Delhi District Court
Kunti Rani Verma vs State Of Nct Of Delhi Ors on 15 January, 2026
DLST010004932013
IN THE COURT OF SH. ARUL VARMA, DISTRICT
JUDGE-02, SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS, NEW
DELHI
PC No. 5930/16
Filing No. 27195/2013
CNR No. DLST01-000493-2013
In the matter of
Smt. Kunti Rani Verma
W/o Late Sh. Sartaj Kishore Varma,
R/o B-6/28/2, DDA Flats,
Safdarjung Enclave,
New Delhi-110029. ......Petitioner
VERSUS
1. State of NCT of Delhi
Through Secretary
2. Sh. Rakesh Kishore @ Rakesh Saxena
S/o Late Sh. Sartaj Kishore Varma,
R/O K-15, Green Park, New Delhi.
3. Sh. Sanjay Kishore, Digitally signed
Arul byDate:Arul Varma
Varma 2026.01.15
15:53:15 +0530
PC No. 5930/16
Kunti Rani Verma vs. State of NCT Ors. Page 1 of 22
S/o Late Sh. Sartaj Kishore Varma,
R/o B-6/28/2, DDA Flats,
Safdarjung Enclave,
New Delhi-110029.
4. Smt. Asha Saxena,
D/o Late Sh. Sartaj Kishore Varma,
R/o B-343, New Friends Colony,
New Delhi.
5. Sh. D.K. Saxena,
S/o Late Sh. Sartaj Kishore Varma,
R/o 61, New Officers Colony,
(Uniti) Kheri Road,
Khokar, Patiala
Punjab.
6. Smt. Anjana Saxena,
W/o Sh. Anil Saxena,
D/o Late Sh. Sartaj Kishore Varma,
R/o Via Aldo, Capitini-5,
Granarolo, Dell E Milia,
(B.O.) 4005 Italy. ......Respondents
Date of Institution : 04.10.2013
Date of reserving the judgment : 15.01.2026 (F/N)
Date of pronouncement : 15.01.2026 (A/N)
Decision : Allowed
PETITION UNDER SECTION 276 OF THE INDIAN
SUCCESSION ACT, 1925 FOR GRANT OF PROBATE IN
Arul Digitally signed
by Arul Varma
Date: 2026.01.15
PC No. 5930/16 Varma 15:53:20 +0530
Kunti Rani Verma vs. State of NCT Ors. Page 2 of 22
RESPECT OF THE LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT DATED
31.08.1991 EXECUTED BY LATE SARTAJ KISHORE
VERMA, S/O DR. BHAGWAN SAHAI
JUDGMENT
1. The present petition was filed under Section 276 of Indian Succession Act, 1925 for grant of probate in respect of the last Will and testament dated 31.08.1991 executed by Late Sartaj Kishore Verma.
2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE PETITION 2.1. It is stated that the petitioner was the wife of late Shri Sartaj Kishore Verma, who resided permanently at R/o B-6/28/2, DDA Flats, Safdarjung enclave, New Delhi- 110029, with the petitioner and respondent no. 3 son. That the respondents No. 2 to 6 are the successors-in-interest of Late Sh. Sartaj Kishore Verma who was a Hindu, governed by the Hindu Succession Act.
2.2. It is stated that the said Late Sh. Sartaj Kishore Verma had made a will annexed hereto dated 31.08.1991 as his last will and testament in respect of his property described in the schedule attached with the petition. 2.3. It is stated that the said Late Sh. Sartaj Kishore Verma died on 29.07.2003 at Safdarjung Hospital, New Delhi.
2.4. It is stated that the property detailed in the schedule Arul Digitally signed by Arul Varma Varma Date: 2026.01.15 15:53:25 +0530 PC No. 5930/16 Kunti Rani Verma vs. State of NCT Ors. Page 3 of 22 attached with the petition in respect of Late Sh. Sartaj Kishore Verma has made a Will on the 31.08.1991 is situated within the jurisdiction of this Court. 2.5. It is stated that the said Late Sh. Sartaj Kishore Verma as per his last Will dated 31.08.1991 as referred to above has appointed the petitioner as the sole executor and beneficiary of the properties as described in this will. 2.6. It is stated that the market value of the property mentioned in the Schedule attached with the petition, the Will been left by the deceased Late Sh. Sartaj Kishore Verma and come in the hands of the petitioner works out to be Rs. 80,00,000/- and the petitioner undertakes to affix the requisite court fees at the time of grant of probate with respect to the property.
