Delhi District Court
Jagmohan Khera vs State Ors on 17 May, 2024
Jagmohan Khera Vs. State & Ors.
DLST010002382011
IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE-02,
SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
Presiding Judge: Dr. Yadvender Singh
PC No. 5928/2016
Filing No. 7778/2011
CNR No. DLST01-000238-2011
In the matter of
1. Jagmohan Khera
S/o Sh. S.N. Khera
R/o E-221, Lajpat Nagar I,
New Delhi.
................Petitioner
Versus
1. The State
2. Gopal Krishan Khera
S/o Sh. S.N. Khera
R/o E-207-221, Lajpat Nagar,
New Delhi-24.
PC No. 5928/2016
CNR No. DLST01-000238-2011
Page 1 of 66
Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/17.05.2024
Jagmohan Khera Vs. State & Ors.
3. Sh. Chander Prakash Khera
R/o E-207-221, Lajpat Nagar I
New Delhi
4. Smt. Gulshan Kalra
W/o Sh. V.K. Kalra
R/o 32/61, West Patel Nagar,
New Delhi.
5. Smt. Sudershan Malhotra
W/o Late Sh. K.L. Malhotra,
R/o RZ-U/35, Uttam Nagar,
New Delhi.
6. Smt. Asha Rani Chawla
W/o Late Sh. Kishan Lal Chawla,
R/o C-Block, Gali No.11,
H. No. 243, Bhajan Pura, Delhi.
7. Smt. Kamla Juneja
W/o Late Sh. Naresh Juneja
R/o Naresh Medical Stores
Village Khatauli, Distt Muzaffarnagar
U.P.
.............Respondents
Date of Institution : 01.04.2011
Date of reserving the judgment : 23.04.2024
Date of pronouncement : 17.05.2024
Decision : Petition Dismissed
PC No. 5928/2016
CNR No. DLST01-000238-2011
Page 2 of 66
Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/17.05.2024
Jagmohan Khera Vs. State & Ors.
PETITION FOR GRANT OF PROBATE TO THE WILL
DATED 19.12.2000 OF LATE SH. S.N. KHERA S/O LATE
SH. GIRDHARI LAL KHERA IN RESPECT OF PROPERTY
NO. E-207-221, LAJPAT NAGAR-I, NEW DELHI
JUDGMENT
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner for obtaining probate of the Will dated 19.12.2000 of Late Sh. S.N. Khera i.e. father of the petitioner in respect of the property no. E-207-221, Lajpat Nagar-I, New Delhi. The petition is opposed by respondents No.2, 3, 4, 6 and 7.
BRIEF FACTS:
2. Broadly outlined the case of the petitioner is as under:-
2.1. That the testator Late Sh. S.N. Khera left a Will dated 19.12.2000 as his last Will. The testator bequeathed his property bearing No. E-221, Lajpat Nagar-I, New Delhi in favour of the petitioner.
2.2. The testator at the time of his death, in addition to the petitioner, left behind the following legal heirs:
Sl. Name Address Relationship
No.
i) Sh. Gopal Krishan E-207, 221, Lajpat Son
Khera Nagar-I, New
S/o Late Sh. S.N. Khera Delhi-24
ii) Sh. Chander Prakash E-207, 221, Lajpat Son
PC No. 5928/2016
CNR No. DLST01-000238-2011
Page 3 of 66
Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/17.05.2024 Jagmohan Khera Vs. State & Ors.
Khera Nagar-I, New
Delhi
iii) Smt Gulshan Kalra 32/61, West Patel Daughter
W/o Sh. V.K. Kalra Nagar, New Delhi
iv) Smt. Sudershan RZ-U/35, Uttam Daughter
Malhotra Nagar, New Delhi
W/o Late Sh. K.L.
Malhotra
v) Smt. Asha Rani Chawla C-Block, Gali No. Daughter W/o Late Sh. Kishan 11, H. No. 243, Lal Chawla Bhajan Pura, Delhi
vi) Smt. Kamla Juneja R/o Naresh Medial Daughter W/o Late Sh. Naresh Stores, Village Juneja Khatauli, Distt.
Muzaffar Nagar, U.P. 2.3. That the mother of the petitioner Smt. Kaushalya Devi Khera died much prior to the testator Sh. S.N. Khera i.e. in the year 1986. The present petition has been filed with the following prayers:-
"The petitioner, therefore, most respectfully prays that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to grant the Probate to the property No.E-221, Lajpat Nagar-1, New Delhi of the deceased Sh. Surinder Nath Khera to the petitioner to get the said property mutated in his own name."
3. Vide order dated 19.05.2011, the notice was directed to be issued to the respondents.
PC No. 5928/2016CNR No. DLST01-000238-2011 Page 4 of 66 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/17.05.2024 Jagmohan Khera Vs. State & Ors.
OBJECTIONS/REPLY TO THE PETITION
4. Respondents No.2, 3, 4, 6 and 7 appeared and filed their joint objections/reply to the petition. The respondents No. 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7 have stated as under :
4.1. That the petition is not maintainable as the same is not filed as required under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act. That the alleged Will dated 19.12.2000 is also not filed alongwith the petition. The petition is not signed and verified as required under Section 280 and 281 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. That the petitioner has not come with clean hands and has suppressed the material facts from this Hon'ble Court. It is submitted that Shri Gopal Krishan Khera/respondent No.2 filed a probate petition bearing No.141/2001 (Old) 19/2006 (New) on the basis of said registered Will dated 11.3.1999 executed by Shri Surender Nath Khera, which was allowed vide judgment dated 21.8.2008 by the court of Shri Ravinder Dudeja, Ld. ADJ, Delhi, however, in view of said judgment, respondent No.2 paid the court fee of Rs.73000/- and the court of Shri V.P. Vaish, Ld. ADJ, Delhi vide its order dated 17.2.2009 was pleased to grant Letter of Administration under Section 290 of the Indian Succession Act in favour of the respondent No.2.
Except Sh. Jagmohan Khera, the petitioner and the respondent No.5 filed a false and frivolous objections in the said probate PC No. 5928/2016 CNR No. DLST01-000238-2011 Page 5 of 66 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/17.05.2024 Jagmohan Khera Vs. State & Ors.
petition, however, objections were declined by the Ld. Trial Court.
4.2. It is further submitted that Sh. Jagmohan Khera, Sh. Praveen Manchanda and Sh. Vimal Khanna in collusion and connivance of each other have manufactured/fabricated a Will dated 11.09.1992 allegedly executed by Sh. Surender Nath Khera and filed the same before the Ld. Court. Sh. Jagmohan Khera and one of the sister namely Smt. Sudarshan Malhotra failed to prove the existence of the said forged and fabricated Will dated 11.09.1992 and ultimately probate was granted in favour of the respondent No.2/Gopal Krishan Khera by the court of Shri Ravinder Dudeja, Ld. ADJ, Delhi. 4.3. The petitioner has also not disclosed that he had filed an appeal before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi against the judgment dated 21.8.2008, but the said appeal was withdrawn by the petitioner vide order dated 03.03.2011. It is submitted that the petitioner again in connivance and collusion of two persons namely Sh. Diwan Chand Kalra and Sh. Shyam Sunder Sabharwal got manufactured, manipulated and fabricated another Will dated 19.12.2000 allegedly executed by Late Sh. Surender Nath Khera in the presence of aforesaid two persons. The alleged Will dated 19.12.2000 is again an attempt of forgery and perjury committed by the petitioner in collusion PC No. 5928/2016 CNR No. DLST01-000238-2011 Page 6 of 66 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/17.05.2024 Jagmohan Khera Vs. State & Ors.
and connivance with Sh. Diwan Chand Kalra and Shri Shyam Sunder Sabharwal. It is submitted that the legal heirs of Late Sh. Surender Nath Khera are litigating since last more than a decade after the death of their father and surprisingly he is ignorance of the litigations between the parties. It is further submitted that this fact is very much clear that the petitioner in collusion and connivance of Sh. Diwan Chand Kalra and Shri Shyam Sunder Sabharwal again tried to interfere in the administration of justice by filing false and frivolous application along with forged and fabricated Will, and ultimately the said application was also withdrawn on behalf of Sh. Diwan Chand Kalra by his Advocate on 11.08.2010. It is also submitted that the forgery committed by the petitioner in collusion and connivance with the aforesaid persons is very much clear from the facts that Uthala of Late Sh. Surender Nath Khera was held on 10.01.2001 at Shree Bankey Behari Mandir Committee (Regd) E-1/124 Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi and the said temple is situated in front of the house of Sh. Diwan Chand Kalra. Had it been so that there was any alleged Will dated 19.12.2000 allegedly executed by Sh. Surender Nath Khera, then Sh. Diwan Chand Kalra must have produced the same in the said Uthala or he has produced the same during the pendency of the said probate petition. Even otherwise, the petitioner was disowned PC No. 5928/2016 CNR No. DLST01-000238-2011 Page 7 of 66 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/17.05.2024 Jagmohan Khera Vs. State & Ors.
by Late Sh. Surender Nath Khera vide public notice published in daily newspaper Daily Pratap on 03.12.2000, therefore, no question arise to execute the alleged Will dated 19.12.2000 and the alleged Will dated 19.12.2000 is forged, fabricated and manufactured by the petitioner after passing of the judgment dated 21.8.2008 in collusion and connivance with Shri Diwan Chand Kalra and Shri Shyam Sunder Sabharwal by forging the signatures of Shri Surender Nath Khera on the alleged Will with a view to defeat the purpose/fruits of the judgment dated 21.8.2008 and Letter of Administration dated 17.2.2009 issued by Shri V.P.Vaish, Ld. ADJ, Delhi, whereas the alleged Will does not bear the signature of Sh. Surender Nath Khera. It is further submitted that the petitioner herein filed objections in the probate petition No.141/2001 on 18.12.2001 and also adduced evidence and appeared as objector witness before the Hon'ble Court of Shri Ravinder Dudeja, Ld. ADJ, Delhi. The objector filed objections thereby stating in page 2 that 'thereafter late Shri S.N. Khera never executed any Will. More so over on 11.3.1999 when the disputed Will was alleged to be executed, Shri S.N. Khera was not mentally sound due to old age near about 80 years and was bed ridden and urine and stool were passed by him on the bed unconsciously without his sense.' It is further submitted that since the year 1999, Sh. S.N. PC No. 5928/2016 CNR No. DLST01-000238-2011 Page 8 of 66 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/17.05.2024 Jagmohan Khera Vs. State & Ors.
Khera, father of the petitioner and respondents was not having sound disposing mind hence, no question arise to execute any Will dated 19.12.2000. A publication notice was issued on 03.12.2000 whereby Late Sh. S.N. Khera has disowned and severed all his relations with the petitioner, then how and under what circumstances, the alleged Will was executed in favour of the petitioner after two weeks of the said publication. No 4.4. The present petition is also liable to be dismissed on the sole ground that the petitioner and the respondent No.2 are litigating after the death of Sh. Surender Nath Khera and the respondent No.2 filed a suit for injunction bearing new Suit No.229/2002 against the petitioner herein and the said suit was decreed by the court of Shri Vinod Yadav, Ld. SCJ cum RC (West) vide its order dated 07.09.2009 thereby holding the respondent no.2 herein owner of the property in question. The petitioner herein also filed a suit for partition and declaration bearing Suint No. 317/2003, which was dismissed by the court of Sh. Sunil Chaudhary, the then Ld. Civil Judge, Delhi vide order dated 19.04.2004. It is submitted that petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of principles of resjudicata. 4.5. Respondent No.2 also filed a suit for possession bearing Suit No.136/2011 against the petitioner in which petitioner moved two applications under ORder 18 Rule 17 PC No. 5928/2016 CNR No. DLST01-000238-2011 Page 9 of 66 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/17.05.2024 Jagmohan Khera Vs. State & Ors.
CPC and under Order VI Rule 17 CPC, which were disposed of , but the petitioner has no where mentioned about the existence of alleged Will dated 19.12.2000 in those applications. The petition is barred by provisions of Sections 279, 280, 281 and 282 of Indian Succession Act, 1925 and hence the petition is liable to be dismissed under Order VII Rule 11 CPC.
