Delhi District Court
Sh. Pintu vs Sh. Jagmohan on 22 February, 2020
IN THE COURT OF MS. SAVITRI : ADDL. DISTT. JUDGE-02,
WEST DISTRICT : TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI.
PC No. 11/20 (Old Misc. DJ No. 58206/16)
Sh. Pintu,
S/o Late Sh. Naveen Kumar,
Grand daughter of Late Sh. Karan Singh.
........Petitioner
Versus
1. Sh. Jagmohan,
S/o Late Sh. Karan Singh,
R/o 19/10/1, West Moti Bagh,
Sarai Rohilla, Delhi.
2. Smt. Maya,
W/o Late Sh. Naveen Kumar,
Daughter-in-law of Late Sh. Karan Singh.
3. Ms. Arti,
D/o Late Sh. Naveen Kumar,
Grand daughter of Late Sh. Karan Singh.
4. Ms. Yogita,
D/o Late Sh. Naveen Kumar,
Grand daughter of Late Sh. Karan Singh.
5. Smt. Sushma,
W/o Sh. Roshan Lal,
Grand daughter of Late Sh. Karan Singh.
6. Sh. Ved Prakash,
S/o Sh. Roshan Lal,
Grand son of Late Sh. Karan Singh.
7. Ms. Hema,
D/o Sh. Roshan Lal,
Grand daughter of Late Sh. Karan Singh.
PC No. 10/2020 Sh. Pintu Vs. Sh. Jagmohan & ors. Page 1 of 19
8. Ms. Rakhi,
D/o Sh. Roshan Lal,
Grand daughter of Late Sh. Karan Singh.
9. Ms. Mona,
D/o Sh. Roshan Lal,
Grand daughter of Late Sh. Karan Singh.
All above residents of :-
19/10/1, West Moti Bagh,
Sarai Rohilla, Delhi.
10. Ms. Neeta,
D/o Late Sh. Rajender Kumar,
Grand daughter of Late Sh. Karan Singh,
R/o T-12/5, Old Nangal,
Delhi Cantt., New Delhi.
........Objectors/Respondents
PETITION U/S 263 OF INDIAN SUCCESSION ACT FOR
REVOCATION/CANCELATION/ANNULMENT OF PROBATE
Date of institution of the case : 06.02.2014
Date of reserving the judgment : 18.02.2020
Date of pronouncement of Judgment : 22.02.2020
JUDGMENT
1. By way of present petition, the petitioner(s) seek revocation of probate granted in favour of non-applicant/respondent Sh. Jagmohan vide judgment dated 26.10.2006 in respect of will dated 20.05.1994. This will was allegedly executed by deceased late Sh. Karan Singh in favour of Sh. Jagmohan with respect to all his movable assets i.e. FDR No. D405095 of Allahabad Bank, Kishan Ganj Branch, Delhi, of account No. 405512, dated 21.03.2002 of Rs. 3 Lakhs, maturity date is Rs. 31.03.2005; and immovable property i.e. residential house bearing No. 19/10/1, West Moti Bagh, Sarai Rohilla, Delhi, PC No. 10/2020 Sh. Pintu Vs. Sh. Jagmohan & ors. Page 2 of 19 (hereinafter referred to as suit property). It is admitted position that Sh. Jagmohan is son of deceased and the deceased had expired on 09.08.2003.
2. By way of the present will, the deceased had bequeathed all his assets only in favour of Sh. Jagmohan, excluding all other legal heirs including even his wife.
3. The petitioners seeking revocation are some of the other legal heirs. In PC No. 11/20 (M.No. 158206/16 [Old No. M-17/14]), instituted on 12.02.2014 the petitioners are Smt. Sushma, Sh. Ved Prakash (widow and son of late Sh. Roshan Lal, brother of Sh. Jagmohan and son of deceased Sh. Karan Singh). It is important to take note of the fact that Sh. Roshan Lal was alive when the judgment under challenge was passed.
The other revocation petition, bearing PC No. 10/20 (instituted on 30.03.2016) has been filed by Sh. Pintu, son of Late Sh. Naveen, pre-deceased son of deceased Sh. Karan Singh, the testator.
4. It is admitted position that as on date all the parties, herein, i.e. the revocation petitioners as well as the non-applicant are residing in the suit property itself.
