Delhi District Court
Mr. Surjit Singh Bhalla vs . State & Ors. on 1 February, 2023
Mr. Surjit Singh Bhalla Vs. State & Ors.
IN THE COURT OF ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE
02, SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
Presiding Judge: Sh. Dinesh Kumar
PC No. 6013/2016
Filing No. 29391/2016
CNR No. DLST010061082016
In the matter of
Mr. Surjit Singh Bhalla
S/o Late Shri Bawa Bhag Singh Bhalla
R/o S160, Panchshila Park, New Delhi 110017
................Petitioner
Versus
1. State
2. Mr. Amar Das Bhalla
S/o Late Shri Bawa Bhag Singh Bhalla
R/o 23048, Sanabria Loop, Bonita Springs
Florida34134, U.S.A.
3. Ms. Ranjana Bhasin
D/o Late Shri Bawa Bhag Singh Bhalla
R/o 11314 Buckleberry Path,
Columbia MD21004, USA
4. Ms. Veena Bhalla
D/o Late Shri Bawa Bhag Singh Bhalla
R/o 20340 Black Tree Lane, Estero
PC No. 6013/2016
CNR No. DLST010061082016
Page 1 of 20 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ02/South/Saket/01.02.2023
Mr. Surjit Singh Bhalla Vs. State & Ors.
Florida33928, USA
5. Ms. Monique Bhalla Durso
D/o Mr. Amar Das Bhalla
R/o 747 S. Sheridanstreet
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania19147
U.S.A
6. Ms. Sonia Bhalla
D/o Mr. Amar Das Bhalla
R/o 953, 4 Th Street, Apt 305
Santa Monica, CA90403, USA
7. Mr. Amit Bhalla
S/o Mr. Amar Das Bhalla
R/o 850, South West Gate Avenue
Unit 102, Los Angeles,
CA90049 USA
8. Ms. Seema Sgobho
D/o Mr. Amar Das Bhalla
R/o 23, Governor Andrew
RD, Hingham02043, MA
9. Ms. Supakna Anand Bhasin
D/o Ms. Ranjana Bhasin
R/o 286, Beaconsfield Parade Middle
Park VIC Australia3206
10. Mr. Sandeep Bhasin
S/o Ms. Ranjana Bhasin
R/o 722 Via Da La Paz Pacific Palisades
PC No. 6013/2016
CNR No. DLST010061082016
Page 2 of 20 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ02/South/Saket/01.02.2023
Mr. Surjit Singh Bhalla Vs. State & Ors.
CA 90272, USA.
11. Ms. Vandana Thapar
D/o Ms. Veena Bhalla
R/o 5 Bayou Shadows Street
Houston Texas77024 USA
12. Mr. Amul R. Thapa
S/o Ms. Veena Bhalla
R/o 782, Abbotsbury Place,
Edgewood, Kentucky41017 USA
13. Ms. Simran Bhalla
D/o Surjit Singh Bhalla
R/o S160, Panchshila Park, New Delhi110017.
14. Mr. Sahil Singh Bhalla
S/o Surjit Singh Bhalla
R/o S160, Panchshila Park, New Delhi110017.
.............Respondents
Date of Institution : 04.11.2016
Date of reserving the judgment : 01.12.2022
Date of pronouncement : 01.02.2023
Decision : Petition Allowed.
PETITION UNDER SECTION 217 OF THE INDIAN
SUCCESSION ACT FOR OBTAINING A PROBATE IN
RESPECT OF THE WILL EXECUTED BY DECEASED
NAMELY LATE BAWA BHAG SINGH BHALLA
PC No. 6013/2016
CNR No. DLST010061082016
Page 3 of 20 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ02/South/Saket/01.02.2023
Mr. Surjit Singh Bhalla Vs. State & Ors.