REPLY
5. The petitioner filed reply to the objections of respondents no.2, 3, 4, 6 and 7 wherein he denied the allegations made in the objections and reiterated the facts stated in the petition. ISSUES:
6. On the basis of the pleadings, following issues were framed vide order dated 28.02.2013:-
"1. Whether Will dated 19.12.2000 is validly and legally executed?
2. Whether the objections filed on behalf of respondents are valid and maintainable?
3. Relief."
EVIDENCE ADDUCED:
7. Petitioner in order to prove his case examined himself as PW1, PW2 and PW3.
PC No. 5928/2016CNR No. DLST01-000238-2011 Page 10 of 66 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/17.05.2024 Jagmohan Khera Vs. State & Ors.
8. It is pertinent to mention here that vide court order dated 01.02.2020, a prayer was made for clubbing the present probate petition and the separate revocation application PC No. 5929/16 in case titled 'Gopal Krishan Khera Vs. State & Ors.' on the ground that same evidence was to be led in both the cases. The same was not opposed by the opposite counsel and consequently the verbal request for common evidence was allowed. The common evidence was led in these two cases. In the present petition, the petitioner examined total three witnesses. Since the common evidence were led so the evidences led in revocation petition (PC No. 5929/16) shall also be considered. In the revocation petition, petitioner herein examined himself as R2W1. Perusal of PW1 in the present probate petition (PC No. 5928/16) and R2W1 in revocation petition (PC No. 5929/16) shows that their examination-in-chief and cross-examination are same in all aspects except the serial number given to the witness. In the present probate petition, it is given Sl. No. PW1 and in the revocation petition (PC No. 5929/16), it was given Sl. No. R2W1. In the revocation petition, non-applicant therein (respondent no.2 herein) examined himself as PW1. In this way, since there was an order of common evidence in both the cases, so petitioner herein and respondent herein examined their witnesses separately as PC No. 5928/2016 CNR No. DLST01-000238-2011 Page 11 of 66 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/17.05.2024 Jagmohan Khera Vs. State & Ors.
PW1/R2W1, PW2, PW3 for petitioner herein and PW1, RW2 and RW3 for respondent herein. It is again clarified that witness PW1 in the revocation petition is different to PW1 in the present probate petition. In the revocation petition, PW1 is non- applicant therein (respondent no.2 herein) and in the present probate petition (PC No. 5928/16), PW1 is applicant herein. Accordingly, petitioner herein examined total three witnesses to prove Will dated 19.12.2000. He examined himself as PW1, examined PW2 Sh. Shyam Sunder Sabharwal being attesting witness and one Sh. Inder Kumar Kalra as PW3 being son of another attesting witness.
9. PW-1 is the petitioner/Sh. Jagmohan Khera. He tendered his affidavit of evidence as Ex.PW1/A and relied upon the following documents:-
i) Photocopy of the reply filed by L&DO as Mark A.
ii) Photocopy of RTI reply dated 22.04.2016 as Mark B.
iii) Circular dated 27.04.2012 issued by office of Divisional Commissioner. Delhi as Mark C.
iv) Photocopy of High Court order dated 05.08.2016 in CRP 114/16 as Mark D.
v) Photocopy of receipt dated 12.8.2014 issued by department of Delhi Archives as Mark E. PC No. 5928/2016 CNR No. DLST01-000238-2011 Page 12 of 66 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/17.05.2024 Jagmohan Khera Vs. State & Ors.
vi) Photocopy of non judicial E stamp, allotment letter dated 31.03.1969, lease deed dated 31.03.1969, receipt of compensation dated 13.05.1975 alongwith the translation, copy of revised ground rent dated 13.05.1975, statement of Ajay Bajaj, LDC in the office of L&DO recorded on 15.09.2005 before Ld. District Judge, conveyance deed dated 27.04.2000 as Mark F (colly).
vii) Photocopy of Will dated 11.03.1999 as Mark G.
viii) Photocopy of evidence recorded on 10.8.2004 in suit no.121/2013 of Gopal Krishan which is now marked as Mark H.
ix) Photocopy of evidence recorded on 10.8.2004 in suit no.121/2013 of Gopal Krishan as Mark I.
x) Copy of letter dated 11.9.2001 addressed to L&DO by Gopal Krishan Khera which is now marked as Mark J. photocopy of ration card no.207502 in the name of Sh. S.N. Khera without photograph duly attested by gazetted officer Mr. Vijay Kalra which is now marked as Mark K, photocopy of ration card no.207502 in the name of Sh. S.N. Khera containing photograph of Gopal Kishan Khera duly stamped by Ration Office, Delhi Government which is now marked as Mark L (objected to by Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.2), photocopy of plaint dated 25.4.2003 in suit titled Gopal Krishan Khera Vs Jagmohan Khera bearing no.121/2003 which is now marked as PC No. 5928/2016 CNR No. DLST01-000238-2011 Page 13 of 66 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/17.05.2024 Jagmohan Khera Vs. State & Ors.
Mark M. 9.1. During cross-examination dated 01.06.2018, PW-1 deposed as under:
"I do not remember whether the allegations levelled by me in Ex.PW1/A in case titled Gopal Kishan Khera Vs State & Ors. were mentioned by me in my application for revocation of probate.
Attention of the witness has been drawn towards the application U/s 383 for Revocation of Probate. The same is now marked as Ex.PW1/DX.
After reading the contents of the application, the witness states that the allegations mentioned in Ex.PW1/A were not mentioned by him in his application U/s 383 for Revocation of Probate case titled Gopal Kishan Khera Vs State & Ors.
It is correct that the allegations levelled by me in para nos. 3 to 20 of my affidavit Ex.PW1/A in case titled Jagmohan Khera Vs. State & Ors were not mentioned by me in my probate petition. Vol. At the time of filing of petition I was not aware about the allegations mentioned by me in my affidavit. I have not mentioned in my affidavit that I came to know the facts narrated in the affidavit later on.
I have filed the first appeal against the decree of possession before the Court of Sh. Lalit Kumar, ADJ, Saket Courts, New Delhi. It is correct that after dismissal of my first appeal I had challenged the decree before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi and Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. It is correct that my second appeal and SLP were also dismissed by above said Courts.
Q. I put it to you that in the memo of appeal before Ld. ADJ you have alleged that the suit property is an ancestral property and Gopal Krishan Khera had suppressed all these facts. However, the Ld. ADJ had rejected your above said ground and dismissed the appeal. What do you have to say?
Ans. My above said grounds were not considered by Ld. PC No. 5928/2016 CNR No. DLST01-000238-2011 Page 14 of 66 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/17.05.2024 Jagmohan Khera Vs. State & Ors.
ADJ and my appeal was dismissed.
Q. I put it to you that after dismissal of first appeal by Ld. ADJ you have again alleged the same grounds in your second appeal before Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. However, Hon'ble High Court of Delhi had rejected your above said ground and dismissed the appeal. What do you have to say?
Ans. It is correct that the appeal was dismissed but I do not remember the plea taken by my lawyer in the appeals and review petition.
I have seen the judgment dated 29.6.2015 passed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in RSA 183/2015. The same is now marked as Ex.PW1/DX2. This judgment was passed against me.
Q. I put it to you that after dismissal of second appeal by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, you have again alleged the same grounds in your SLP before Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. However, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India had rejected your above said ground and dismissed the SLP. What do you have to say?
Ans. SLP was dismissed. However, my grounds were not rejected. Vol. Since my probate petition was pending.
It is wrong to suggest that Hon'ble Supreme Court had rejected the grounds taken by me in my SLP and nothing has been mentioned in the final order with regard to the pendency of probate petition.
I have seen the SLP filed by me before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India and the order passed in the said SLP the photocopy of order and SLP are now exhibited as Ex.PW1/DX3 & 4.
Q. I put it to you that in SLP you have raised questions of law and grounds which are similar to the allegations levelled by you and your affidavits in both the above cases pending before this Court?
Ans. It is wrong to suggest.
I had not filed the original copy of Will dated 11.9.1992 as the same was not in my possession. It is correct that I have not placed on record the original Will PC No. 5928/2016 CNR No. DLST01-000238-2011 Page 15 of 66 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/17.05.2024 Jagmohan Khera Vs. State & Ors.
dated 19.12.2000. Vol. The same is not in my possession . It is wrong to suggest that I had forged the photocopies of the above said Wills and due to the said reason I had not filed the originals of the said Wills on the judicial record.
It is wrong to suggest that the suit property was self acquired property of late Sh. Surender Nath Khera. It is wrong to suggest that late Sh. Surender Nath Khera had executed a registered Will dated 11.3.1999. It is wrong to suggest that Gopal Krishan Khera had not committed any fraud with any authority or concerned courts and is legally entitled to transfer the suit property on the basis of the Registered Will executed by late Sh. Surender Nath Khera in his favour. It is wrong to suggest that the Will and GPA both dated 11.3.1999 are genuine documents and were executed by late Sh. Surender Nath Khera. It is wrong to suggest that when the above said documents were signed and executed Sh. Surender Nath Khera was having good health and in sound disposing mind. It is wrong to suggest that Surender Nath Khera had executed the above said documents in favour of Gopal Krishan Khera at his free Will and without any pressure. It is wrong to suggest that no voter identity card or ration card were forged by Gopal Krishan Khera and the same are genuine documents. It is further wrong to suggest that the L&DO had rightly transferred the suit property in favour of Gopal Krishan Khera after verifying genuineness of the Will dated 11.3.1999. It is wrong to suggest that I had not filed any complaint with the police prior to filing the present probate petition.
It is wrong to suggest that I have filed the probate petition on the basis of forged and fabricated Will. It is wrong to suggest that after dismissal of my objection in the probate petition I have forged the Will dated 19.12.2000. It is further wrong to suggest that the allegations mentioned by me in my affidavits in both the above cases are beyond pleadings or that the said grounds have already been rejected uptill the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely."PC No. 5928/2016
CNR No. DLST01-000238-2011 Page 16 of 66 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/17.05.2024 Jagmohan Khera Vs. State & Ors.
10. PW2 is Sh. Shyam Sunder Sabarwal, who is a summoned witness. He deposed as under:
"I am a summoned witness. I do not know anything about the Will dated 19.12.2000 nor I have ever seen the document before but this document was prepared in my presence. I recognize the signature of Sh. Surender Nath Khera on the Will at point A to E. The said will dated 19.12.2000 bears my signature at point X. I also identify the signature of Sh. D.C. Kalra at point Y. The Will had already been prepared when I reached the spot. It was thereafter signed by Sh. Surender Nath Khera, thereafter by Sh. Diwan Chand Kalra and lastly, by me. Besides all of us there was one advocate also present whose name I do not remember. He affixed his stamp on the Will.
At this stage, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner wants to exhibit the Will. However, Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.2 has objected the same by contending that before photocopy can be exhibited, petitioner has to lead evidence to show that the original document has been lost or not in the possession of the petitioner. In response, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment titled as Shir Prem Chandra Jain Vs Shri Sri Ram, CM(M) 1764- 66/2005. Ld. Counsel for the respondent prays for some time to cite contrary judgments. Consequently, at this stage the photocopy of the Will dated 19.12.2000 is marked as Mark PW2/1 for identification. Question of whether the photocopy can be exhibited shall be decided after arguments are addressed on this issue on the next date of hearing."
10.1. During his cross-examination on 02.07.2019, he deposed as under:
"The Will dated 19.12.2000 Ex. PW3/1, which I referred earlier in my previous examination in chief, is the same document, executed by Surender Nath Khera. I identify my PC No. 5928/2016 CNR No. DLST01-000238-2011 Page 17 of 66 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/17.05.2024 Jagmohan Khera Vs. State & Ors.
signature at point X. Court Question:
The Testator had gone through the Will and understood its contents.
(The above Court question is objected to by Ld. Counsel for respondent No.2/Objector on the ground that question is leading. Heard. The objection is overruled for the reason that the question has not been put in a leading form and the witness has been inquired from on this aspect)."