5. The grant of probate in favour of Sh. Jagmohan was challenged on many grounds by filing the present petition. He replied to the same and justified the grant of probate in his favour on several counts and also took a defence that the revocation petition is barred by limitation. Thereafter, the revocation PC No. 10/2020 Sh. Pintu Vs. Sh. Jagmohan & ors. Page 3 of 19 petitioners filed their rejoinder, wherein, the contents of the revocation petition were affirmed and those of the reply of Sh. Jagmohan were denied.
6. After the pleadings were completed, my Ld. Predecessor Judge had framed the following issues on dated 09.07.2016 :-
ISSUES
1) Whether the present application/petition for revocation is barred by Limitation? OPR
2) Whether the applicant/petitioner is entitled for revocation of letter of administration granted in favour of Sh. Jag Mohan vide judgment dated 26.10.2016? OPP
3) Relief REVOCATION PETITIONERS' EVIDENCE
7. Common evidence was led in both the matters. It is important to note that previously both the revocation petitions were tried as one matter and same have been registered separately vide order dated 18.02.2020. Therefore, I will discuss the evidence of both the matters together and also record my findings accordingly for both the matters.
8. In order to prove her case, objector Smt. Sushma has examined herself as AW-1 on affidavit Ex AW-1/A, which is on the lines that Sh. Jagmohan had not impleaded the following legal heirs of deceased, who were necessary parties in the PC No. 10/2020 Sh. Pintu Vs. Sh. Jagmohan & ors. Page 4 of 19 probate petition:-
1. Neeta D/o Late Rajender Kumar (pre-deceased son of deceased Sh. Karan Singh);
2A. Sh. Pintu;
2B Ms. Arti;
2C Ms. Yogita,
All the above 2A to 2C are children of late Sh.
Naveen, another pre-deceased son of deceased.
9. Further, that he had manipulated the service of process in the probate case and succeeded in getting proceeded Sh. Roshan Lal ex-parte. He obtained the probate vide uncontested judgment dated 26.10.2006, by misleading the court and preventing Sh. Roshan Lal from contesting the matter. In fact, Sh. Roshan Lal was never served of the process issued from court but since service report was manipulated by Sh. Jagmohan, he was shown as having been served and was proceeded ex-parte in the probate case.
10. It is further mentioned in the evidence affidavit that Sh.
Jagmohan never disclosed about the will or probate to anyone even after the same was granted in his favour. She relied upon certified copies of the following documents in support of her case :-
i. Probate petition filed by Sh. Jagmohan alongwith schedules and affidavit Ex AW-1/1 (Colly). Perusal of the appended schedule-C, containing the list of legal heirs shows that names of Sh. Pintu, Ms. Arti, Ms. Yogita and Ms. Neeta are not mentioned, therein.PC No. 10/2020 Sh. Pintu Vs. Sh. Jagmohan & ors. Page 5 of 19
ii. Evidence affidavit of Sh. Jagmohan in the probate case Ex AW-1/2;
iii. Will in question dated 20.05.1994 Ex AW-1/3; iv. Judgment and order dated 26.10.2006 in probate case Ex AW-1/4(Colly);
v. Memo of parties in the eviction petition no. E-110/2006.
The perusal of the same reflects that this eviction petition is filed by Sh. Jagmohan and some other LRs of deceased Sh. Karan Singh against some tenants occupying part of suit property. The document is Ex AW- 1/5.
vi. An application u/o XXII Rule 4 CPC alongwith affidavit, filed by Sh. Jagmohan before Ld. ARC in the above mentioned eviction petition. The occasion to file this application arose after Sh. Roshan Lal (petitioner no-2 in the eviction proceedings) died. It is mentioned in this application of Sh. Jagmohan that late Sh. Roshan Lal had left his share of suit property in his favour by way of an oral family partition. So, right to sue did not survive to his legal heirs. There is no mention of either the will or probate granted in favour of Sh. Jagmohan Singh in this application.