2.7. It is stated that the respondent No. 2 herein earlier filed a petition under Section 270/272 of the Indian Succession Act in the Court of Ms. Neelam Singh, ADJ- 02, District South for grant of Letter of Administration vide PC No. 59/13 based on a forged and fake will dated 21.11.1996 purported to be executed by Late Sartaj Kishore Verma and is pending adjudication before the Court.
2.8. It is stated that the property is situated within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court and this Court has Digitally signed by Arul Arul Varma Date:
Varma 2026.01.15
15:53:29
+0530
PC No. 5930/16
Kunti Rani Verma vs. State of NCT Ors. Page 4 of 22
requisite jurisdiction to entertain the present petition. 2.9. It is further submitted that there is no legal impediment for grant of probate to the petitioner. Hence, this petition has been filed with the following prayers:-
"Probate be granted in favour of petitioner on the basis of Will executed on 31.08.1991 of the deceased Late Sh. Sartaj Kishore Verma; and Pass any such other/ further order deem fit and proper and in the interest of justice."
3. Vide order dated 05.12.2023, the citation was directed to be published as per law. A perusal of record also reveals that vide order dated 03.05.2014, it has been recorded that respondent no. 4/ Smt. Asha Saxena has been served. Further, order dated 28.07.2014 records that respondent no. 5 & 6 have been served / are aware of the present proceedings before this Court. Relevant extract of order dated 28.07.2014 is reproduced herein below:
"None for respondent no.5 despite service by registered post, as per AD card received under acknowledgment. The citation was also sent through the Office of Ld. District & Sessions Judge, Patiala but the ordinary process has not been received back; otherwise service by post is sufficient service.
None for petitioner no.6, the petitioner has placed on record translated version of report received earlier on the process of respondent no.6, as an assistance to Court, the report is of refusal by respondent no. 6, consequently respondent no.6 is aware of the process as well as of the pending of the petition."
4. On 13.03.2014, Ld. counsel for respondent no. 2 had Digitally signed Arul byDate:Arul Varma Varma 2026.01.15 15:53:34 +0530 PC No. 5930/16 Kunti Rani Verma vs. State of NCT Ors. Page 5 of 22 appeared. Objections on behalf of respondent no. 2 were filed on 03.05.2014. The present matter and connected matters were settled between the petitioner and respondent no. 2 vide order dated 09.05.2024 passed by Mediation Centre, Saket Courts, New Delhi. Valuation report on behalf of SDM concerned was not filed.
FRAMING OF ISSUES
5. Vide order dated 15.09.2014, following issues had been framed:
1A. Whether Will dt.31.08.1991 is the last testament of Sh.Sartaj Kishore Verma? OPP.
1B. Whether Sh.Sartaj Kishore Verma had executed his last testament by way of Will dt.21.11.1996? OPR2.
2. Whether the Will dt. 31.08.1991 was executed and signed by Sh.Sartaj Kishore Verma and it is a valid Will? OPP.
3. Whether the Will dt. 31.08.1991 is a forged, sham, false and fake Will of Sartaj Kishore Verma? OPR2.
4. Whether the petitioner is entitled for Letter of Administration in respect of Will dt. 31.08.1991? OPP.
6. Relief.
6. An application u/o XXVI rule 2 & 4A read with section 151 CPC was filed on 05.11.2016 for appointment of Local Commissioner to examine the petitioner Smt. Kunt Rani Verma. Vide order of even date, the application was allowed by Ld. Predecessor of this court. Vide order dated 18.10.2018 passed Digitally signed Arul by Arul Varma Date:
Varma 2026.01.15 15:53:39 +0530 PC No. 5930/16 Kunti Rani Verma vs. State of NCT Ors. Page 6 of 22 by Ld. Predecessor of this Court, petitioner evidence was closed. Vide order dated 12.11.2018 passed by Ld. Predecessor of this Court, right of petitioner to lead evidence was reopened.