10.2. During his further cross-examination on 01.10.2019, PW2 deposed as under:
"I know Jagmohan Khera for the last 2-3 years. I do not know Gopal Kishan Khera. For the last 2-3 years I came to know from Sh. Jagmohan Khera that both Gopal Kishan Khera and Jagmohan Khera are real brothers and son of Late Sh. S.N. Khera. Late Sh. S.N. Khera had never disclosed to me that Gopal Kishan Khera and Jagmohan Khera were his sons. I am distributor of DMS Milk and Milk Products. 1 do not know when Late Sh. S.N. Khera had expired. Even approximately, I cannot tell in which month/year Late Sh. S.N. Khera had expired. Vol. Late Sh. S.N. Khera was having relation with my father and my father expired in the year 2006, further after 2006, we were having no relations with Late Sh. S.N. Khera. Late Sh. S.N. Khera and my father used to meet each other till 2006. My father and Sh. S.N. Khera used to meet each other in Park or in Senior Citizen Society. We had also seen our father meeting Late Sh. S.N. Khera till 2006.
In fact, my father had to go for signing Ex.PW3/1. However, he fell ill and he requested me to go for the same. It was in the month of December, 2000, again said I do not remember the year. However, it was during winter season. I do not remember about the time when my father had told me to go for signing of Ex.PW3/1. I had gone to the house of Sh. Kalra which is opposite the temple. I had reached the house of Sh. Kalra, the Will was already prepared and the same was not PC No. 5928/2016 CNR No. DLST01-000238-2011 Page 18 of 66 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/17.05.2024 Jagmohan Khera Vs. State & Ors.
prepared in my presence. I had signed at only one place in the said Will. I have not seen the original of Ex.PW3/1 in the Court file. Vol. I had just signed the same at that time and came back. I am not aware about the whereabouts of the original of Ex.PW3/1.
I left the home of Sh. Kalra within 10-15 minutes, as the Will was already signed by others. Again said, they signed in my presence. It is wrong to suggest that no such Will (Ex.PW3/1) was ever executed by Late Sh. S.N. Khera or that Late Sh. S.N. Khera had not signed in my presence. I had never visited the house of Late Sh. S.N. Khera during his life time. I am not aware how many people were residing in the house of Late Sh. S.N. Khera with him. I am not aware Late Sh. S.N. Khera was residing with Gopal Kishan Khera. I am not aware whether Late Sh. S.N. Khera was not having cordial relationship with the family of Jagmohan Khera. I am not aware that due to strained relationship between Late Sh. S.N. Khera and Jagmohan Khera, Late Sh. S.N. Khera had disowned his son Jagmohan Khera by way of public notice published in newspaper the "The Daily Pratap" dated 3.12.2000.
I had not attended the cremation and last rites of Late Sh. S.N. Khera. My father might not had attended the last rites. I do not know whether my father had expired prior to Late Sh. S.N. Khera or Late Sh. S.N. Khera had expired prior to death of my father. After December, 2000, I had never met Late Sh. S.N. Khera My father was not acquainted with the children of Late Sh. S.N. Khera, as they both used to meet each other in the park or in the Senior Citizen Society. I never disclosed to anyone that I had appended my signatures on Ex.PW3/1. As far as I remember, I had not executed any affidavit at the instance of Sh. Jagmohan Khera. It might be possible that on 16.5.2013, I had executed an affidavit to be filed before the Court. Attention of the witness has been drawn towards affidavit dated 16.5.2013, witness states that he identifies his signature at point A & B. The said affidavit is exhibited as Ex.PW3/RX1. I had signed Ex.PW3/RX1 on the asking and at the instance PC No. 5928/2016 CNR No. DLST01-000238-2011 Page 19 of 66 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/17.05.2024 Jagmohan Khera Vs. State & Ors.
of Sh. Jagmohan Khera. It is correct that I know Sh. Jagmohan Khera and met him in the year 2013. vol. He is doing Govt. job. I do not remember where he is working. It might be possible that I had met Sh. Jagmohan Khera 6 months one year prior to the year 2013. Vol. I do not remember the exact date. The house of Late Sh. S.N. Khera is at the distance of about 10-15 minutes by foot.
When I reached the house of Kalra, the Will was already prepared. As the Will was already prepared, therefore, I am not aware how much time was taken for its preparation. I am not aware, who prepared and typed the aforesaid Will or where it was typed. At that time, besides me, Late Sh. S.N. Khera and Sh. Kalra and one Notary Public was present in the house of Sh. Kalra.
I do not remember, whether I had stated in Ex.PW3/RX1 "It was thereafter signed by Sh. Surender Nath Khera, thereafter, by Sh. Diwan Chand Kalra and lastly, by me." Witness is confronted with Ex.PW3/RX1 where it is not so recorded. I do not remember, whether I have stated in Ex.PW3/RX1, "The Testator had gone through the Will and understood its contents". The witness is confronted with Ex.PW3/RX1 where it is not so recorded.
Sh. Jagmohan Khera had told me about the litigation between himself and his brother Gopal Kishan Khera. I am not aware about since when they are litigating with each other. I am not aware who had placed on record the photocopy of Will dated 19.12.2000 i.e. Ex.PW3/1. I am not aware when this document was photocopied. Same is my answer with regard to the person who had got it photocopied. I had seen Ex.PW3/1 for the first time in the Court during my evidence. (My answer above is in relation with photocopy of Will dated 19.12.2000 placed on record.) Mr. Jagmohan Khera had not disclosed to me that in previous litigation, he had placed on record a photocopy of Will dated 11.09.1992, alleged to be executed by late Sh. S.N. Khera or that the same was declared forged by the Court. There is no specific reason for me not to disclose to any one about Ex.PW3/1. Jagmohan was aware about Ex.PW3/1 and I had disclosed about Ex.PW3/1 to him 5-6 years ago.PC No. 5928/2016
CNR No. DLST01-000238-2011 Page 20 of 66 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/17.05.2024 Jagmohan Khera Vs. State & Ors.
After signing Will, I had never met Late Sh. S.N. Khera. I am not aware when he had expired. I am not aware whether late Sh. S.N. Khera was bedridden prior to his death or that was not able to go out of home two months prior to his death. I am not aware that during the said period of illness he was not able to go out of his home due to his poor medical Will and understood its contents". The witness is confronted with Ex.PW3/RX1 where it is not so recorded.
Sh. Jagmohan Khera had told me about the litigation between himself and his brother Gopal Kishan Khera. I am not aware about since when they are litigating with each other. I am not aware who had placed on record the photocopy of Will dated 19.12.2000 i.e. Ex.PW3/1. I am not aware when this document was photocopied. Same is my answer with regard to the person who had got it photocopied. I had seen Ex.PW3/1 for the first time in the Court during my evidence. (My answer above condition. I do not know that Sh. S.N. Khera expired on 09.01.2001.
The Notary Public had only affixed his stamp and signature on the Will dated 19.12.2000. No other formality was done by the said Advocate.
It is wrong to suggest that Will dated 19.12.2000, is a forged document or that the signature of late Sh. S.N. Khera on the said Will were traced/scanned from any other document. It is wrong to suggest that late Sh. S.N. Khera had not signed the Will dated 19.12.2000. It is wrong to suggest that neither D.C. Kalra nor me had signed the Will dated 19.12.2000 as an attesting witness. It is wrong to suggest that late Sh. S.N. Khera had not signed any document, including the alleged Will dated 19.12.2000, in my presence or in the presence of any other person. It is wrong to suggest that late Sh. S.N. Khera had not affixed his signatures at point A to E on Ex.PW3/1 or that the same were forged by Sh. Jagmohan Khera. It is wrong to suggest that no occasion had arisen for late Sh. S.N. Khera to read and understand the Will dated 19.12.2000, as he had never executed any such alleged Will. It is wrong to suggest that I at the instance of Jagmohan Khera had deposed falsely or that I had never appended my signatures on Will dated 19.12.2000. It is wrong to suggest that neither late Sh. S.N. Khera nor Sh. D.C. Kalra had signed PC No. 5928/2016 CNR No. DLST01-000238-2011 Page 21 of 66 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/17.05.2024 Jagmohan Khera Vs. State & Ors.
the Will in my presence or that the said Will is a forged document which was manufactured by Sh. Jag Mohan Khera much much after the death of late Sh. S.N. Khera. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely."
11. PW-3 is Sh. Inder Kumar Kalra, who is also a summoned witness. He deposed as under:
"I have been summoned by the petitioner Jag Mohan Khera.
I have seen Mark PW2/1 (document is taken on record as Ex.PW3/1 subject to all objections of respondent no.2 including objections as to admissibility and mode of proof. Vide separate order the objections are kept open for consideration at the appropriate stage. The exhibition of document is without prejudice to all the rights and contentions of either side.) I have seen the signature at point Y. The same appears to be signature of my father late Sh. Diwan Chand. (I am not sure). He used to sign in the same manner.
My father died on 7.11.2011. I have not brought any specimen original signature of my father. Vol. The same must be available with the Bank.
He had an account with SBI, Lajpat Nagar Branch."
12. During his cross-examination on 01.10.2019, he deposed as under:
"I know Mr. Gopal Kishan Khera and Mr. Jagmohan Khera for the last 50 years, as they are my neighbours. Both are real brothers. I am aware about the dispute between the two brothers. Vol. Due to above said reason today I have come to Court. My father Sh. Diwan Chand Kalra was also known to Khera family. I am not aware whether my father was aware about the dispute between the two brothers.
The dispute between two brothers started some time in 1998. Late Sh. S. N. Khera and my late father were PC No. 5928/2016 CNR No. DLST01-000238-2011 Page 22 of 66 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/17.05.2024 Jagmohan Khera Vs. State & Ors.
having friendly relation. My father was also acquainted with both the sons of late Sh. S.N. Khera. My father used to visit the house of Late Sh. S.N. Khera. Late Sh. S.N. Khera had expired in January, 2001. The last rites and kriya ceremony etc of Late Sh. S.N. Khera was attended by my father. I do not know whether after the death of Late Sh. S.N. Khera my father used to meet Jag Mohan Khera and Gopal Kishan Khera. Again said my father used to meet Sh. Jag Mohan Khera.
I have never seen the original of Ex.PW3/1, i.e. photocopy of Will dated 19.12.2000. I have seen Ex.PW3/1 for the first time in the Court. I have no knowledge about the whereabouts of the original of Ex.PW3/1. I am not aware whether the original of Ex.PW3/1 is in existence or not. I am not sure whether signature at point 'Y' on Ex.PW3/1 were of my father or not. Vol. He used to sign in the same manner.
It is correct that after the death of Late Sh. S.N. Khera both the brothers were litigating with each other with regard to the Will executed by Late Sh. S.N. Khera. I do not know whether the other family members were aware about the dispute between the brothers.
I do not know whether Jagmohan Khera used to visit my father to take advice from him with regard to above said litigation. My father might be aware about the dispute between the brothers with regard to the Will executed by Late Sh. S.N. Khera. My father had never discussed anything related to Jagmohan Khera and Gopal Kishan Khera with me. Same is my answer with regard to my other family members. I am not aware whether the Court had passed judgment in favour of Sh. Gopal Kishan Khera. I am not aware whether in the said litigation Jag Mohan Khera had filed photocopy of a forged Will dated 11.9.1992. I am not aware whether Court had refused to take cognizance over the said forged Will dated 11.9.1992 or that rejected the same.
I do not remember whether I had met Late Sh. S.N. Khera in December, 2000. It might be possible that Late Sh. S.N. Khera had expired on 09.01.2001.PC No. 5928/2016
CNR No. DLST01-000238-2011 Page 23 of 66 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/17.05.2024 Jagmohan Khera Vs. State & Ors.
Q. I put it to you that Late Sh. S.N. Khera during his last days, i.e. between December, 2000 and 09.01.2001, was ill and bedridden and due to said reason he was not going out of his house. What do you have to say?
Ans. It is correct. Again said I do not know.
I am not aware about the dispute between Sh. Jag Mohan Khera and Late Sh. S.N. Khera. I am not aware whether Late Sh. S.N. Khera had disowned his son Jagmohan Khera by way of public notice published in newspaper the "The Daily Pratap" dated 3.12.2000.
It is correct that Late Sh. S.N. Khera was residing with Sh. Gopal Kishan Khera.