The application and affidavit are Ex AW-1/6 (Colly); vii. Order passed by Ld. ARC on the said application, whereby, the name of Sh. Roshan Lal was deleted from array of parties as Sh. Jagmohan was already petitioner no-1. The order further reflects disposal of another application u/o XXII Rule 4 CPC, filed after death of Smt. Premwati, widow of deceased Sh. Karan Singh. Since, PC No. 10/2020 Sh. Pintu Vs. Sh. Jagmohan & ors. Page 6 of 19 her LRs were already on record, her name was deleted. This order is dated 18.03.2010 and is Ex AW-1/7; viii. Judgment and order dated 28.01.2011, passed in the above referred eviction petition Ex AW-1/8 (Colly). Perusal of the same reflects that Neeta daughter of late Sh. Rajender Kumar was a petitioner in the said proceedings.
ix. Evidence affidavit of Sh. Jagmohan in the eviction proceedings, mentioning that Ms. Neeta, a petitioner in the said proceedings is daughter of late Sh. Rajender Kumar (pre-deceased son of deceased). Yet again there is no mention of will/probate. The document is Ex AW- 1/9.
x. Cross-examination of Sh. Jagmohan in the eviction petition Ex AW-1/10;
xi. Vakalatnama of the petitioners in the said eviction proceedings Ex AW-1/11;
11. She also relied upon copy of civil suit no. 82/2012 for possession and damages, filed against her and other legal heirs by Sh. Jagmohan. This document was marked as Mark-A but the filing of the suit by Sh. Jagmohan, prior to the present revocation petition, is an admitted position between the parties.
12. During her cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for non-applicant Sh. Jagmohan, she denied the suggestion that the notice of probate case was issued by court and duly received by her late husband. She further deposed that her husband was illiterate and used to sign in Hindi. She denied the suggestion that will PC No. 10/2020 Sh. Pintu Vs. Sh. Jagmohan & ors. Page 7 of 19 favouring Sh. Jagmohan was legal and valid. She denied any knowledge about execution of will and Sh. Jagmohan having applied for probate, based on same. She denied the suggestion that she had no locus standi to challenge the probate or that all grounds in revocation petition were false and wrong.
13. AW-2 is Sh. Nand Lal, a neighbour of both the parties. He has led his evidence by way of affidavit Ex AW-2/A. The LR details of deceased are mentioned in his affidavit and it is also mentioned he was having good relations with both the sides. Further, it is mentioned that deceased never executed any will and never disclosed/discussed the alleged will to any family members or the persons living in locality or society. The witness got to know of the will only when Sh. Jagmohan filed civil suit for possession against the objectors. It is also mentioned in his evidence affidavit that the alleged will dated 20.05.1994 is a false and fabricated document and Sh. Jagmohan wants to grab the share of objectors in the garb of will.
14. During his cross-examination, the witness deposed that his evidence affidavit was prepared by advocate of the objectors, at his instructions. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely at the instance of objector Pintu as Pintu had worked with him, while deposing that Pintu had worked as electrician with him for about 4-5 years and left the job around two years before the testimony of witness on dated 20.03.2018. The evidence affidavit of witness was attested on 04.08.2016.
PC No. 10/2020 Sh. Pintu Vs. Sh. Jagmohan & ors. Page 8 of 1915. In response to further questioning, the witness deposed that he was on visiting terms with the deceased but deceased never told him about execution of any will. The deceased was not having good relations with Sh. Jagmohan and he never lived with him. Therefore, he could not have executed will in his favour. He denied the suggestion to the contrary and volunteered to say that deceased and Jagmohan never resided together. He denied the suggestion that Jagmohan did not want to grab the suit property. He denied the suggestion that the deceased had executed the will in question dated 20.05.1994 in favour of Jagmohan and deposed that it is a false and fabricated document.
16. Evidence affidavit of another neighbour Smt. Usha Sharma has also been placed on record by the objectors, but the same was not even tendered in evidence. Hence, it shall not be read in evidence.
17. Coming to objector/witness Pintu. Two evidence affidavit of his have been placed on record with minor variations. One is affidavit filed on 04.08.2016 and the other on 06.07.2018. Ld. Predecessor Judge had got exhibited only the earlier affidavit dated 04.08.2016. Therefore, I discard the evidence affidavit dated 06.07.2018 and same shall not be read in evidence.
18. The evidence affidavit of witness/objector Sh. Pintu is Ex A2W-
1/A. It is on the same lines as the affidavit of Smt. Sushma. The difference is that he has given details about how he acquired knowledge of the probate granted in favour of Sh.
PC No. 10/2020 Sh. Pintu Vs. Sh. Jagmohan & ors. Page 9 of 19Jagmohan. His case in his objection/revocation petition and affirmed in evidence affidavit is that he was not having any knowledge about the probate case as he was not impleaded as a party in the said case. It is admitted position that at the time of filing the probate petition by Sh. Jagmohan, Sh. Pintu was a minor, so also his two younger sisters. His further stand is that his widowed mother Smt. Maya had also never informed him about the same.