7. During the proceedings, the petitioner expired. An application u/o I rule 10 CPC for transposing of petitioner was filed by respondent no. 3 on 18.11.2019. Vide order dated 23.11.2020 passed by Ld. Predecessor of this Court the said application was allowed. Relevant extract of the said order are reproduced herein below:
"Further considering all the pros and cons, the court is of the opinion that the by virtue of order XXII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, all the legal heirs had to come on record. However, considering the fact that other legal heirs are also arrayed as respondents in the present proceedings, and the fact the Will left by Smt. Kunti Rani Verma, is in favour of the applicant/ respondent No.3, copy of which already placed on record along with application under consideration, bequeaths the properties vested with Smt. Kunti Rani Verma in favour of applicant/respondent No.3, it would be appropriate in the present circumstances that he is allowed to be transposed as petitioner. The transposition is accordingly allowed. It is clarified that his transposition would not reflect upon the correctness of the Will dated 12.08.2004 which is claimed to have been left by Smt. Kunti Rani Verma and his transposition would be without prejudice to the rights of the other legal heirs, with regard to the said Will, as well. Accordingly, the application under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is disposed off as allowed."
EVIDENCE LED BY THE PETITIONER
8. Petitioner/ Sanjay Kishore in order to prove his case examined himself as PW-1. He tendered his evidence by way of affidavit which is Ex. PW-1/A. He has reiterated the facts Digitally signed Arul byDate:Arul Varma PC No. 5930/16 Varma 2026.01.15 15:53:44 +0530 Kunti Rani Verma vs. State of NCT Ors. Page 7 of 22 stated in the petition. He has relied upon the following documents:
(a) Petition filed before this Court by mother of deponent Late Ms. Kunti Rani Verma, bearing he signature at point A and B: Ex.PW1/1.
(b) Copy of Voter Identity Card of mother of deponent Late Ms. Kunti Rani Verma: Ex.PW1/2
(c) Copy of Aadhar Card of deponent: Ex.PW1/3 (OSR).
(d) Original death certificate of mother of deponent Late Ms. Kunti Rani Verma: Ex.PW1/4.
(e) Original Will dated 31.08.1991 of father of deponent Late Sartaj Kishore Varma, bearing his signature at point A, Ex.PW1/5.
(f) Death certificate of mother of deponent Late Ms. Kunti Rani Verma: Ex.PW1/6.
(g) Original Will of mother of deponent Late Ms. Kunti Rani Verma dated 12.08.2004: Ex.PW1/7.
9. This witness was cross-examined on 07.03.2022 by Sh. Ramakant Gupta, Ld. Court for respondent no. 2, and he denied the suggestion that Will executed by his mother Ex. PW-1/7 is invalid.
10. Vide order dated 19.01.2023, it was recorded that respondent no. 2 has expired on 21.12.2022. An application u/o XXII rule 4 CPC for substitution of LRs of respondent no. 2 was filed on 08.07.2023 and same was allowed by Ld. Predecessor of this Court.
11. Petitioner also examined PW-2 Sh. Vikram Kalra as one of the attesting witness of Will of Late Smt. Kunti Rani Verma. He deposed that he is the attesting witness of Will dated Arul Digitally signed by Arul Varma PC No. 5930/16 Date: 2026.01.15 Kunti Rani Verma vs. State of NCT Ors. Varma 15:53:48 +0530 Page 8 of 22 12.08.2004 Ex. PW1/7. He further deposed that the deceased Kunti Rani Verma had signed the Will in his presence and he had signed as a attesting witness in her presence. He identified the signatures of Late Kunti Rani Verma at point A1 and A2. He identified his signatures at point B. He further deposed that he also accompanied the testator for registration of Ex. PW1/7 which is duly registered with the Office of Sub Registrar-V, Delhi. He deposed that Late Kunti Rani Verma was of sound mind and capable of executing the Will Ex. PW1/7. Despite opportunity granted to counsel for respondent no. 2, PW-2 was not cross-examined.