I have been summoned by the Court and not called by Jag Mohan Khera. I had signed a document given by Sh. Jag Mohan Khera long back ago. I am not aware of the said document and its contents. Vol. It might be filed in the Court.
Attention of the witness is drawan towards the judicial record of case titled "Gopal Kishan Khera vs. State & Ors" and "Jagmohan Khera vs. State & Ors" and requested to trace out above said document.
The witness states that he cannot trace the document, as both the files are very bulky and it would not be possible for him to trace the same as he is 73 years old.
It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing falsely at the instance of Jagmohan Khera."
13. Thereafter, petitioner's evidence was closed on 01.10.2019 and matter was listed for respondents evidence.
14. In respondents evidence, Sh. Gopal Krishan Khera was examined as PW-1. During his examination on 19.11.2019, he deposed as under:
"Sh. Surender Nath Khera was my father. My father expired on 9.1.2001. My father had executed a registered PC No. 5928/2016 CNR No. DLST01-000238-2011 Page 24 of 66 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/17.05.2024 Jagmohan Khera Vs. State & Ors.
Will dated 11.3.1999. The above said Will was executed by my father in my favour. On 11.3.1999, my father's health condition was perfectly fine and he had sound mind. He had executed the Will dated 11.3.1999 in sound disposing mind after understanding the consequences of executing Will in my favour.
After the death of my father, I and Jagmohan Khera had disputes which were pending in the Courts. Due to our disputes police also used to come at our residents on our complaints against each other. The people residing in the vicinity were also aware about our disputes, as they also used to witness our confrontation. Mr. D.C. Kalra and Mr. Shyam Sunder Sabharwal had also witnessed our disputes which started immediately after the death of our father. They both were also aware about our Court cases with regard to probate of Will dated 11.3.1999 filed by me against Jagmohan Khera & Ors.
My father was not having cordial relationship with Jagmohan Khera and his family members. Jagmohan Khera and his wife used to fight and abuse my father by stating, "buddhe mere naam Will kar". My father used to tell to Jagmohan Khera that he will not bequeath anything to Jagmohan Khera and his family members, as they used to torture him and never served even a glass of water. My father till his death was not in talking terms with Jagmohan Khera and his family members. Due to misbehaviour of Jagmohan Khera and his family my father had disowned Jagmohan Khera from his properties by way of publication in Urdu newspaper dated 3.12.2000 namely "Daily Pratap". My father had published the abovesaid notice in Urdu newspaper as he used to read Urdu newspaper.
Except the registered Will dated 11.3.1999, my father had not executed any other Will. The photocopies of Wills dated 11.9.1992 and 19.12.2000 were not executed by my father and the same was forged by Jagmohan Khera.
I reply upon the registered Will dated 11.3.1999 & other documents duly proved in the Probate Petition titled "Gopal Krishan Khera vs State & Ors" - petition No. PC No. 5928/2016 CNR No. DLST01-000238-2011 Page 25 of 66 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/17.05.2024 Jagmohan Khera Vs. State & Ors.
141/2001 (currently registered as 19/2011 and listed today).
(The witness is permitted to rely upon the documents already proved in the original probate proceedings in order to avoid the duplicacy/repetition of exhibition of documents)"
14.1. During his cross-examination on 19.11.2019, PW1/Sh. Gopal Krishan (respondent no.2 herein in the present petition) deposed as under:
"We all the family members were residing in the property No.207, 221, Lajpat Nagar-l. Vol. We were occupying the different portions.
The property was not cemented and was constructed upto first floor only. I was occupying the ground floor during the life time of my father. The respondent no.2 was living on ground floor as well as on first floor in some portions.
My father used to look after his official work himself. I never helped him in any documentation relating to or done by my father.
I was recruited with DSIDC. I had been posted to Election Office during election times. It is correct that Election Office was a part and parcel of Deputy Commissioners office. I did not have any connection or dealing with the department dealing with Ration Cards."
14.2. During his further cross-examination dated 01.02.2020, he deposed as under:
"On 11.3.1999, I was at home. I do not know where was my father on 11.3.1999. It is wrong to suggest that my father was ill and mentally disturbed on 11.3.1999 and he was at home through out the day. It is wrong to suggest that my father had PC No. 5928/2016 CNR No. DLST01-000238-2011 Page 26 of 66 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/17.05.2024 Jagmohan Khera Vs. State & Ors.
never executed any Will dated 11.3.1999 or that he had never visited any Sub Registrar office for the execution of the same. It is wrong to suggest that the Will dated 11.3.1999 was forged and fabricated by me. It is wrong to suggest that the Will dated 11.3.1999 was never registered and the registration particulars thereof had been wrongly shown by me. I was alone in the house on 11.3.1999, I am not aware about others. I do not remember whether there was holiday in my office or I had taken the leave on the said day. After the death of my father my younger brother namely Sh. Chander Prakash (since deceased) had told me about the Will dated 11.3.1999. I do not remember the date when my brother had told me about the Will. However, I came to know about Will dated 11.3.1999 when Sh. Jagmohan Khera was planning to sell off the house. I came to know about his intention, when number of property dealers have visited our house. I do not remember the name of those property dealers. After the death of my father, my younger brother Chander Prakash gave me the original registered Will dated 11.3.1999. I do not know what role was played by Chander Prakash in execution of the said Will. After coming to know about the intentions of Sh. Jagmohan Khera to dispose off the property, I filed a probate case in the year 2001 for probate of the Will dated 11.3.1999. I had also obtained injunction order against Sh. Jagmohan Khera restraining him from selling the property. I might have averred in the injunction suit about the malafide intentions of Sh. Jagmohan Khera.
Q. How many cases were filed in District Courts between you and Sh. Jagmohan Khera after the demise of your father between 2001-2012?
Ans. During the above said period, I had filed probate petition, suit for permanent injunction, suit for possession on the basis of certified copy of registered will dated 11.3.1999, as the original will was filed on judicial record of probate petition. Sh. Jagmohan Khera had filed suit for partition on the basis of photocopy of Will dated 11.9.1992 and the same was dismissed by Sh. Sunil Chaudhry, Civil Judge. Further he filed suit for injunction and the same was also dismissed by the Hon'ble Court. He had filed false and frivolous complaint against me with various department, i.e. police, Vigilance PC No. 5928/2016 CNR No. DLST01-000238-2011 Page 27 of 66 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/17.05.2024 Jagmohan Khera Vs. State & Ors.
Department, Sub Registrar Office etc. As my father had not executed the alleged Will dated 11.9.1992 and due to said reason the fact of execution of alleged Will is not there in the Will dated 11.3.1999. Vol. The Wills dated 11.9.1992 and 19.12.2000 were not executed by my father and the same were forged by Sh. Jagmohan Khera. My father never shared to me the documents prepared by him during his life time. The signature of my father on Wills dated 11.9.1992 and 19.12.2000 are not identical with the genuine signature of my father on registered Will dated 11.3.1999. It is wrong to suggest that the signatures on Will dated 11.3.1999 are forged or that due to said reasons the said signatures are not identical with the signatures on Wills dated 11.9.1992 and 19.12.2000. It is wrong to suggest that the Wilks dated 11.9.1992 and 19.12.2000 bears the genuine signatures of my father and the said Wills were duly executed by him during his life time.
Q. Whether during the life time of your father any Court case or written complaint were made between your father and Jagmohan Khera.
Ans. My father had het hied any Court case of written complaint against Jagmohan khera during his life time . Vol. Jagmohan Khera and his wife jhadoo leker aathe the and used to pressurise my father to transfer the house in their name by saying buddhe mere naam makan kar.
I do not remember when above said words were uttered by Sh. Jagmohan Khera and his wife. The above said word were uttered by Sh. Jagmohan Khera and his wife in my presence. My father had not made any complaint against above said utterings. I had also not made any complaint in this regard. I had not averred above said words of Sh Jagmohan Khera and his wife in my injunction suit which was firstly instituted. It is wrong to suggest that Sh. Jagmohan Khera and his wife had never uttered the above said words or that I had concocted the above said allegations.
Q. Whether during the life time of your father any Court case or written complaint were made between you and your brother Jagmohan Khera?
Ans. No. I had not filed any Court case or written complaint PC No. 5928/2016 CNR No. DLST01-000238-2011 Page 28 of 66 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/17.05.2024 Jagmohan Khera Vs. State & Ors.
against Jagmohan Khera during the life time of my father. I had been divorced only once. I have not remarried. On 11.3.1999, I was divorcee. I only got married with Neeta with whom I got divorce during Court proceedings. It is wrong to suggest that I am having quarrelsome nature or I used to fight with my father and my wife or that due to said reason my wife divorced me. I do not have biological child. Vol. I have adopted son of my younger brother late Sh. Chander Prakash Khera. I do not remember the date when I had adopted the son of my younger brother. However, it was by way of registered adoption deed. I do not remember the month or the year of the said adoption. It is wrong to suggest that after the death of my father I had adopted the son of my younger brother or that due to said reasons my younger brother connived with me for preparation of forged and fabricated Will dated 11.3.1999. One registered power of attorney was also executed by my father on 11.3.1999 in my favour. I was not posted in Deputy Commissioner Office (South) in March, 1999. In March, 1999, I was posted with DSIIDC office. Again said Connaught Place. It is wrong to suggest that I was posted in D.C/SDM office (South) in March, 1999. It is wrong to suggest that taking advantage of my position in Govt. Department, I had prepared false and fabricated Will dated 11.3.1999 by affixing the stamps and seal which are within my easy reach.
I do not remember the dates when police was called by us. However, immediately after the death of my father, i.e. in the year 2001, disputes arose between us. I am not in possession of any document in this regard. It is wrong to suggest that no quarrel took place between me and Jagmohan Khera or that police had never come to our house. Sh. D.C Kalra and Shyam Sunder had never become witness to the police complaint. Mr. Jagmohan Khera was calling the property dealers for selling the house and due to said reason the dispute had arisen between us. I have not specifically mentioned about police complaint in my injunction suit. Q. Have you stated portion Mark A to A of your examination in chief dated 19.11.2019 in injunction suit? Ans. I have stated in my injunction suit that my brother PC No. 5928/2016 CNR No. DLST01-000238-2011 Page 29 of 66 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/17.05.2024 Jagmohan Khera Vs. State & Ors.
Jagmohan Khera is trying to sell the property and sought injunction against him.
I have not specifically mentioned portion Mark A to A in my injunction suit. It is wrong to suggest that Jagmohan Khera as well as his family members were having cordial relationship with his/your father. It is wrong to suggest that Jag Mohan Khera and his wife had never abused or fought with late Sh. S.N. Khera or that had never uttered any abusive words. It is wrong to suggest that Jagmohan Khera and his family members always given due respect and regards to late Sh. S.N. Khera. I cannot produce any witness or proof to show that Jagmohan Khera or his family members ever abused my father. It is wrong to suggest that the wife of Jagmohan Khera had always treated Sh. S.N. Khera as her own father and always taken utmost care to him. I came to know about the publication in Urdu newspaper dated 3.12.2000 namely, Daily Pratap, as the said newspaper was also received by us in our home. My father used to read Daily Pratap Urdu newspaper. I do not know Urdu language. It is wrong to suggest that no such declaration was ever published by my father. I have read the Will dated 11.3.1999. It is wrong to suggest that lease deed dated 1982 as mentioned in Will dated 11.3.1999 was never registered in the office of Sub Registrar. No inquiry with regard to bogus EPIC card of Vukul Khera and my involvement therein was conducted by electoral registration officer. Vol. sh. Jagmohan Khera forging the documents on his own had lodged a false complaint in the police station and police had filed case before juvenile court which was dismissed. I cannot produce the copy of the order. It is not mentioned in the order of Juvenile Court that Sh. Jagmohan Khera had forged the documents.