It is further mentioned in his evidence affidavit that he got to know of the probate for the first time after he was served of the summons issued by the court as LR of Smt. Premwati (widow of deceased Karan Singh and his paternal grand- mother). Smt. Sushma and her son Ved Prakash (legal heirs of deceased Sh. Roshan Lal) had already moved a petition for revocation of probate granted to Sh. Jagmohan, wherein, Smt. Premwati was arrayed as respondent. Consequent upon her death an application u/o XXII Rule 4 CPC was moved by Smt. Sushma and Sh. Ved Prakash, of which notice was issued by the court to the LRs of Smt. Premwati and he is one of them. This was how the witness came to be aware of probate granted in favour of Sh. Jagmohan. He relied upon copy of his birth certificate Ex A2W-1/1. Perusal of the document reflects that the date of birth of witness is 03.11.1996.
19. As per record, he has filed his objections/revocation petition on 30.03.2016 i.e. well within three years from attaining the majority and therefore within limitation period.
PC No. 10/2020 Sh. Pintu Vs. Sh. Jagmohan & ors. Page 10 of 1920. During his cross-examination, the witness deposed that he did not know when the summons of probate case was sent by the court. He denied the suggestion that all the summons of the probate case to the concerned party sent through process server were received by Ms. Neeta. The witness deposed that he was not told by his grand-father about execution of will in question. He volunteered to say that his grand-father did not bequeath the suit property by way of will in question. He denied the suggestion that Sh. Jagmohan had not fabricated the will in question.
RESPONDENT'S EVIDENCE
21. Non-applicant/respondent Sh. Jagmohan did not lead any evidence.
ISSUEWISE FINDINGS
22. I have gone the record of case file and have heard the arguments advanced by Ld. Counsel for parties and considered the case laws cited above and my issue-wise findings are as follows :-
ISSUE NO-1
1) Whether the present application/petition for revocation is barred by Limitation? OPR
23. The onus to prove this issue was upon the non-
applicant/respondent Sh. Jagmohan. He has not led any evidence to discharge his onus. Admittedly, objector Sh. Pintu was not a party to the probate proceedings and was also a minor at that time. His date of birth is 03.11.1996. As per record, he has filed his objections/revocation petition on PC No. 10/2020 Sh. Pintu Vs. Sh. Jagmohan & ors. Page 11 of 19 30.03.2016 i.e. well within three years from the date on which he attained the majority i.e. 03.11.2014 and therefore within limitation period. In the light of this, I hold that the revocation petition of Pintu is not barred by law of Limitation.
24. Now coming to the other objectors Smt. Sushma and Sh. Ved Prakash. They are the widow and son of late Sh. Roshan Lal, who was brother of Sh. Jagmohan and son of the deceased. Sh. Roshan Lal was alive at the time when the probate was granted. Their stand is that he was never served of the summons of probate case. His son and widow got knowledge of the probate only after Sh. Jagmohan filed a suit bearing no. 82/12 for possession and damages against them on the strength of probate and when summons of said case were served upon them. This happened somewhere around the year 2012-13. Thereafter, they filed the present petition on 12.12.2014 within period of limitation i.e. within three years from acquiring knowledge about probate, after inspection of probate case file.
25. In support of their contention, a further ground has been taken that after death of deceased Sh. Karan Singh, Sh. Jagmohan had filed an eviction petition bearing E. No. 176/2009 against some tenants occupying the suit property, wherein, apart from him, all the other legal heirs of deceased Sh. Karan Singh including Ms. Neeta was also impleaded as petitioners, which means that there was no such will as alleged by Sh. Jagmohan because had there been any genuine will, there was no requirement for him to implead any other person except himself PC No. 10/2020 Sh. Pintu Vs. Sh. Jagmohan & ors. Page 12 of 19 as eviction petitioner because the alleged will bequeathed entire suit property upon him alone and none else.
26. Yet another ground argued is that on 22.12.2009, after Sh.
Roshan Lal (husband of revocation petitioner Smt. Sushma and brother of Sh. Jagmohan) expired; an application u/o 22 Rule 4 CPC was moved by Sh. Jagmohan before Ld. ARC in the above referred eviction petition for impleading LRs. It was mentioned in this application by him that Sh. Roshan Lal had left his share in his favour (Jagmohan) by way of an oral family partition. Hence, the right to sue did not survive to the legal heirs of Sh. Roshan Lal.