12. An application u/o XXVI rule 2 & 4A read with section 151 CPC for appointment of local commissioner for examination of PW-3 i.e. attesting witness was filed on 15.05.2024 and the same was allowed by Ld. Predecessor of this Court. As far as Will dated 31.08.1991 is concerned, for which Letters of Administration is sought, the same was proved by the petitioner by examining PW-3/ Sh. Shatrughna Dubey. PW-3 Sh. Shatrughna Dubey @ S Dubey was also examined before Ld. Local Commissioner. He deposed that he is witness in the present case. He deposed that he was residing at B6/27/1 Safdarjung Enclave, New Delhi where Late Sartaj Kishore Verma was his neighbor. He further deposed that Late Sartaj Kishore Verma met him and expressed his desire to execute a Digitally signed Arul by Arul Varma Date:
Varma 2026.01.15
15:53:53
+0530
PC No. 5930/16
Kunti Rani Verma vs. State of NCT Ors. Page 9 of 22
Will to ensure that the only property bought by him is duly bequeathed to his wife Smt. Kunti Rani Verma and to avoid any misunderstanding and litigation among his children. He deposed that he was requested by Late Sartaj Kishore Verma on 31.08.1991 to be a witness to the execution of the Will and he agreed to the same. He further deposed that he was present at the time of the signing of the Will dated 31.08.1991 by Late Sartaj Kishore Verma and he had seen Late Sartaj Kishore Verma signing the Will in his presence and he also signed on the Will as a Witness No. 1 in the presence of Late Sartaj Kishore Verma. He deposed that the Will dated 31.08.1991 already Ex PW1/5 and the testator namely Sartaj Kishore Verma had signed in his presence and his signature is already marked at point 'A' and he identified his signatures on the Will dated 31.08.1991 at Point 'B. He further deposed that Late Sartaj Kishore Verma was in sound health and mind when the Will dated 31.08.1991 was executed and to my knowledge there was no coercion or compulsion on him to execute the Will dated 31.08.1991.
13. The petitioner did not examine any other witness. Hence, PE was closed vide order dated 22.08.2024 and matter was listed for RE.
14. On 10.10.2025, an application u/o VI rule 17 CPC read with section 151 CPC for amendment of petition was filed Digitally signed Arul by Arul Varma Date:
Varma 2026.01.15
15:54:00
+0530
PC No. 5930/16
Kunti Rani Verma vs. State of NCT Ors. Page 10 of 22
stating that petitioner is merely beneficiary of the Will and not the executor of the Will and accordingly, the petitioner is entitled for relief of letters of administration. The application was allowed vide the same order passed by Ld. Predecessor of this Court.
ISSUE WISE ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS THERETO
15. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the petitioner. 1A. Whether Will dt.31.08.1991 is the last testament of Sh.Sartaj Kishore Verma? OPP.
1B. Whether Sh.Sartaj Kishore Verma had executed his last testament by way of Will dt.21.11.1996? OPR2.
2. Whether the Will dt. 31.08.1991 was executed and signed by Sh.Sartaj Kishore Verma and it is a valid Will? OPP.
16. Issue no. 1A, 1B & 2 are taken together as they are interconnected.
17. Before discussing the matter on merits, it would be 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 Arul Digitally signed by Arul Varma Date: 2026.01.15 PC No. 5930/16 Varma 15:54:04 +0530 Kunti Rani Verma vs. State of NCT Ors. Page 11 of 22 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."
18. 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 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 Digitally signed Arul byDate:Arul Varma Varma 2026.01.15 15:54:12 +0530 PC No. 5930/16 Kunti Rani Verma vs. State of NCT Ors. Page 12 of 22 purport or import.
19. 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 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."
20. 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 Arul Digitally signed by Arul Varma Date: 2026.01.15 PC No. 5930/16 Varma 15:54:24 +0530 Kunti Rani Verma vs. State of NCT Ors. Page 13 of 22 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 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 Digitally signed Arul by Arul Varma Date: Varma 2026.01.15 15:54:29 +0530 PC No. 5930/16 Kunti Rani Verma vs. State of NCT Ors. Page 14 of 22 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.
21. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Meena Pradhan vs. Kamla Pradhan in Civil appeal no. 3351/2014 on 21.09.2023 has held as under:
"9. A Will is an instrument of testamentary disposition of property. It is a legally acknowledged mode of bequeathing a testator's property during his lifetime to be acted upon on his/her death and carries with it an element of sanctity. It speaks from the death of the testator. Since the testator/testatrix, at the time of testing the document for its validity, would not be available for deposing as to the circumstances in which the Will came to be executed, stringent requisites for the proof thereof have been statutorily enjoined to rule out the possibility of any manipulation.
10. Relying on H. Venkatachala Iyengar v. B.N. Thimmajamma, 1959 Supp (1) SCR 426 (3 Judge Bench), Bhagwan Kaur v. Kartar Kaur, (1994) 5 SCC 135 (3 Judge Bench), Janki Narayan Bhoir v. Narayan Namdeo Kadam, (2003) 2 SCC 91(2Judge Bench) Yumnam Ongbi Tampha Ibema Devi v. Yumnam Joykumar Singh, (2009) 4 SCC 780 (3 Judge Bench) and Shivakumar v. Sharanabasappa, (2021) 11 SCC 277 (3 Judge Bench), we can deduce/infer the following principles required for proving the validity and execution of the Will:
i. The court has to consider two aspects: firstly, that the Will is executed by the testator, and secondly, that it was the last Will executed by him;
ii. It is not required to be proved with mathematical accuracy, Arul Digitally signed by Arul Varma PC No. 5930/16 Date: 2026.01.15 Kunti Rani Verma vs. State of NCT Ors. Varma Page 15 of 22 15:54:33 +0530 but the test of satisfaction of the prudent mind has to be applied.
iii. A Will is required to fulfill all the formalities required under Section 63 of the Succession Act, that is to say:
(a) The testator shall sign or affix his mark to the Will or it shall be signed by some other person in his presence and by his direction and the said signature or affixation shall show that it was intended to give effect to the writing as a Will;
(b) It is mandatory to get it attested by two or more witnesses, though no particular form of attestation is necessary;
(c) Each of the attesting witnesses must have 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 such signatures;
(d) Each of the attesting witnesses shall sign the Will in the presence of the testator, however, the presence of all witnesses at the same time is not required;
iv. For the purpose of proving the execution of the Will, at least one of the attesting witnesses, who is alive, subject to the process of court, and capable of giving evidence, shall be examined;
v. The attesting witness should speak not only about the testator's signatures but also that each of the witnesses had signed the will in the presence of the testator; vi. If one attesting witness can prove the execution of the Will, the examination of other attesting witnesses can be dispensed with;
vii. Where one attesting witness examined to prove the Will fails to prove its due execution, then the other available attesting witness has to be called to supplement his evidence; viii. Whenever there exists any suspicion as to the execution of the Will, it is the responsibility of the propounder to remove all legitimate suspicions before it can be accepted as the testator's last Will. In such cases, the initial onus on the propounder becomes heavier. ix. The test of judicial conscience has been evolved for dealing with those cases where the execution of the Will is surrounded by suspicious circumstances. It requires to consider factors such as awareness of the testator as to the content as well as the Digitally signed Arul byDate:Arul Varma PC No. 5930/16 Varma 2026.01.15 15:54:41 +0530 Kunti Rani Verma vs. State of NCT Ors. Page 16 of 22 consequences, nature and effect of the dispositions in the Will; sound, certain and disposing state of mind and memory of the testator at the time of execution; testator executed the Will while acting on his own free Will;
x. One who alleges fraud, fabrication, undue influence etcetera has to prove the same. However, even in the absence of such allegations, if there are circumstances giving rise to doubt, then it becomes the duty of the propounder to dispel such suspicious circumstances by giving a cogent and convincing explanation.
xi. Suspicious circumstances must be 'real, germane and valid' and not merely 'the fantasy of the doubting mind' 1. Whether a particular feature would qualify as 'suspicious' would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. Any circumstance raising suspicion legitimate in nature would qualify as a suspicious circumstance for example, 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, etc.
