003 and her backbone was fractured. He has no knowledge of the family background of deceased testator of her family members. He had business relations with the deceased but deceased was not a business woman. He had visited only a room where deceased Vidya Wati present in 2004. He has no knowledge who drafted the Will. He is also silent about the business transactions with Smt. Vidya Wati although know about 22 years back.
64 Petitioner has not examined other attesting witness Sh. Adesh Manjeet Singh although his affidavit filed on record. The testimony of PW-2 Sh. Ajit Kothari proved the fact that only once in life time he met deceased testator Vidya Wati although he had business transactions but no substantive piece of evidence come on record to substantiate the same. He is not aware of any family of deceased Vidya Wati even her fracture in 2003. He even not attended the last rites of deceased. He also become the witness of custody of the will after execution. But he had no instructions when to hand over the same to the petitioner. In my opinion considered, PW-2 Sh. Ajit Kothari is not a natural believable attesting witness. His testimony is surrounded by PC No. 149/10/07 Jagmohan Gupta Vs State & Ors 29/35 suspicious circumstances when he has introduced himself as custodian of the Will without any instructions from the deceased testatrix. He hardly being regular relations with the deceased testatrix, it is natural that one cannot call a person as an attesting witness to whom he/she met only once in the life time. He also never visited to any occasion of family or deceased testator.
65 Now coming to the testimony of PW-1 Sh. Jagmohan Gupta, perpounder of the Will his testimony is also discussed herein above in detail. He admitted that he knew Sh. Ajit Kothari, attesting witness since 1989. First met at the residence of Ram Pratap thereafter he met in the year 2005. The other attesting witness Sh. Adesh Manjeet Singh was known to him since 1999- 2000. He admitted that deceased Vidya Wati and her husband late Sh. Ram Pratap executed Wills of the suit property on 17.04.1986 and he had read the wills. He met deceased testatrix after the death of her husband late Sh. Ram Partap in 1999-2000. He admitted that his wife has visited deceased Vidya wati several times after 1997 and attended her cremation ceremony but he was out of station. He has given a strange story about that deceased Vidya wati was asked him not to visit her as behaviour of respondent no. 2 & 3 was not proper so he stopped visiting after 2000. He had not attended 10th day and 17th day ceremony of deceased. He further explained that his wife told him that the physical condition of deceased testatrix was not well when will in question was executed and he had heard about her accident. The deceased testatrix suffered the fracture in 2003. He never visited any doctor who treated deceased testatrix. He did not taken care till her death.
PC No. 149/10/07 Jagmohan Gupta Vs State & Ors 30/35 66 The testimony of PW-1 established that after 1997 only his wife used to visit deceased testatrix. Since 2000 he never visited the deceased testatrix. He did not attend any of the death ceremony of the deceased testatrix which clearly established that deceased testatrix was not having any cordial and smooth relation with the petitioner. In these circumstances suspicious circumstances arise that how a person become beneficiary of the estate of the deceased testatrix with whom the relations were strained. The beneficiary never cared about the deceased during her life time and also not attended last rites. By the natural conduct and with all probability the deceased testatrix would never execute any will in favour of the such person like, petitioner. There are passing facts also with regard to dispute about the tenancy rights of petitioner with regard to some other firm, namely, M/s Swastic Wire Industries.
67 Ld. Counsel for petitioner relied on judgment of Lalitaben Jayantilal Popat ( Supra). This judgment discussed the Section 68 of Indian Evidence Act and 63(C) of Indian Succession Act and meaning of 'attestation'. The judgment further reiterated that proving the will mere fulfilling the statutory requirements is not sufficient but the will should also be found to be ordinary free from suspicious circumstances where suspicious circumstances are brought on record held the court can take aid of the presenting evidence also.
68 In the present case petitioner examined only one attesting witness PW-2 Sh. Ajit Kothari and his testimony appreciated hereinabove in the light of principles of law.
PC No. 149/10/07 Jagmohan Gupta Vs State & Ors 31/35 69 The petitioner further relied on Mahesh Kumar ( D) by Lrs ( Supra) and laid emphasis on Para 18 in which the principle H Venkatachala Iyengar Vs. B.N. Thimmajamma are reiterated. The said cardinal principle have been applied, however, present case is distinguishable because petitioner in witness box admitted the execution of earlier will of deceased testatrix dated 17.4.1986 and present will is of 11.07.2004 which surrounded by suspicious circumstances, therefore, it cannot be said to become redundant.
70 Petitioner further relied on the judgment of Prof. B.R. Grover ( Supra) this judgment is also distinguishable because no rough notes prepared by the deceased testatrix before execution of the will in question. The other judgment relied is Deepak Kumar Mendiratta ( Supra). This judgment is also distinguishable because her respondents are not seeking probate of earlier will dated 17.04.1986 of deceased Vidya wati. The will in question perpounded by the petitioner is in question.