Here again he did not make mention of any will etc. in his favour with respect to entire property. Hence, it is clear that there was no such will in existence and he was guilty of concealing material facts.
27. Further, Ld. Counsel has argued that since Sh. Jagmohan had been residing in the same house, he was in a position to manage and had in fact managed the service of process on the spouse/father/ mother of the petitioners and a false report of service was furnished before the court, whereas, in fact the concerned persons never received the process sent by the court. The court proceeded them ex-parte and this resulted in uncontested probate judgment in favour of Sh. Jagmohan. Therefore, the judgment was obtained by playing fraud upon the court as well as on the predecessors in interest of the petitioner(s).
PC No. 10/2020 Sh. Pintu Vs. Sh. Jagmohan & ors. Page 13 of 1928. All the relevant documents with respect to above contentions have been relied upon by the objectors and placed on record. Under these circumstances, I agree with the arguments advanced by Ld. Counsel for objectors/revocation petitioners that apart from the probability that the alleged will is not a genuine document, it is also proved from the conduct of Sh. Jagmohan that he had tried his level best to conceal the grant of probate with respect to alleged will in his favour. This conduct of his makes it highly probable that he had manipulated even the service of the probate petition as he wanted to keep the will and probate a secret for the reasons best known to him. I find sufficient force in the arguments advanced in this regard and hold that service of summons/notice of the probate petition to the other legal heirs, had been manipulated by Sh. Jagmohan, as this fact has been proved by preponderance of probability in light of overall conduct of Sh. Jagmohan.
29. The natural corollary is that neither Roshan Lal nor Maya Devi nor the other LRs of deceased were duly served of the summons of probate case and therefore could not contest the same, which resulted in grant of probate to Sh. Jagmohan. Quite naturally, therefore, it is clear that revocation petitioners Smt. Pushpa and her son have been able to prove that Sh. Roshan Lal remained unaware of filing of probate case till his death and they themselves got to know of the same only after suit for possession and damages was filed against them by Sh. Jagmohan in the year 2012.
PC No. 10/2020 Sh. Pintu Vs. Sh. Jagmohan & ors. Page 14 of 1930. Accordingly, I hold that they have approached the court for revocation of the date within limitation period and there is no delay. Issue no-1 is, therefore, decided against the original petitioner Sh. Jagmohan and in favour of revocation petitioners/objectors.
ISSUE NO-2 Whether the applicant/petitioner is entitled for revocation of letter of administration granted in favour of Sh. Jag Mohan vide judgment dated 26.10.2016? OPP
31. Coupled with findings as mentioned in previous paras that the probate was obtained fraudulently by manipulating service of summons, which in itself affords sufficient ground for revocation of the will, the provisions of Section 263 of Indian Succession Act, 1925, empower the court to revoke or annul the grant of probate/letters of administration for just cause. The just cause is deemed to exist where the proceedings to obtain grant suffered from substantial defect. An illustration as given in the section itself is that if the grant was made without citing parties, who ought to have been cited, the proceedings were defective in substance.
32. At the threshold and without going into merits of the case, Ld. Counsel for revocation petitioner(s) has argued that the deceased was survived by one Neeta, daughter of his pre- deceased son late Sh. Rajender Kumar. But her name was not even mentioned in the entire petition seeking grant of probate. She was never impleaded as a respondent. Not only this, though, Smt. Maya, widow of late Sh. Naveen Kumar (pre-
PC No. 10/2020 Sh. Pintu Vs. Sh. Jagmohan & ors. Page 15 of 19deceased son of deceased Karan Singh) had been impleaded but none of the children of Sh. Naveen Kumar was impleaded as respondent. Since, these people mentioned above, were necessary parties to the probate petition, hence, this court should exercise its power U/s 263 of the Act and revoke the probate, granted in favour of Sh. Jagmohan as the proceedings to obtain the grant of probate were defective in substance as the grant was made without citing the parties, who ought to have been impleaded. In my view, Pintu, Yogita, Arti and Neeta were necessary parties for decision of the probate petition and none of them had been impleaded as respondent in the probate petition. Those, who were impleaded, were never served of the summons in fact. Therefore, the uncontested probate in favour of Sh. Jagmohan cannot be sustained.