JUDGMENT
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner Under Section 217 of the Indian Succession Act for grant of probate to the Will dated 09.07.1992 of deceased Bawa Bhag Singh Bhalla. The case of the petitioner, as per the petition, is as under: 1.1. Sh. Bawa Bhag Singh Bhalla died on 25.06.1998 at New Delhi leaving behind the petitioner and the respondent No.2 to 4 as legal heirs. Respondents No. 5 to 14 are the grandchildren of Late Sh. Bawa Bhag Singh Bhalla.
1.2. At the time of his death, Sh. Bawa Bhag Singh Bhalla (since deceased) had a permanent and fixed placed of abode at S160, Panchshila Park, New Delhi. Deceased Bawa Bhag Singh Bhalla has left behind the petitioner as well as the respondents No. 2 to 14 as his only legal heirs. Deceased Bawa Bhag Singh Bhalla executed his last Will dated 09.07.1992 duly attested by the witnesses and registered with the Sub Registrar in sound disposing mind.
1.3. Bawa Bhag Singh Bhalla was the owner of certain shares of companies which are detailed in the annexure in PC No. 6013/2016 CNR No. DLST010061082016 Page 4 of 20 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ02/South/Saket/01.02.2023 Mr. Surjit Singh Bhalla Vs. State & Ors.
the present petition. He bequeathed the same in favour of his grandchildren. No application has yet been made by anybody to any Court for the letter of administration to the Will. Hence, the present petition was filed with the following prayer: "It is therefore prayed that the probate to the Will dated 09.07.1992 executed by Bawa Bhag Singh as annexed to the present petition may be granted, in the interest of justice and fair trial.
"To pass such other orders which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case."
2. On 27.07.2017, the petitioner moved an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC for amendment of the petition. The application was allowed on the same date. Amended petition was directed to be taken on record. In the amended petition, the petitioner would also state that Late Bawa Bhag Singh Bhalla had bequeathed his property in favour of his children / grandchildren vide Will dated 09.07.1992 including his immovable property bearing no. S160, Panchshila Park, New Delhi. As the probate was not required in Delhi, the petitioner has got the property mutated in his name on 10.08.2004. Now, the transfer of the share certificate are left to be transferred as per the wishes of the testator. In the year 2016, the petitioner PC No. 6013/2016 CNR No. DLST010061082016 Page 5 of 20 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ02/South/Saket/01.02.2023 Mr. Surjit Singh Bhalla Vs. State & Ors.
applied for transfer of shares in the name of the grandsons of the testator as per the Will. All the formalities were done in this regard. However, vide email dated 01.09.2016, the company Colgate Palmolive has demanded copy of probate of the Will before transferring the shares. The same is also required by other companies. Hence the present petition has been filed.
3. The citation was directed to be published in the newspaper and notice of the petition was also directed to be issued to the respondents. Citation was published in the newspaper "The Statesman" dated 21.08.2017. Respondent No. 14 appeared in person on 16.10.2017 and stated that he had no objection if the probate was granted in favour of the petitioner. Ld. Counsel for petitioner filed affidavits of respondent no. 2, 3, 4, 9 and copies of respondent no. 6, 7, 8, 12, 13 and 14.
4. On 21.12.2017, Respondent No. 13 appeared in person and stated that she did not has any objection if the probate was granted in favour of the petitioner. On 21.12.2017, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner also filed 'no objection affidavits' on behalf of respondent no. 6, 7, 8, 10 and 12.
5. On 14.05.2018, Ld. Counsel for the petitioner filed 'no objection affidavits' of respondent no. 5 and 11. On the same day, on the basis of the record, following issues were framed PC No. 6013/2016 CNR No. DLST010061082016 Page 6 of 20 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ02/South/Saket/01.02.2023 Mr. Surjit Singh Bhalla Vs. State & Ors.
vide order dated 14.05.2018:
i) Whether the petitioner is entitled to grant of probate/letters of administration in respect of Will dated 09.07.1992 purportedly executed by Bawa Bhag Singh Bhalla? OPP.
ii) Relief.