It is incorrect to suggest that I have falsely and wrongfully claimed or stated that Sh. Jagmohan Khera had forged any documents. It is also incorrect to suggest that I have deliberately deposed to the above fact in order to mislead the court or gain any sympathy. It is incorrect to suggest that the said statements are defamatory or slanderous. I have seen Ex.PW1/X1 (objected to) [objection kept open for consideration]. It is incorrect to suggest that the report PC No. 5928/2016 CNR No. DLST01-000238-2011 Page 30 of 66 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/17.05.2024 Jagmohan Khera Vs. State & Ors.
concludes against me having submitted any false information. It is incorrect to suggest that I am habitual of making any false assertions, declaration or forging any documents. It is incorrect to suggest that the Will dated 19.12.2000 is the last and final testament drawn by my father during his life time and the property is required to be appropriated in terms thereof. It is incorrect to suggest that my father had never executed any Will dated 11.3.1999.
I do not know Sh. Balbir Chauhan. It is incorrect to suggest that Sh. Balbir Chauhan is my friend. I cannot say whether he is a property dealer.
It is incorrect to suggest that I am deposing falsely.".
15. Sh. Sankar Singh, M.T.S., Office of Sub-registrar-7, INA Vikas Sadan, New Delhi was examined as RW-2. During his examination, he deposed as under:
"I am presently posted as M.TS. in the Office of Sub- registrar-7, INA Vikas Sadan, New Delhi. I have brought the original record of the Will dated 11.03.1999, executed by Sh. Surender Nath Khera S/o Sh. Girdhari Lal R/o E- 207, 221, Lajpath Nagar-1, New Delhi. The said Will was registered on 11.03.1999 vide registration no. 1491, Additional book no. 3. Vol. No. 125 on pages 81-83. I have seen the certified copy of the said Will in the judicial record and it is the correct certified copy of the said will. The certified copy of the judicial file is Ex. RW-2/1. I have also brought a copy of the said will today alongwith the covering letter signed by Sub-registrar-7. The covering letter and the copy of the will are exhibited as Ex. RW-2/1A (colly bearing the signatures of the Sub-registrar-7 at point A. (The original record and the certified copy and the photocopy are shown to the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner for comparison).
(The witness is an official witness who has produced the record before the Court in his official capacity. Therefore, as per Section 139, Indian Evidence PC No. 5928/2016 CNR No. DLST01-000238-2011 Page 31 of 66 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/17.05.2024 Jagmohan Khera Vs. State & Ors.
Act, the witness cannot be cross- examined unless and until he is called as a witness.)"
16. RW3 is Sh. B.N. Srivastava, who is a handwriting expert. During his examination dated 28.03.2023, he deposed as under:
"1. I am working as handwriting expert for over 50 years and have received training in the Science from an expert of Delhi Late M.K. Mehta during the year 1967- 1968. I also done one year certificate Course in Forensic Science from University of Delhi in the year 1970. I have given opinion/evidence in around 4000 cases, in different Courts of Law in Delhi, Haryana, Punjab etc.
2. In this case I examined the disputed signatures of Sh. Surinder Nath Khera reading as S.N. Khert on two unregistered Will dated 11.09.1992 and 19.12.2000 and compared the disputed signatures with deed of conveyance dated 10.06.1996. registered Will dated 11.03.1999 and one pension document dated 22.12.1998. The disputed signatures have been marked D-1 to D-8 and the comparative signatures at A-1 to A-
11. In my opinion the disputed signatures on the two unregistered Wills D-1 to D-8 have not been written by the writer of the comparative signature Mark A-1 to A-
11. The reasons for opinion are given in my report dated 22.01.2023, which is exhibited along with annexures as Ex.RW3/A (colly) (running into 22 pages), which bears my signature on each page at point A. All the disputed and comparative signatures have been examined from photocopies. The marking done on the photographs are in my handwriting.".
16.1. During his cross-examination, RW3 deposed as under:
"1. I have not prepared any record of examination of 4000/-PC No. 5928/2016
CNR No. DLST01-000238-2011 Page 32 of 66 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/17.05.2024 Jagmohan Khera Vs. State & Ors.
case examined by me nor I had submitted any such record before any Court. I do not know the qualification of Sh. M.K. Mehta (since deceased) (Vol. He wrote a book which is approved on Hon'ble High Court of Delhi). It is wrong to suggest that I never examined 4000 cases. It is wrong to suggest that Sh. M.K. Mehta (since deceased) was not qualified in Forensic Science. (Vol. During that period it was not Forensic Science, he was a handwriting expert).
2. I had been approached by Mr. Gopal Krishan Khera for giving the report Ex.RW3/A (Colly). I was supplied document i.e. two Wills, Conveyance Deed, registered Will and pension document, as mentioned in my record. These were photocopies. Again said I cannot wether they were photocopies or certified copies. It is correct that I have not annexed the documents supplied by Sh. Gopal Krishan Khera to me in my report Ex.RW3/A (colly). (Vol. I took photographs of those documents and they are attached with the report). I never checked from the Sub-Registrar Office whether the Wills produced before me were registered or not registered. I was told about the registration of the Will by Sh. Gopal Krishan Khera. It is correct that I was told about the disputed and comparative signature by Sh. Gopal Krishan Khera. I did ask him for the originals but Sh. Gopal Krishan Khera told me that the originals were not available with him.
3. I did compare the comperative signatures inter se and this is written in my report. It is wrong to suggest that there is difference in the photocopy and original signatures.
4. Que: Whether the photocopy signature are as good as the original signatures?
Ans: It is nearly same. since writing charactersties and formation of the letters can be studied.
5. Que: Is it correct that there is difference in thickness strokes between the genuine signatures and forged signatures?
Ans: It may be in some cases.
6. Photographs were taken by Canon Camera SLR with 50 mm lens.
7. Que: Is it correct that with the passage of time the difference in the signatures of the executrix is bound to PC No. 5928/2016 CNR No. DLST01-000238-2011 Page 33 of 66 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/17.05.2024 Jagmohan Khera Vs. State & Ors.
appear?
Ans: There is some minor natural variation in the writing of every individual. However, no fundamental variations takes place.
8. Que: What do you mean by fundamental variations? Ans: Fundamental Variation means different type of formation of letter.
9. Que: While taking photogarphs of the documents, to what extent you have made photographic enlargment in respect to D-1 to D-3, A-1 to A-11?
Ans: I have prepared the photographic enlargement with 'scale on them.
10. Que: Is it correct that there is difference in photographic enlargement of D-1 and A-12?
Ans: Both the enlargement are almost nearly on the same scale.
11. Signatures have been enlarged for nearly 9 times. The scale referred by me is at point A in D-1 and point B in A-1 is nearly of the same size.
12. The scale printed in the D-1 is 12 whereas in A-1 it is 14.
13. Que: 1 put it to you that the scale of signature referred as 'D' series (disputed signatures) and signature at 'A' series are different?
Ans: Use of scale is carried out to keep the ratio of enlargement of the signature on the same size.
14. For examination of documents I used mini microscope magnifying lenses and geometrical instrument and this fact is mentioned in my report. I am having old mini microscope, its details are not known to me. I do not know its magnifying power. I had used D and Divider for checking the angles. The slant of initial letter S is forward in A-1 as well as D-1.
15. Que: Had you calculated the width of the strokes of disputed and the admitted signatures?
Ans: The exact measurement of the width is not required to be done.
16. Que: What are basis of your opinion that D-1 to D-8 had been written with slow speed and flow?PC No. 5928/2016
CNR No. DLST01-000238-2011 Page 34 of 66 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/17.05.2024 Jagmohan Khera Vs. State & Ors.
Ans: The speed and skill of the disputed signatures are apparently poor.
17. Que: I put it to you that in the absence of original no opinion with regard to signature written with slow speed and flow can be furnished?
Ans. It is wrong to suggest.
18. The entire report given by me is based on my personal observation on the basis of my expertise. I had been paid for giving the report Es RW3/A by Sh. Gopal Krishan Khera. It is wrong to suggest that I have given a false report. It is wrong to suggest that a case was filed or/is pending against me in relation to filing a false report.
19. Que: What are the basis of your opining "the disputed signatures have been written with low degree finger movement but combined action of wrist and finger was found in comparative signatures"?
Ans: On examination under magnifying lenses, I found the strokes of the disputed signatures were of poor quality and so I observed that they have been written with low degree of finger movement.
20. It is wrong to suggest that I have furnished a false report at the behest of Sh. Gopal Krishan Khera. It is wrong to suggest that 1 an deposing falsely.".
17. Thereafter RE was closed vide order dated 28.03.2023 and matter was listed for final arguments.
18. I have heard the arguments of Ld. counsels for both the parties and perused the record carefully.
19. Time now to deal with the issues.
Issue no.1: Whether Will dated 19.12.2000 is validly and legally executed?
20. Before discussing the matter on merits, it would be PC No. 5928/2016 CNR No. DLST01-000238-2011 Page 35 of 66 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/17.05.2024 Jagmohan Khera Vs. State & Ors.
relevant to discuss the law relating to the execution and proof of Wills under the Indian Succession Act and the Evidence Act. The expression "Will" is defined by Section 2(h) of Indian Succession Act, 1925 to mean the legal declaration of "the intention" of a testator with respect to his property "which he desires to be carried into effect after his death". Section 59 of Indian Succession Act, 1925 governs the capability of a person to make a Will. It reads as under:
"59. Person capable of making Wills --- Every person of sound mind not being a minor may dispose of his property by Will.
"Explanation1.-A married woman may dispose by Will of any property which she could alienate by her own act during her life.
"Explanation 2.--- Persons who are deaf or dumb or blind are not thereby incapacitated for making a Will if they are able to know what they do by it.
"Explanation 3.--- A person who is ordinarily insane may make a Will during interval in which he is of sound mind. "Explanation 4.--- No person can make a Will while he, is in such a state of mind, whether arising from intoxication or from illness or from any other cause, that he does not know what he is doing."
21. Section 59 thus declares that every person (not being a minor) "of sound mind" may dispose of his property by Will. The second explanation appended to the said provision clarifies that persons who are "deaf or dumb or blind" are not incapacitated by such condition for making a Will "if they are able to know what they do by it". The third explanation makes PC No. 5928/2016 CNR No. DLST01-000238-2011 Page 36 of 66 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/17.05.2024 Jagmohan Khera Vs. State & Ors.
the basic principle clear by adding that even a person who is "ordinarily insane" may make a Will during the interval in which "he is of sound mind". The fourth explanation renders it even more lucent by putting it negatively in words to the effect that it the person "does not know what he is doing" for any reason (such as intoxiation, illness or any other such cause) he is incompetent to make a Will. The focal pre-requisite, thus, is that at the time of expressing his desire vis-a-vis the disposition of the estate after his demise he must know and understand its purport or import.
22. The execution of an unprivileged Will, as the case at hand relates to, is governed by Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, which reads as under:
"63 Execution of unprivileged Wills. --Every testator, 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 testator 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 testator, 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 testator sign or affix his mark to the Will or has seen some other person sign the Will, in the presence and by the direction of the testator, or has received from the testator a personal acknowledgment of PC No. 5928/2016 CNR No. DLST01-000238-2011 Page 37 of 66 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/17.05.2024 Jagmohan Khera Vs. State & Ors.
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 testator, 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."
23. As per the mandate of clause (c), a Will is required to be attested by two or more witnesses each of whom should have seen the testator sign or put his mark on the Will or should have seen some other person sign the Will in his presence and by the direction of the testator or should have received from the testator a personal acknowledgment of his signature or mark, or of the signature of such other person. The Will must be signed by the witness in the presence of the testator, but it is not necessary that more than one witness should be present at the same time. No particular form of attestation is necessary. Thus, there is no prescription in the statute that the testator must necessarily sign the Will in the presence of the attesting witnesses only or that the attesting witnesses must put their signatures on the Will simultaneously, that is, at the same time, in the presence of each other and the testator. In H. Venkatachala Iyengar v. B.N. Thimmajamma and Others:AIR 1959 SC 443 Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that a Will is produced before the court after the testator who has departed from the world, cannot say that the Will is his own or it is not the same. This factum introduces an element of PC No. 5928/2016 CNR No. DLST01-000238-2011 Page 38 of 66 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/17.05.2024 Jagmohan Khera Vs. State & Ors.
solemnity to the decision on the question where the Will propounded is proved as the last Will or testament of the departed testator. Therefore, the propounder to succeed and prove the Will is required to prove by satisfactory evidence that
(i) the Will was signed by the testator; (ii) the testator at the time was in a sound and disposing state of mind; (iii) the testator understood the nature and effect of the dispositions; and
(iv) that the testator had put his signature on the document of his own free will. It further held that ordinarily, when the evidence adduced in support of the Will is disinterested, satisfactory and sufficient to prove the sound and disposing state of mind of the testator and his signature as required by law, courts would be justified in making a finding in favour of the propounder. Such evidence would discharge the onus on the propounder to prove the essential facts. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that it is necessary to remove suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the Will.
24. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Jaswant Kaur vs Amrit Kaur & Ors : AIR 1977 SC 74 has discussed the law related to proving a will. It has held as under:
"There is a long line of decisions bearing on the nature and standard of evidence required to prove a will. Those decisions have been reviewed in an elaborate judgment of this Court in R. Venkatachala Iyengar v.B.N. Thirnmajamma & Others. (1) The Court, speaking through PC No. 5928/2016 CNR No. DLST01-000238-2011 Page 39 of 66 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/17.05.2024 Jagmohan Khera Vs. State & Ors.
Gajendragadkar J., laid down in that case the following positions :--
"1. Stated generally, a will has to be proved like any other document, the test to be applied being the usual test of the satisfaction of the prudent mind in such matters. As in the ease of proof of other documents, so in the case of proof of wills, one cannot insist on proof with mathematical certainty.
"2. Since section 63 of the Succession Act requires a will to be attested, it cannot be used as evidence until, as required by section 63 of the Evidence Act, 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."3. Unlike other documents, the will speaks from the death of the testator and therefore the maker of the will is never available for deposing as to the circumstances in which the will came to be executed.
"This aspect introduces an element of solemnity in the decision of the question whether the document propounded is proved to be the last will and testament of the testator. Normally, the onus which lies on the propounder can be taken to be discharged on proof of the essential facts which go into the making of the will.
"4. Cases in which the execution of the will is surround- ed by suspicious circumstances stand on a different footing. A shaky signature, a feeble mind, an unfair and unjust disposition of property, the propounder himself taking a leading part in the making of the will under which he receives a substantial benefit and such other circumstances raise suspicion about the execution of the will. That suspicion cannot be removed by the mere assertion of the propounder that the will bears the signature of the testator or that the testator was in a sound and disposing state of mind and memory at the time when the will was made, or that those like the wife and children of the testator who would normally receive their due share in his estate were disinherited because the testator might have had his own reasons for excluding them. The presence of suspicious circumstances makes the initial onus heavier and therefore, PC No. 5928/2016 CNR No. DLST01-000238-2011 Page 40 of 66 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/17.05.2024 Jagmohan Khera Vs. State & Ors.
in cases where the circumstances attendant upon the execution of the will excite the suspicion of the court, the propounder must remove all legitimate suspicions before the document can be accepted as the last will of the testator.
"5. It is in connection with wills, the execution of which is surrounded by suspicious circumstance that the test of satisfaction of the judicial conscience has been evolved. That test emphasises that in determining the question as to whether an instrument produced before the court is the last will of the testator, the court is called upon to decide a solemn question and by reason of suspicious circumstances the court has to be satisfied fully that the will has been validly executed by the testator. "6. If a caveator alleges fraud, undue influence, coercion etc. in regard to the execution of the will, such pleas have to be proved by him, but even in the absence of such pleas, the very circumstances surrounding the execution' of the will may raise a doubt as to whether the testator was acting of his own free will. And then it is a part of the initial onus of the propounder to remove all reasonable doubts in the matter."
25. In Shashi Kumar Banerjee & Ors vs Subodh Kumar Banerjee Since deceased through LRs.:AIR 1964 SC 529, Hon'ble Supreme Court has discussed the law relating to the Will to be proved. Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-
"5. The principles which govern the proving of a will are well settled; (see H. Venkatachala Iyengar v. B. N. Thimmajamma, 1959 (S1) SCR 426 : 1959 AIR(SC) 443) and Rani Purniama Devi v. Khagendra Narayan Dev, 1962 (3) SCR 195 : 1962 AIR(SC) 567). The mode of proving a will does not ordinarily differ from that of proving any other document except as to the special requirement of attestation prescribed in the case of a will by S. 63 of the Indian Succession Act. The onus of proving the will is on the propounder and in the absence of suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the will, proof PC No. 5928/2016 CNR No. DLST01-000238-2011 Page 41 of 66 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/17.05.2024 Jagmohan Khera Vs. State & Ors.
of testamentary capacity and the signature of the testator as required by law is sufficient to discharge the onus. Where however there are suspicious circumstances, the onus is on the propounder to explain them to the satisfaction of the Court before the Court accepts the will as genuine. Where the caveator alleges undue influence, fraud and coercion, the onus is on him to prove the same. Even where there are no. such pleas but the circumstances give rise to doubts, it is for the propounder to satisfy the conscience of the Court. The suspicious circumstances may be as to genuineness of the signature of the testator, the condition of the testator's mind, the dispositions made in the will being unnatural improbable or unfair in the light of relevant circumstances or there might be other indication in the will to show that the testator's mind was not free. In such a case the Court would naturally expect that all legitimate suspicion should be completely removed before the document is accepted as the last will of the testator. If the propounder himself takes part in the execution of the will which confers a substantial benefit on him, that is also a circumstance to be taken into account, and the propounder is required to remove the doubts by clear and satisfactory evidence. If the propounder succeeds in removing the suspicious circumstances the Court would grant probate, even if the will might be unnatural and might cut off wholly or in part near relations. It is in the light of these settled principles that we have to consider whether the appellants have succeeded in establishing that the will was duly executed and attested."
26. Similarly in Navneet Lal Alias Rangi vs Gokul and Others : AIR 1976 SC 794, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has laid down the following Principles/Guidelines:-
"From the earlier decisions of this Court the following principles, inter alia, are well established:-
"(1) In construing a document whether in English or in vernacular the fundamental rule is to ascertain the intention from the words used; the surrounding circumstances are to be considered; but that is only for the purpose of finding out PC No. 5928/2016 CNR No. DLST01-000238-2011 Page 42 of 66 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/17.05.2024 Jagmohan Khera Vs. State & Ors.
the intended meaning of the words which have actually been employed. [Ram Gopal v. Nand Lal and others(1)].
"(2) In construing the language of the will the court is entitled to put itself into the testator's armchair [Venkata Narasimha v. Parthasarathy(2)] and is bound to bear in mind also other matters than merely the words used. It must consider the surrounding circumstances, the position of the testator, his family relationship, the probability that he would use words in a particular sense....but all this is solely as an aid to arriving at a right construction of the will, and to ascertain the meaning of its language when used by that particular testator in that document. [Venkata Narasimha's case supra and Gnanambal Ammal v. T. Raju Ayyar and Others(1)].
"(3) The true intention of the testator has to be gathered not by attaching importance to isolated expressions but by reading the will as a whole with all its provisions and ignoring none of them as redundant or contradictory [Raj Bajrang Bahadur Singh v. Thakurain Bakhtraj Kuer(2)]. "(4) The court must accept, if possible, such construction as would give to every expression some effect rather than that which would render any of the expression inoperative. The court will look at the circumstances under which the testator makes his will, such as the state of his property, of his family and the like. Where apparently conflicting dispositions can be reconciled by giving full effect to every word used in a document, such a construction should be accepted instead of a construction which would have the effect of cutting down the clear meaning of the words used by the testator. Further, where one of the two reasonable constructions would lead to intestacy, that should be discarded in favour of a construction which does not create any such hiatus. [Paerey Lal v. Rameshwar Das(3)]. "(5) It is one of the cardinal principles of construction of wills that to the extent that it is legally possible effect should be given to every disposition contained in the will unless the law prevents effect being given to it, Of course, if there are two repugnant provisions conferring successive interests, if the first interest created is valid the subsequent interest cannot take effect but a Court of construction will PC No. 5928/2016 CNR No. DLST01-000238-2011 Page 43 of 66 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/17.05.2024 Jagmohan Khera Vs. State & Ors.
proceed to the farthest extent to avoid repugnancy, so that effect could be given as far as possible to every testamentary intention contained in the will. [Ramachandra Shenoy and Another v. Mrs. Hilda Brite and Other(4)]..."
27. Sections 68 of the Evidence Act, which relates to proof of documents required by law to be attested, reads as under:
"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: Provided that it shall not be necessary to call an attesting witness in proof of the execution of any document, not being a will, which has been registered in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), unless its execution by the person by whom it purports to have been executed is specifically denied."
28. It is also settled position of law that the jurisdiction of a probate Court is limited only to consider the genuineness of a Will. A question of title arising under the act cannot be gone into the proceedings and construction of a Will relating to the right, title and interest of any other person is beyond the domain of the Probate Court. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in judgment titled Kanwarjit Singh Dhillon Vs. Hardayal Singh Dhillon & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 4890/2007 decided on 12.10.2007, while relying upon the judgments titled as Cheeranjilal Shrilal Goenka Vs. Jasjit Singh & Ors. (1993) 2 SCC 507 has held that the Court of probate is only concerned PC No. 5928/2016 CNR No. DLST01-000238-2011 Page 44 of 66 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/17.05.2024 Jagmohan Khera Vs. State & Ors.
with the question as to whether the document put forward as the last Will and testament of a deceased person was duly executed and attested in accordance with law and whether at the time of such execution, the testator had sound disposing mind. The question whether a particular bequest is good or bad is not within the purview of the Probate Court. Therefore, the only issue in probate proceedings relates to the genuineness and due execution of the Will.
29. The petitioner's narrative is that probate in respect of Will dated 11.03.1999 allegedly executed by his father in favour of his brother/respondent no.2 herein was granted vide order dated 21.08.2008. The petitioner herein filed an appeal against that order before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. During the pendency of the appeal in the month of May/June, 2009 when he was praying in Bankey Bihari Temple in the vicinity, one of his father's friend namely Shri D.C. Kalra met him and during dialogue Sh. D.C. Kalra disclosed about the Will dated 19.12.2000 executed by the father of the petitioner in his favor as a last valid Will. Sh. D.C. Kalra disclosed that a copy of the Will dated 19.12.2000 was still in his possession. After knowing the pendency of litigation between both the brothers, Sh. D.C. Kalra, who was an attesting witness to the Will dated 19.12.2000, himself moved an intervention PC No. 5928/2016 CNR No. DLST01-000238-2011 Page 45 of 66 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/17.05.2024 Jagmohan Khera Vs. State & Ors.
application in the abovesaid appeal before the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi. This application was dismissed as withdrawn with leave and liberty to take appropriate proceedings in accordance with law. Accordingly, the present probate petition and separate revocation application on the basis of Will, dated 19.12.2000 have been filed by the petitioner herein. Will dated 19.12.2000 has been attested by Sh. D.C. Kalra and Sh. Shyam Sunder Sabharwal.
30. On 01.06.2018, a prayer was made for clubbing the present probate petition and the separate revocation application PC No. 5929/16 in case titled 'Gopal Krishan Khera Vs. State & Ors.' on the ground that same evidence was to be led in both the cases. The same was not opposed by the opposite counsel and consequently the verbal request for common evidence was allowed. The common evidence was led in these two cases. In the present petition, the petitioner examined total three witnesses. Since the common evidence were led so the evidences led in revocation petition (PC No. 5929/16) shall also be considered. In the revocation petition, petitioner herein examined himself as R2W1. Perusal of PW1 in the present probate petition (PC No. 5928/16) and R2W1 in revocation petition (PC No. 5929/16) shows that their examination-in-chief and cross examination are same in all aspects except the serial PC No. 5928/2016 CNR No. DLST01-000238-2011 Page 46 of 66 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/17.05.2024 Jagmohan Khera Vs. State & Ors.
number given to the witness. In the present probate petition, it is given Sl. No. PW1 and in the revocation petition (PC No. 5929/16), it was given Sl. No. R2W1. In the revocation petition, non-applicant therein (respondent no.2 herein) examined himself as PW1. In this way, since there was an order of common evidence in both the cases, so petitioner herein and respondent herein examined their witnesses separately as PW1/R2W1, PW2, PW3 for petitioner herein and PW1, RW2 and RW3 for respondent herein. It is again clarified that witness PW1 in the revocation petition is different to PW1 in the present probate petition. In the revocation petition, PW1 is non- applicant therein (respondent no.2 herein) and in the present probate petition (PC No. 5928/16), PW1 is applicant herein. Accordingly, petitioner herein examined total three witnesses to prove Will dated 19.12.2000. He examined himself as PW1, examined PW2 Sh. Shyam Sunder Sabharwal being attesting witness and one Sh. Inder Kumar Kalra as PW3 being son of another attesting witness.