33. The case of non-applicant Sh. Jagmohan is that the grounds taken by the revocation petitioners are baseless and false. He has denied the same as untrue. His case is that when the probate petition was filed Sh. Roshan Lal was alive and he had not filed any objection to the petition despite service and had opted not to contest the same. Now, the application for revocation cannot be maintained by his legal heirs, who have stepped into his shoes. Further, that the present revocation petition is a counter blast to suit for possession and damages filed by him against them. He has taken a stand that the revocation petitioners are merely licensees in the suit property.
34. The non-applicant Sh. Jagmohan has denied that all the legal heirs of deceased were not impleaded in the probate petition, PC No. 10/2020 Sh. Pintu Vs. Sh. Jagmohan & ors. Page 16 of 19 as alleged by the revocation petitioners but has failed to show as to how he had impleaded all of them.
35. During final arguments an interesting argument has been raised by Ld. Counsel for non-applicant that Neeta was not impleaded in the probate petition as she was not a legal heir of deceased Karan Singh in fact because she was the daughter of widow of Sh. Rajender Kumar (another pre-deceased son of deceased Karan Singh) from her first marriage with a man other than Sh. Rajender Kumar. Therefore, she was neither biological grand daughter of the deceased nor biological daughter of his pre- deceased son Sh. Rajender Kumar. It does not lie in the mouth of the non-applicant to argue like this because no such stand had ever been taken earlier in any proceedings. Rather, Neeta has been impleaded as petitioner by none other than non- applicant himself in the eviction proceedings filed against tenants. Not only this, the record of present matter shows that after death of Smt. Premwati, widow of deceased Sh. Karan Singh, an application under Order XXII Rule 4 CPC was made for impleading her LRs, wherein, name of Ms. Neeta was clearly mentioned as one of the LRs and this application was allowed vide order dated 31.10.2015 and Neeta was also impleaded in the present matter alongwith remaining LRs. This order was passed on account of no objection by the counsel for non-applicant Sh. Jagmohan, meaning thereby that the fact that Ms. Neeta is biological daughter of Sh. Rajender Kumar is undisputed and a false ground has been taken during final arguments for the first time by disputing paternity of Ms. Neeta.
PC No. 10/2020 Sh. Pintu Vs. Sh. Jagmohan & ors. Page 17 of 1936. Another argument has been raised that since Ms. Neeta, herself has not challenged the grant of probate, the objection by others is not maintainable. This ground is devoid of merit as law does not require that the person, who was not impleaded as respondent has to himself/herself approach the court for revocation or that no other person can take this ground. In my view, the correct interpretation of law is that benefit of this defect of not impleading all the necessary parties can be taken not only by that person himself/herself but also by others. Not only this, it is admitted position that so far as petitioner Pintu is concerned, he was never impleaded. Otherwise also, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, a just ground to revoke the probate does exist.
37. In both the revocation petitions, revocation has been sought on the same grounds and the witnesses examined seem truthful, natural and reliable. Nothing has come up on record, which would impeach their testimony. Therefore, I believe what has been stated by them.
38. Apart from manipulated service and non-impleadment of Ms. Neeta and other necessary parties, another ground taken is that the alleged will is a forged and fabricated document prepared by Sh. Jagmohan with malafide intention and with ulterior motive to grab the suit property, which is quite possible in the facts and circumstances of present case as presented and proved by the revocation petitioners. Accordingly, issue no-2 is decided in favour of revocation petitioners and against the non- applicant/respondent Sh. Jagmohan.
PC No. 10/2020 Sh. Pintu Vs. Sh. Jagmohan & ors. Page 18 of 19RELIEF
39. The natural corollary of the above discussion is that the revocation petitioner(s) have been successful in making out a case for revocation of probate granted vide judgment dated 26.10.2006 in favour of Sh. Jagmohan with respect to will dated 20.05.1994, allegedly executed by deceased Sh. Karan Singh. Therefore, I, hereby, revoke/cancel the above mentioned probate and allow the petition of revocation petitioners with costs.
40. File be consigned to record room.
Digitally signed by SAVITRI SAVITRI
CHAUDHARY CHAUDHARY ATTRI
Date: 2020.02.24
ATTRI
Announced in the open court 16:50:30 +0530
on 22nd day of February 2020 (SAVITRI)
Addl. District Judge-02 (West)
Tis Hazari Courts: Delhi
Note :- The above judgment has been dictated directly on computer and shorthand dictation was not given to the stenographer.
PC No. 10/2020 Sh. Pintu Vs. Sh. Jagmohan & ors. Page 19 of 19