6. The petitioner was asked to lead evidence. The petitioner examined himself as PW1. He tendered his affidavit in evidence Ex.PW1/A. He reiterated the facts stated in the petition and relied upon the following documents:
a) The photocopy of passport is Ex.PW1/1 (OSR).
b) The original death certificate of Bawa Bhag Singh Bhalla is Ex.PW1/2.
c) The original death certificate of Smt. Prakash Bhalla is Ex.PW1/3.
d) The list of legal heirs annexed with the petition is Ex.PW1/4.
e) The original Will dated 09.07.1992 of Sh. Bawa Bhag Singh Bhalla is Ex.PW1/5.
f) The list of assets annexed with the petition is Ex.PW1/6.PC No. 6013/2016
CNR No. DLST010061082016 Page 7 of 20 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ02/South/Saket/01.02.2023 Mr. Surjit Singh Bhalla Vs. State & Ors.
g) The photocopies of the share certificates of Ceat Ltd. Is collectively exhibited as Ex.PW1/7 (OSR).
h) The photocopies of the share certificates of Colgate Palmolive India Ltd. is collectively exhibited as Ex.PW1/8 (OSR).
i) The photocopies of the share certificates of Phillips Carbon Black Ltd. is collectively exhibited as Ex.PW1/9 (OSR).
j) Email dated 01.09.2016 is Ex.PW1/10.
k) Certificate Under Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act is Ex.PW1/11.
7. The petitioner also examined attesting witness PW2 Sh. H.K. Babbar. He has stated that he knew Late Bawa Bhag Singh Bhalla and his family members including the petitioner as he used to come for legal work. He stated that Will Ex. PW1/5 was written by Bawa Bhag Singh Bhalla in sound disposing mind and good health on 09.07.1992. It was signed by the testator in his presence and in the presence of Sh. V.K. Sharma. He identified the signatures of Bawa Bhag Singh Bhalla on the Will Ex. PW1/5. He also identified his signatures and signatures of second witness Sh. V.K. Sharma on the said Will.
PC No. 6013/2016CNR No. DLST010061082016 Page 8 of 20 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ02/South/Saket/01.02.2023 Mr. Surjit Singh Bhalla Vs. State & Ors.
8. The petitioner did not examine any other witness. Vide order dated 27.09.2022 PE was closed at the submission of Ld. Counsel for the petitioner. The matter was adjourned for final arguments.
9. On 01.12.2022, the petitioner filed an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment in the petition. The application was allowed and the amended petition was taken on record.
10. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner would argue that the petitioner has proved the Will of his father. The respondents No. 2 to 14 have already given their no objections. The PW2 has proved the Will as per law. Hence, it is prayed that the probate qua the Will of the testator may be granted in favour of the petitioner.
11. I have heard the submissions and perused the record. My issuewise findings are as under.
12. Issue No. 1. The issue reads as under: "Whether the petitioner is entitled to grant of probate/letters of administration in respect of Will dated 09.07.1992 purportedly executed by Bawa Bhag Singh Bhalla? OPP"
13. Before discussing the matter on merits, it would be relevant to discuss the law relating to the execution and proof of PC No. 6013/2016 CNR No. DLST010061082016 Page 9 of 20 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ02/South/Saket/01.02.2023 Mr. Surjit Singh Bhalla Vs. State & Ors.
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."
14. 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. 6013/2016 CNR No. DLST010061082016 Page 10 of 20 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ02/South/Saket/01.02.2023 Mr. Surjit Singh Bhalla 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 prerequisite, thus, is that at the time of expressing his desire visavis the disposition of the estate after his demise he must know and understand its purport or import.
15. 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 PC No. 6013/2016 CNR No. DLST010061082016 Page 11 of 20 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ02/South/Saket/01.02.2023 Mr. Surjit Singh Bhalla Vs. State & Ors.
and by the direction of the testator, or has received from the testator a personal acknowledgment of his signature or mark, or the signature of such other person; and each of the witnesses shall sign the Will in the presence of the 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."
16. 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 PC No. 6013/2016 CNR No. DLST010061082016 Page 12 of 20 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ02/South/Saket/01.02.2023 Mr. Surjit Singh Bhalla Vs. State & Ors.
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 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.