EFFECT OF NON-FILING OF ORIGINAL WILL
31. Original Will dated 19.12.2000 was never produced before the court. Only a copy of Will dated 19.12.2000 was PC No. 5928/2016 CNR No. DLST01-000238-2011 Page 47 of 66 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/17.05.2024 Jagmohan Khera Vs. State & Ors.
filed and relied upon by the petitioner.
32. Sections 237, 238 and 239 of Indian Succession Act, 1925 deal with the provisions regarding probate of copy of the Will. These provisions deal with specific circumstances when either the Will has been lost or misled or has been destroyed by wrong or accident and not by any act of testator or when the Will is in possession of a person residing out of state in which application for probate is made, who has refused or neglected to deliver it up then the probate may be granted even on the copy of the Will.
33. As per Section 238, probate may be granted of its contents if it can be established that Will has been lost or destroyed and no copy has been made nor the draft preserved.
34. Section 240 provides that where no Will of deceased is forthcoming but there is reason to believe that there is a Will in existence, letters of administration may be granted, limited until the Will or an authenticated copy of it is produced.
35. However, in the present case, it is not the case of the petitioner that original Will has been lost or misled or has been destroyed by wrong or accident or in the possession of a person residing out of Delhi, who has refused or neglected to deliver it up. The petitioner herein simply relied upon a copy of a Will. Nothing disclosed about the original Will. There is also no PC No. 5928/2016 CNR No. DLST01-000238-2011 Page 48 of 66 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/17.05.2024 Jagmohan Khera Vs. State & Ors.
disclosure regarding original Will in the separate revocation application under Section 383 of Indian Succession Act for rejection of probate, filed on behalf of the petitioner herein. In the present probate petition, an application under Section 267 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 for direction to the respondent No.2/3 to produce original Will dated 19.12.2000 was filed on 24.11.2011. It was submitted in the application that original of the Will dated 19.12.2000 was in possession and control of respondent no.2/Sh. Gopal Krishan Khera or in possession of respondent no.3/Sh. C.P. Khera. Only a general allegation has been made regarding the possession of original Will with respondents No.2/3 in the present probate petition. Reply on behalf of the respondents was filed on 16.02.2012 and it was specifically denied that original Will dated 19.12.2000 was in possession and under control of respondent No.2/3. The stand of respondents in the reply to the application was that since no Will dated 19.12.2000 exists, therefore, no question arose that the original of the same was in the custody of respondent No.2/3.
36. Perusal of Section 267 shows that District Judge may order any person to bring into court testamentary papers which may be shown in possession or under control of such person or there is reason to believe that such person has the knowledge of PC No. 5928/2016 CNR No. DLST01-000238-2011 Page 49 of 66 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/17.05.2024 Jagmohan Khera Vs. State & Ors.
said paper.
37. Perusal of the record shows that respondent no.2 was never ordered by the court to produce the Will dated 19.12.2000. It was nowhere showed by the petitioner that Will dated 19.12.2000 was in the possession or under the control or in the knowledge of respondent no.2. Perusal of para 3 of the replication filed by the petitioner shows that original will dated 19.12.2000 was in custody and possession of respondent no.2/Sh. Gopal Krishan Khera. However, nothing was stated to show the circumstances under which the original Will allegedly came into possession of Sh. Gopal Krishan Khera. During his examination as PW1, the petitioner did not give any explanation regarding the existence of the original Will dated 19.12.2000.
38. During his cross-examination dated 01.06.2018, petitioner/PW1 Jagmohan Khera answered that it is correct that he had not placed on record original Will dated 19.12.2000. He further answered voluntarily that the same was not in his possession. He further answered the suggestion by stating that it is wrong to suggest that he had forged the photocopy of this Will and due to the said reason he has not filed original of the said Will on the judicial record.
39. During the examination-in-chief of PW2/Shyam Sunder Sabharwal dated 07.07.2018, Ld. counsel for the petitioner PC No. 5928/2016 CNR No. DLST01-000238-2011 Page 50 of 66 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/17.05.2024 Jagmohan Khera Vs. State & Ors.
herein wanted to exhibit the Will. However, Ld. counsel for the opposite party objected the same by contending that before photocopy can be exhibited, petitioner has to lead evidence to show that the original document has been lost or not in the possession of the petitioner. Thereafter, at that stage, photocopy of Will dated 19.12.2000 was marked as Mark PW2 for identification. It was specifically noted in the examination itself that the question whether photocopy can be exhibited shall be decided after arguments addressed on this issue on the next date and further examination was deferred. Thereafter, the witness was again recalled for his further examination-in-chief on 02.07.2019. That day, the Will was simply exhibited as Ex.PW3/1. The examination conducted on the next date of hearing does not reflect anything regarding arguments and the decision of the court on the issue whether the photocopy can be exhibited or not.
40. However, it is a settled law that exhibit number or mark number of a document is only for its identification purpose and merely putting exhibit number does not reflect that the document has been proved. The document still needs to be proved as per law.
41. During his cross-examination on 01.10.2019, PW-2 categorically answered that he was not aware about the PC No. 5928/2016 CNR No. DLST01-000238-2011 Page 51 of 66 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/17.05.2024 Jagmohan Khera Vs. State & Ors.
whereabouts of the original of Ex.PW3/1. He answered that he was not aware, who prepared and typed the Will or where it was typed. He also answered that he was not aware who had placed on record photocopy of Will dated 19.12.2000 i.e. Ex.PW3/1. He also answered that he was not aware when this document was photocopied and who had got it photocopied.
42. PW3 Sh. Inder Kumar Kalra, who is son of another attesting witness of Will dated 19.12.2000 Ex.PW3/1, answered during his cross-examination that he has never seen the original of Ex.PW3/1 and he had no knowledge about the whereabouts of the original of Ex.PW3/1. He further answered that he was not aware whether original of Ex.PW3/1 was in existence or not.
43. The whereabouts of the original was neither mentioned in the revocation application nor it was answered by any of the petitioner's witnesses even when the question regarding existence and whereabouts of the original Will dated 19.12.2000 was specifically asked in their cross-examination.
44. Section 70 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 provides as under:
"70. Revocation of unprivileged Will or codicil. - No unprivileged Will or codicil, nor any part thereof, shall be revoked otherwise than by marriage, or by another will or codicil, or by some writing declaring an intention to revoke the same and executed in the manner in which an unprivileged Will is hereinbefore PC No. 5928/2016 CNR No. DLST01-000238-2011 Page 52 of 66 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/17.05.2024 Jagmohan Khera Vs. State & Ors.
required to be executed, or by the burning, tearing, or otherwise destroying the same by the testator or by some person in his presence and by his direction with the intention of revoking the same.".
45. Conjoint reading of the abovesaid Sections 70, 237, 238 and 239 of the Act, 1925 shows that whenever any reliance is placed on photocopy of the Will, it has to be proved that either the original has been destroyed by wrong or accident and not by any act of testator or it exists and is with a person residing out of the State in which application for probate is made and who has refused or neglected to deliver it up.
46. In case titled Narender Singh Chawla Vs. State, MANU/DE/2658/2014, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held as under:
"8. I may note that the objectors did not file before the court below original of the Will dated 6.11.1987. In my opinion, this itself is sufficient to reject the case of the objectors based upon the Will dated 6.11.1987, inasmuch as, a photocopy of the Will cannot be relied upon, because , a Will can be revoked even if it is shown to be duly executed, if the said Will is destroyed by the testator by a deliberate act whether of tearing up or of burning etc. Courts are therefore extremely reluctant to reply upon a photocopy of a Will, unless clinching evidence is led to show that the original of the Will was not destroyed by the testator by his deliberate act. In the present case, the only contention of the objector was that the original of the Will dated 6.11.1987 was with one Sh. Joginder Singh, son-in-law of the deceased testator Sardar Singh, however, the said witness was not brought into the witness box on behalf of the objectors/appellants to establish the contention with respect to the original PC No. 5928/2016 CNR No. DLST01-000238-2011 Page 53 of 66 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/17.05.2024 Jagmohan Khera Vs. State & Ors.
Will dated 6.11.1987 existing and not being destroyed by a deliberate act of the testator. For the sake of completion of narration, I may state that issues with respect to limited grants of a copy or draft of an original Will are provided for in Sections 237 to 240 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and in which provisions it is stated that the Will can be revoked by a deliberate act of the testator by destroying the Will."
47. In case titled 'Ashwani Kumar Aggarwal Vs. B.K. Mittal, MANU/DE/2128/2014', the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi has held as under:
"4. The above resume of the facts of this case show that Section 237 of the Act squarely applies in this case and the ingredients thereof are not proved for granting probate of a copy of the Will. I may note that Courts are deliberately hesitant to grant probate of a photocopy of the Will inasmuch as Will as a document can be revoked by destroying the same in any manner and absence of the original can strongly mean that the Will was revoked. Therefore, once the original Will is not on record, there has to exist on record such amount of credible evidence to show that the original of the Will was never destroyed by an intentional act of the testator or if the original Will is still available the same is lost or misplaced or the original is with a person who is deliberately not producing the same. In the absence of evidence in this regard, and that too credible evidence which the Court can believe, Courts do not grant probate of copies of the Will except in the circumstances which are specified in Sections 238 to
240. In my opinion, this limited aspect of original Will not being on record and no evidences led for granting copy of the Will as per Section 237, is enough to allow the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment of the probate Court dated 7.1.2012."
48. In view of the abovesaid settled law and statutory PC No. 5928/2016 CNR No. DLST01-000238-2011 Page 54 of 66 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/17.05.2024 Jagmohan Khera Vs. State & Ors.
preposition it is incumbent upon the person who is relying on the basis of photocopy of Will to lead cogent evidence that original Will has been lost/misplaced/destroyed by wrong or accident and not by any act of the testator or with the person who is refusing or neglecting to deliver it up.
49. At first, opportunity was available with the petitioner at the stage of pleadings to show the reasons due to which the original could not be produced and he had to rely upon the photocopy of the Will. Thereafter, he again got the opportunity during the examination of his witnesses. However, this opportunity was not availed. The petitioner and the witnesses appeared on behalf of petitioner again did not disclose the existence of the original Will even when the same was specifically asked during their cross-examination.
50. In my considered opinion this limited aspect of original Will not being on record and no evidence was led for granting copy of the Will as per Section 237 is enough to disallow the present petition. It is a trite law that even permission to lead secondary evidence cannot take away the effect of substantive provision of Section 237 of the Act and unless the requirements of Section 237 of the Act are satisfied. Since requirement of Section 237 are not satisfied, probate of a copy of the Will, including the photocopy of the Will cannot be granted.
PC No. 5928/2016CNR No. DLST01-000238-2011 Page 55 of 66 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/17.05.2024 Jagmohan Khera Vs. State & Ors.
ON IDENTIFICATION OF SIGNATURES OF TESTATOR AND ATTESTING WITNESSES ON THE WILL.
51. PW-2 identified the signatures of the testator Surender Nath Khera, another attesting witness Sh. D.C. Kalra and himself at Point A to E, Point Y and at Point X respectively on the Will dated 19.12.2000 Ex.PW3/1. However, his veracity was tested during his cross examination dated 01.10.2019. During his cross-examination, he answered that Late Sh. S.N. Khera and his father used to meet each other till 2006 and they used to meet each other in Park or in Senior Citizen Society. He further answered that they had also seen their father meeting till 2006. However, admittedly, the date of death of the testator is 09.01.2001.
52. When admittedly the date of death of the testator is 09.01.2001 then by no stretch of imagination the testator could be seen by PW2 till the year 2006 while meeting with father of PW2. It shows that either PW2 had never seen the testator Sh. S.N. Khera or he deliberately falsely deposed regarding attestation. In whatever case his deposition could not be relied upon and of no value.