11. In short, apart from statutory compliance, broadly it has to be proved that (a) the testator signed the Will out of his own free Will, (b) at the time of execution he had a sound state of mind, (c) he was aware of the nature and effect thereof and (d) the Will was not executed under any suspicious circumstances."
22. It is the duty of the propounder of the Will to prove the legality and validity of the Will. In order to prove the Will dated 31.08.1991 and Will dated 12.08.2004, the petitioner examined total three witnesses. Petitioner/ Sanjay Kishore examined himself as PW1. He examined Sh. Vikram Kalra as PW2 being one of the attesting witness of the Will of Late Smt. Kunti Rani Verma. During his evidence,the original Will of Late Smt. Kunti Rani Verma was exhibited as Ex.PW-1/7, which was Digitally signed Arul by Arul Varma Date:
PC No. 5930/16Varma 2026.01.15 15:54:57 +0530 Kunti Rani Verma vs. State of NCT Ors. Page 17 of 22 exhibited during the evidence of PW-1. He also examined Sh. Shatrughna Dubey as PW3 being one of the attesting witness of the Will of Late Sh. Sartaj Kishore Verma. During his evidence, the original Will dated 31.08.1991 i.e. Will in question of Late Sh. Sartaj Kishore Verma was exhibited as Ex. PW-1/5, which was exhibited during the evidence of PW-1.
23. Further, PW-2 proved his signatures and the signatures of the testatrix on Will dated 12.08.2004 Ex. PW-1/7. His testimony also shows that the testator was in good physical health and sound disposing state of mind at the time of execution of the Will dated 12.08.2004 Ex. PW-1/7.
24. PW-3 proved his signatures and the signatures of the testator on Will dated 31.08.1991 Ex. PW-1/5. His testimony also shows that the testator was in good physical health and sound disposing state of mind at the time of execution of the Will dated 31.08.1991 Ex. PW-1/5. As held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Shashi Kumar Banerjee & Ors vs Subodh Kumar Banerjee Since deceased through LRs.:AIR 1964 SC 529, the mode of proving a Will does not differ from that of proving any other document except as to the special requirement of attestation prescribed in a case of a Will under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act. The role of the Court in the present petition is to examine whether the instrument propounded as the last Will of the testator is the last Will or not Digitally signed Arul by Arul Varma Date: Varma 2026.01.15 15:55:08 +0530 PC No. 5930/16 Kunti Rani Verma vs. State of NCT Ors. Page 18 of 22 of the testator and whether the same has been executed with free sound disposing mind.
25. The petitioner is one of the beneficiaries of the Will dated 31.08.1991. The petitioner and respondents are the class-I legal heirs of Late Sh. Sartaj Kishore Verma and Late Smt. Kunti Rani Verma. Despite cross-examination of PW-1, the testimonies of the witnesses examined by the petitioner have remained unrebutted. There is no reason to doubt the testimonies of PW-1 to PW-3. Nothing has come on record which can show that the Wills were executed under suspicious circumstances or that the Wills were not signed in the presence of the attesting witnesses. Further, there is nothing on record to show that the testators were not having free sound disposing mind at the time of execution of the Wills. The petitioner has also proved the death certificate of the testator Late Sh. Sartaj Kumar Verma, on record which is Ex. PW-1/4 and death certificate of the testatrix Late Smt. Kunti Rani Verma, on record which is Ex. PW-1/6. The Will dated 31.08.1991 Ex.
PW-1/5 and Will dated 12.08.2004 Ex. PW-1/7 thus stands proved in accordance with law. In view of the same, I held that the petitioner has proved to the satisfaction of the Court that the Will dated 31.08.1991 Ex. PW-1/5 of Late Sh. Sartaj Kishore Verma and Will dated 12.08.2004 Ex. PW-1/7 of Late Smt. Kunti Rani Verma is their last and final Will. It also stands Digitally signed Arul by Arul Varma Date: 2026.01.15 PC No. 5930/16 Varma 15:55:13 +0530 Kunti Rani Verma vs. State of NCT Ors. Page 19 of 22 proved that the Will dated 31.08.1991 Ex. PW-1/5 of Late Sh. Sartaj Kishore Verma and Will dated 12.08.2004 Ex. PW-1/7 of Late Smt. Kunti Rani Verma has been duly executed as per law by the testator Sh. Sartaj Kishore Verma and testatrix Smt. Kunti Rani Verma voluntarily and in sound mind. The Court's conscience is also satisfied with testimonies of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3. There are no suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the Will dated 31.08.1991 Ex. PW-1/5 and Will dated 12.08.2004 Ex. PW-1/7 which may lead to any contrary inference. The issue no.1A, 1B and 2 are accordingly decided in favour of the petitioner.