71 Another judgment of Kewal Krishan Mayor ( Supra) deals with the ingredients of validity of Will and burden of proof and question of constitution of joint Will. This judgment is distinguishable because the inheritance of the ownership rights amongst respondents of the deceased testatrix and her husband are through Wills.
72 Another judgment Hari Singh and Anr. ( Supra) deals with the slight irregularity, inconsistency or exaggeration found in the deposition of attesting witness. This judgment is also distinguishable because the attesting witness PW-2 Sh. Ajit Kothari by the natural conduct and probabilities not a believable witness and detailed reason has been discussed.
PC No. 149/10/07 Jagmohan Gupta Vs State & Ors 32/35 73 Another judgment of Smt. Indu Bal Bose and Ors. also deals with principles laid down by the Section 63(C) of Indian Evidence Act read with Section 68 of Indian Succession Act. This judgment is also distinguishable because there are suspicious circumstances surrounded at the time of execution of the Will of deceased testatrix Mark B as per detailed discussion of the testimony of PW-1 and PW-2.
74 Ld. Counsel for the respondent No. 2 relied on judgment of Vijayben Vahram ( Supra) AIR 1989 Gujarat 75, this judgment again reiterate the well settled principles. In the present circumstances, the petitioner has failed to remove the suspicious circumstances surrounded the execution of will, therefore, failed to substantiate the conscious of the court. This principle is applicable in the case of H Venkatachala Iyengar Vs. B.N. Thimmajamma.
75 Another judgment of Mrs Sumangala T Pai ( Supra). It cannot be reiterate the principle that the attesting witness certainly be corroborated or contradicted by the expert opinion regarding the signatures or suspicious in the signature of deceased testatrix. However, in this case this judgment is distinguishable because a report of the Handwriting expert is not conclusive although it raises grave suspicious.
76 Lastly, the judgment of Kanchhedilal Jain ( Supra) also relied by the respondent. In this case also there is no proper partition of the property subject matter of the will Mark B which has been bequeathed by the husband of deceased testatrix, Sh. Ram Pratap to respondent no. 2 and his wife and later on by PC No. 149/10/07 Jagmohan Gupta Vs State & Ors 33/35 deceased testatrix in favour of respondent no. 2. The respondent have not taken any substantive plea that will is not workable, therefore, it does not help the respondents.
77 Now as per above observation and discussion there are suspicious circumstances surrounded to the Will Mark B of deceased Vidya Wati which are not displaced by behaviour. It is admitted on record that she has earlier executed a registered will in favour of respondent no. 2 which is admitted by petitioner in the witness box. Respondent no. 2 relied highly on the testimony of Dr. V.C. Mishra, Forensic Expert who had examined admitted signatures and questioned signatures of the deceased testatrix on the Will. Accordingly to his opinion two disputed signatures of "D" series have not been written by the same writer who has written four signatures of "A" series. A detailed discussion about the significant features of the disputed signatures and admitted signatures. In my opinion no conclusive evidence proved on record about the signature being forged on the Will Mark B in dispute, however, it raises dark thick doubt about the genuineness but not conclusive. In my considered opinion, the will Mark B dated 11.07.2004 of deceased Vidya wati suffers from grave suspicious circumstances. The perpounder of the Will Jagmohan Gupta was not having cordial and good relations at the relevant time of execution of the Will. The relations were already strained since 1997. There was a tenancy dispute with the husband of deceased testatrix and the petitioner. The petitioner even not cared when she was seriously ill and also not attended any of the ceremony after her death. These circumstances are grave suspicious having believe the execution of the Will by the deceased testatrix in favour of the petitioner.
PC No. 149/10/07 Jagmohan Gupta Vs State & Ors 34/35 78 The attesting witness PW-2 Sh. Ajit Kothari has prime facie established that he not known to the deceased testatrix Vidya wati but well known to the petitioner. His conduct is also un-natural and improbable. He also not cared to see the deceased testatrix during her illness and even not attended the death ceremony. He has no knowledge of family background and family members. He is not a natural attesting witness who was known to the deceased testatrix. In my considered opinion the will is surrounded with grave suspicious circumstances and not a valid and genuinely executed last will of the deceased Vidya wati, therefore, on the basis of above observation and discussion, issue no. 1 & 2 are decided in favour of respondent no. 2 and against the petitioner.
79 Relief In view of my findings on issue no. 1 & 2 the petition filed by the petitioner Jagmohan Gupta, is dismissed. File be consigned to record room.
(Announced in the open (SANJAY KUMAR)
court on 13th July, 2017 ADJ-02 (West)
Tis Hazari Courts
Delhi
PC No. 149/10/07 Jagmohan Gupta Vs State & Ors 35/35
PC No. 149/10/07 Jagmohan Gupta Vs State & Ors 36/35