53. During his cross-examination dated 01.10.2019, PW2 answered that he knew Jagmohan Khera/petitioner herein for the last 2-3 years. During his cross-examination on the same PC No. 5928/2016 CNR No. DLST01-000238-2011 Page 56 of 66 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/17.05.2024 Jagmohan Khera Vs. State & Ors.
date, he also answered that it might be possible that on 16.05.2013, he had executed an affidavit to be filed before the court. He also answered the suggestion that it is correct that he knew Jagmohan Khera/petitioner and met him in the year 2013. He further answered that it might be possible that he had met Jagmohan 6 months to 1 year prior to the year 2013 and also he had met and knew Sh. Jagmohan Khera prior to the year 2013. At one place, he answered that he knew the petitioner from last 2-3 years and at another place he answered that the affidavit might be possibly executed on 16.05.2013 i.e. more than 6 years before the date of cross-examination. These answers are contradictory to each other and mutually destructive.
54. Cross-examination dated 01.10.2019 of PW2 also shows that he was not sure about the date of execution/signing of the Will Ex.PW3/1. He said that his father was having relation with the testator and he had to go for signing the Will Ex.PW3/1 as his father felt ill and he requested him to go for the same. He answered that it was in the month of December, 2000 when he went for signing. However, he again said that he did not remember the year. He also answered that he did not remember about the time when his father had told him to go for signing the Will Ex.PW3/1. He answered that when he reached the house of another attesting witness Sh. D.C. Kalra, the Will was PC No. 5928/2016 CNR No. DLST01-000238-2011 Page 57 of 66 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/17.05.2024 Jagmohan Khera Vs. State & Ors.
already prepared and the same was not prepared in his presence. He answered that he had signed at only one place on the said Will. The Will was signed at the house of another attesting witness Sh. D.C. Kalra. He also answered that he left the home of Sh. D.C. Kalra within 10 to 15 minutes as the Will had already been signed by others. He again said that they signed in his presence.
PW-3 was examined being son of another attesting witness Sh. D.C. Kalra. He identified the signature of Sh. D.C. Kalra at Point A on the Will Ex.PW3/1 by answering that same appears to be signature of his father Sh. Diwan Chand (D.C. Kalra). He further deposed that he was not sure. He further deposed that Sh. D.C. Kalra used to sign in the same manner. He deposed that he had not brought any specimen of his father and same must be available with the bank and his father had an account with SBI Lajpat Nagar Branch. During his cross- examination dated 01.10.2019, he answered that he was not sure whether signature at Point Y were of his father i.e. Sh. D.C. Kalra or not. He voluntarily answered that D.C. Kalra used to sign in the same manner.
Accordingly, the attestation of the Will Ex.PW3/1is also not proved as per law of evidence as PW2 made material and substantial improvement on the aspect of preparation and PC No. 5928/2016 CNR No. DLST01-000238-2011 Page 58 of 66 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/17.05.2024 Jagmohan Khera Vs. State & Ors.
attestation of the Will in question. These improvements are contradictory and mutually destructive. No explanation was given about the abovesaid substantial improvements and accordingly the testimony of PW2 stands discredited. PW-3 is not an attesting witness himself, however, he was examined being son of another attesting witness Sh. D.C. Kalra. He was not sure regarding the signatures of attesting witness Sh. D.C. Kalra at Point Y on the Will Ex.PW3/1 as it is said so during his cross-examination. It was also not stated by him if he had seen his father/D.C. Kalra while doing signature or writing. So, he also did not disclose the basis of his being familiar with the signatures/handwriting of D.C. Kalra. He disclosed about the bank account of D.C. Kalra and deposed that the specimen signatures may be taken for comparison from the concerned bank. However, petitioner herein did not take any steps for comparison of signature of the attesting witness to prove the attestation as per provisions of Indian Evidence Act. It is also pertinent to mention here that as per deposition of PW3 dated 19.12.2019, D.C. Kalra/attesting witness expired on 07.11.2011. Perusal of the record shows that the probate petition was filed on 01.04.2011 and if the petitioner remained vigilant enough and had complied with the court directions on the given dates by that time, the attesting witness could have been examined by PC No. 5928/2016 CNR No. DLST01-000238-2011 Page 59 of 66 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/17.05.2024 Jagmohan Khera Vs. State & Ors.
the petitioner.
55. In view of the abovesaid discussion, material on record and analysis of examination of petitioner's witnesses, I am of the considered opinion that petitioner failed to prove the proper attestation on the Will Ex.PW3/1.
SOUND AND DISPOSING STATE OF MIND AND FREE WILL OF THE TESTATOR
56. In H. Venkatachala Iyengar v. B.N. Thimmajamma and Others:AIR 1959 SC 443 Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has observed that propounder to succeed and prove the Will is required to prove by satisfactory evidence that (i) the Will was signed by the testator; (ii) the testator at the time was in a sound and disposing state of mind; (iii) the testator understood the nature and effect of the dispositions; and (iv) that the testator had put his signatures on the document of his own free will.
It further held that ordinarily, when the evidence adduced in support of the Will is disinterested, satisfactory and sufficient to prove the sound and disposing state of mind of the testator and his signatures as required by law, courts would be justified in making a finding in favour of the propounder. Such evidence would discharge the onus on the propounder to prove the essential facts. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that it PC No. 5928/2016 CNR No. DLST01-000238-2011 Page 60 of 66 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/17.05.2024 Jagmohan Khera Vs. State & Ors.
is necessary to remove suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the Will.
57. Petitioner examined PW2 Sh. Shyam Sunder Sabharwal in the capacity of one of the attesting witness of the Will dated 19.12.2000 Ex.PW3/1. PW2 appeared before the court on 07.07.2018 and deposed his examination in chief. His evidence was not tendered on affidavit. However, during his cross- examination, affidavit dated 16.05.2023 of Sh. Shyam Sunder Sabharwal filed on behalf of the petitioner Sh. Jagmohan Khera was put before the witness and on identification of PW2 Sh. Shyam Sunder Sabharwal, the affidavit was exhibited as Ex.PW2/RX1. Nowhere in the affidavit or in his examination- in-chief, anything regarding sound disposing mind and free will of the testator was deposed. However, examination-in-chief of PW2 dated 02.07.2019 shows that PW-2 answered one court question by stating that the testator had gone through the Will and understood its contents. The court question was objected by the opposite counsel on the ground that question was leading. However, objection was overruled for the reason that question had not been put in a leading form and witness had been inquired from on this aspect. However only answer of the witness is found to be on record and court question was not found to be recorded. Nothing had further been explained by the PC No. 5928/2016 CNR No. DLST01-000238-2011 Page 61 of 66 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/17.05.2024 Jagmohan Khera Vs. State & Ors.
witness regarding understanding of the testator while going through the Will and before putting his signature on the Will.
58. During his cross-examination, dated 01.10.2019 witness answered that he was not aware whether the testator was bed ridden prior to his death or that he was not able to go out of home as to much prior to his death. He further answered that he was not aware that during the said period of illness the testator was not able to go out of his home due to his poor medical condition.
59. Petitioner also examined one another witness namely Sh. Inder Kumar Kalra being son of another attesting witness namely Sh. D.C. Kalra. His evidence was also not tendered through affidavit of evidence and he deposed directly during his examination-in-chief. Nothing about sound disposing mind and free will of the testator was deposed by him during his examination-in-chief. During his cross-examination dated 01.10.2019, a specific suggestion was put to the witness PW3 that testator Late Sh. S.N. Khera during his last days i.e. between December, 2000 and 09.01.2001 (date of death), was ill and bed ridden and due to the said reason, he was not going out of his house. Witness answered that it is correct. However, he again said that he did not know. The petitioner examined himself as PW1 and he also tendered his evidence by way of PC No. 5928/2016 CNR No. DLST01-000238-2011 Page 62 of 66 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/17.05.2024 Jagmohan Khera Vs. State & Ors.
affidavit Ex.PW1/A. He also did not depose anything even in his affidavit PW1/A or in his examination-in-chief regarding the sound disposing mind and free will of the testator. During his cross-examination dated 01.06.2018, he answered that it was wrong to suggest that when the Will dated 11.03.1999 (on which probate was granted by vide order dated 21.08.2008) was signed and executed by testator Sh. Surender Nath Khera, he was having good health and in sound disposing mind. Nothing regarding sound and disposing mind and free will of the testator at the time of execution of the Will dated 19.12.2000 was stated/deposed by the applicant or any of the witnesses on his behalf either in the pleadings or in their evidences.
60. In view of the abovestated discussion, material on record and analysis of examination of the petitioner's witnesses, I am of the considered opinion that petitioner failed to prove sound and disposing state of mind and free will of the testator at the time of execution of the Will in question.
CONTRADICTORY STAND OF THE APPLICANT/ RESPONDENT NO.2 ON SOUNDNESS AND PHYSICAL HEALTH OF THE TESTATOR AT THE TIME OF EXECUTION OF TWO WILLS IN QUESTION
61. While relying upon Will dated 19.12.2000, the PC No. 5928/2016 CNR No. DLST01-000238-2011 Page 63 of 66 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/17.05.2024 Jagmohan Khera Vs. State & Ors.
petitioner's stand is that the Will was executed by testator Late Sh. Surendra Nath Khera in his sound disposing mind. However, to the contrary, the petitioner, while filing his objections in the main probate case No. 141/2001 in case titled 'Gopal Krishan Khera Vs. State & Ors.' submitted in para 1 at page No.2 of his objections that "More so over on 11.3.1999 when the disputed WILL was alleged to be executed, Sh. S.N. Khera was not mentally sound due to old age near about 80 (eighty) years and was bed ridden and urine and stool was passed by him on the bed unconsciously without his sense.". This stand of the petitioner regarding mental and physical health of the testator at the time of execution of earlier Will dated 11.03.1999 is contrary to the stand qua the execution of the subsequent Will executed in the year 2000. The petitioner did not produce any evidence to explain that when the testator was of not sound mind and was also bedridden on 11.03.1999 then how he became able to execute the subsequent Will dated 19.12.2000 in his sound disposing mind at the house of Sh. D.C. Kalra. No evidence regarding medical treatment of the testator Late Sh. Surender Nath Khera, to prove that after execution of earlier Will dated 11.03.1999, the testator got improved and became mentally and physically fit so that he could execute the subsequent Will on 19.12.2000 in his sound disposing mind PC No. 5928/2016 CNR No. DLST01-000238-2011 Page 64 of 66 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/17.05.2024 Jagmohan Khera Vs. State & Ors.
while visiting the house of some another person, was produced.
62. In view of the abovesaid discussions, evidence and material on record, it cannot be stated that Will dated 19.12.2000 is validly and legally executed. Accordingly, issue No. 1 is decided against the petitioner.
Issue no.2: Whether the objections filed on behalf of respondents are valid and maintainable?
63. In my considered opinion, this issue is liable to be struck off in exercise of power under Order XIV Rule 5 CPC, 1908 as issue no.1 has already been decided against the petitioner. Accordingly, issue no.2 is hereby struck off in exercise of power under Order XIV Rule 5 CPC.
Issue no.3: Relief.
64. It is pertinent to mention herein that petitioner herein has also filed a revocation application for revocation of earlier Will dated 11.03.1999 while relying upon a subsequent Will dated 19.12.2000. He also filed the present petition while relying upon the same subsequent Will. The said revocation petition has been dismissed vide separate judgment of same date i.e. 17.05.2024. In view of the same and in view of the findings given qua issues no. 1 and 2, this petition is dismissed.
PC No. 5928/2016CNR No. DLST01-000238-2011 Page 65 of 66 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/17.05.2024 Jagmohan Khera Vs. State & Ors.
65. The copy of the Will Ex.PW3/1 shall remain part of judicial file.
Pronounced in the open Court on this 17th day of May, 2024.
(DR. YADVENDER SINGH) DISTRICT JUDGE-02, SOUTH, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI.
PC No. 5928/2016CNR No. DLST01-000238-2011 Page 66 of 66 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket/ND/17.05.2024