Issue no. 3 - Whether the Will dt. 31.08.1991 is a forged, sham, false and fake Will of Sartaj Kishore Verma? OPR2.
26. In view of the aforesaid findings on issues no. 1A, 1B & 2, it is clear that the Will dated 31.08.1991 is a genuine Will. Therefore, issue no. 3 is decided against the respondent.
Issue no. 4 - Whether the petitioner is entitled for Letter of Administration in respect of Will dt. 31.08.1991? OPP.
27. Having regard to the testimonies of PW-1 to PW-3 and the fact that the petitioner has been able to prove the signatures, there appears to be no impediment in grant of letters of Arul Digitally signed by Arul Varma PC No. 5930/16 Varma Date: 2026.01.15 15:55:18 +0530 Kunti Rani Verma vs. State of NCT Ors. Page 20 of 22 administration in respect of the Will dated 31.08.1991 Ex. PW- 1/5. The Court's conscience is also satisfied with testimonies of PW-1 to PW-3. There are no suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the Will dated 31.08.1991 Ex. PW-1/5 and Will dated 12.08.2004 Ex. PW-1/7, which may lead to any contrary inference. As per the averment of the petitioner, at the time of death of the testator and testatrix, the testator and testatrix had left behind immovable property, as mentioned in the Will and under the terms of the Will the same was to be devolved upon the petitioner and petitioner is the legal heirs of Late Sh. Sartaj Kishore Verma and Late Smt. Kunti Rani Verma. Hence, the issue No.4 is decided in favour of the petitioner.
Issue no. 6 Relief.
28. In view of the discussion hereinabove, the petition is allowed. The petitioner is held entitled to grant of letter of administration in line with the Will dated 31.08.1991 Ex. PW- 1/5, executed by Sartaj Kishore Verma. The Letters of Administration be issued to the petitioner to administer the estate left behind by Sartaj Kishore Verma as per Schedule-B annexed with the petition, on the prescribed form VII upon furnishing of the proper Court Fee, administration bond and surety bond by the petitioner. The formalities of issuance of letters of administration shall be completed by the petitioner/beneficiary within six months from the date of the Arul Digitally signed by Arul Varma Varma Date: 2026.01.15 15:55:22 +0530 PC No. 5930/16 Kunti Rani Verma vs. State of NCT Ors. Page 21 of 22 judgment as per Section 290 & 291 of Indian Succession Act.
29. The petitioner, as per Section 317 of the Indian Succession Act, shall furnish full and true inventory of the properties and credits mentioned in the Will and exhibit the same in the Court within 6 months from the date of grant of letters of administration in prescribed Form No. 178. The petitioner shall also file true account of the properties and credits within 1 year in prescribed Form No. 179.
30. It is made clear that the granting of letters of administration would not tantamount to any declaration of the title of the deceased to the estate in question. It is further clarified that till the petitioner does not furnish the requisite Court Fee, Administration Bond and Surety Bond and does not obtain the letters of ministration, duly signed and sealed by the Court as required under Section 290 of the Indian Succession Act, this judgment shall not be read as proof of the same.
31. Original Wills Ex. PW-1/5 and Ex. PW-1/7 shall remain part of judicial file, in terms of Section 294 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.
Digitally signedPronounced in the open Court on this 15th day of January, 2026.
Arul by Arul Varma
Date:
2026.01.15
Varma 15:55:27
+0530
(ARUL VARMA)
DISTRICT JUDGE-02
SOUTH, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI.
PC No. 5930/16
Kunti Rani Verma vs. State of NCT Ors. Page 22 of 22