17. 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:
PC No. 6013/2016CNR No. DLST010061082016 Page 13 of 20 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ02/South/Saket/01.02.2023 Mr. Surjit Singh Bhalla Vs. State & Ors.
"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 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 PC No. 6013/2016 CNR No. DLST010061082016 Page 14 of 20 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ02/South/Saket/01.02.2023 Mr. Surjit Singh Bhalla Vs. State & Ors.
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, 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."
18. 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 PC No. 6013/2016 CNR No. DLST010061082016 Page 15 of 20 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ02/South/Saket/01.02.2023 Mr. Surjit Singh Bhalla Vs. State & Ors.
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 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."
19. 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: PC No. 6013/2016 CNR No. DLST010061082016 Page 16 of 20 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ02/South/Saket/01.02.2023 Mr. Surjit Singh Bhalla Vs. State & Ors.
"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 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.PC No. 6013/2016
CNR No. DLST010061082016 Page 17 of 20 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ02/South/Saket/01.02.2023 Mr. Surjit Singh Bhalla Vs. State & Ors.
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 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)]..."
20. 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.
21. In the present case, PW2 Sh. H.K. Babbar is the attesting witness of the Will. His testimony is convincing. His testimony has remained unrebutted. There is no reason to doubt the testimony of PW2. The Will Ex. PW1/5 thus stands proved by the witness in accordance with law. The present petition has remained non contentious as respondent no. 2 to 14 have given PC No. 6013/2016 CNR No. DLST010061082016 Page 18 of 20 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ02/South/Saket/01.02.2023 Mr. Surjit Singh Bhalla Vs. State & Ors.
their no objections to the petition. No one has appeared on behalf of general public despite publication of citation in newspaper raising any objections qua the Will in question.
22. Having regard to the testimony of PW1 and PW2 and the fact that the petitioner has been able to prove the signatures, there appears to be no impediment in grant of probate in respect of the Will Ex. PW1/5. The Court's conscience is also satisfied with testimonies of PW1 and PW2. There are no suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the Will Ex. PW1/5 which may lead to any contrary inference. Hence, the issue No.1 is decided in favour of the petitioner.
23. Issue No.2 Relief: In view of the discussion hereinabove, the petition is allowed. Perusal of the Will Ex. PW1/5 will show that the petitioner has been appointed as executor in the Will by the testator. Therefore, the petitioner is held entitled to the probate in line with the Will Ex. PW1/5 dated 09.07.1992, executed by Bawa Bhag Singh Bhalla (since deceased) S/o Late Bawa Devi Dass Bhalla in respect of the assets mentioned in Schedule Ex. PW1/6. The Probate be issued to the petitioner as per the prayer in the petition in respect of the assets mentioned in schedule Ex. PW1/6 on the prescribed form VI upon furnishing of the valuation of the assets and proper advolerum PC No. 6013/2016 CNR No. DLST010061082016 Page 19 of 20 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ02/South/Saket/01.02.2023 Mr. Surjit Singh Bhalla Vs. State & Ors.
Court Fee, administration bond and surety bond as per Section 291 of the Indian Succession Act. The formalities of granting of probate shall be completed by the petitioner/beneficiary within six months from the date of the judgment.
24. The petitioner, as per Section 317 of the Indian Succession Act, shall furnish full and true inventory of the above said assets and credits and exhibit the same in the Court within 6 months from the date of grant of probate in prescribed Form No. 178. The petitioner shall also file true account of the said assets and credits within 1 year in prescribed Form No.
179.
25. It is made clear that the granting of probate would not tantamount to any declaration of the title of the deceased to the assets in question.
26. The original Will shall remain part of judicial file, in terms of Section 294 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.
Digitally signedPronounced in the open Court DINESH by DINESH KUMAR KUMAR 14:38:31 on this 01st Day of February, 2023.
Date: 2023.02.02 +0530 (DINESH KUMAR) ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGE02 SOUTH, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI.
PC No. 6013/2016CNR No. DLST010061082016 Page 20 of 20 Dinesh Kumar/ADJ02/South/Saket/01.02.2023