Delhi District Court
Sh. Mohan Lal Sharma vs The State on 11 May, 2026
IN THE COURT OF MS. RICHA GUSAIN SOLANKI,
DISTRICT JUDGE-07, SOUTH-EAST DISTRICT,
SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
PC No. 58/2022
CNR No. DLSE010072192022
IN THE MATTER OF:
MOHAN LAL SHARMA
S/o SH. R.L. SHARMA
R/o J-1-331, DDA FLATS,
KALKAJI, NEW DELHI. ... Petitioner
versus
1. STATE/GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI
THROUGH CHIEF SECRETARY,
OFFICIATING FROM DELHI SECRETARIATE,
I.P. ESTATE, NEW DELHI-110002.
2. BIMLA RANI
W/o Late Sh. Mool Chand
3. VIPIN
S/o Late Sh. Mool Chand
4. POOJA
D/o Late Sh. Mool Chand
All R/o C-77/110, Block-C
Kusumpur Pahari, South West Delhi,
New Delhi-110057.
5. RAJ RANI SHARMA
W/o Sh. Sat Dev Sharma
R/o J1-18, H.No. 644,
Gali No.18, Gupta Colony,
New Delhi.
PC No. 58/22 Mohan Lal Sharma vs. State & Ors page No. 1/15
6. MANORMA
W/o Late Sh. Rajender Kumar
7. GEETA
D/o Late Sh. Rajender Kumar
8. RADHA
D/o Late Sh. Rajender Kumar
9. GAURAV SHARMA
S/o Late Sh. Rajender Kumar
10. PAWAN SHARMA
S/o Late Sh. Rajender Kumar
All (6 to 10) R/o J1-321, DDA Flats,
Kalkaji,
New Delhi. ... Respondents
Date of institution of the petition 04.08.2022
Date of reserving judgment 24.04.2026
Date of pronouncement of judgment 11.05.2026
JUDGMENT
The present petition has been instituted under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") seeking grant of Probate in respect of the Will dated 19.04.2014 executed by Smt. Shanti Devi, wife of Late Sh. Roshan Lal (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased"). PETITION 1 Briefly stated, the case of the petitioner is that he is the son of the deceased. It is averred that the deceased was the lawful owner of property bearing No. J-1/321, DDA Flats, Kalkaji, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "the subject property"), having PC No. 58/22 Mohan Lal Sharma vs. State & Ors page No. 2/15 acquired the same from her husband, Late Sh. Roshan Lal. 2 It is further stated that the petitioner used to look after and take care of the deceased, who was pleased with his conduct and services. During her lifetime, the deceased is stated to have executed a Will dated 19.04.2014, whereby she bequeathed the subject property (and her other properties, however, the petitioner does not pray for any order qua those properties) in favour of the petitioner.
The said Will is stated to have been duly attested by witnesses and registered before the office of the Sub-Registrar, Chibramau, Janpath Kannauj, Uttar Pradesh, vide Document No. 99, Book No. 3, Volume No. 91, Pages 291 to 298, dated 19.04.2014.
3 It is averred that the deceased expired on 16.12.2014, leaving behind ten legal heirs, namely: the petitioner; respondent nos. 2 to 4 (being the legal heirs of her predeceased son Mool Chand); respondent no. 5 (being her daughter); and respondent nos. 6 to 10 (being the legal heirs of her predeceased son, Rajender Kumar.) 4 On the aforesaid basis, the petitioner has prayed for grant of Probate in respect of the Will dated 19.04.2014 in his favour. OBJECTIONS / STAND OF THE RESPONDENTS 5 Upon institution of the petition, notice thereof was issued to the respondents/near relatives of the deceased. Citation was also published in the English daily "The Statesman" and the Hindi daily "Veer Arjun" on 08.09.2022. In addition thereto, notice of the petition was affixed on the notice board of this Court.
6 Respondent nos. 2 to 5 did not have objection to the grant PC No. 58/22 Mohan Lal Sharma vs. State & Ors page No. 3/15 of probate in favour of the petitioner.
7 Respondent nos. 6 to 10, however, filed objections contesting the petition. It was contended that the petitioner had concealed the factum of having instituted a suit for possession in respect of part of the subject property, which is still pending adjudication, and therefore, the present proceedings are barred under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. 7.1 It is further contended that respondent no. 6 had constructed the entire second floor of the subject property from her own funds, and that all the respondents had acquired co- ownership rights in the property upon the demise of the deceased. 7.2 The objectors further alleged that the deceased was approximately 80 years of age and was neither physically nor mentally fit at the relevant time. According to them, she was seriously ill and bedridden, and therefore incapable of visiting the office of the Sub-Registrar for execution and registration of the alleged Will. It is also contended that the deceased was a permanent resident of Delhi and had no reason to travel to Uttar Pradesh for execution of the Will.
7.3 It is further stated that the deceased used to sign documents in Hindi and never affixed her thumb impression on documents. It is alleged that the thumb impressions appearing on the Will are forged and that the Will is a fabricated and manipulated document.
7.4 The objectors have additionally contended that the deceased suffered from trembling of hands, whereas the thumb impressions appearing on the Will appear to have been affixed in a controlled and deliberate manner.
PC No. 58/22 Mohan Lal Sharma vs. State & Ors page No. 4/15 7.5 It is also alleged that the attesting witnesses to the Will are close associates/friends of the petitioner and therefore interested witnesses.
7.6 The respondents further contend that the deceased had equal love and affection for all her children and there existed no plausible reason for excluding the other legal heirs from the alleged Will.
7.7 It is also averred that the subject property had originally been allotted by the Delhi Development Authority (DDA) in favour of Late Sh. Roshan Lal Sharma and, upon his demise, was transferred in the name of the deceased with the understanding that the property would belong to the entire family collectively and not exclusively to the deceased. On this basis, it is contended that the deceased had no absolute right or authority to bequeath the subject property through a Will.
7.8 The objectors further contend that no attesting witnesses were present at the time of execution of the alleged Will and that the same was not attested by them in presence of the deceased, as required under law.
8 Subsequently, respondent nos. 6 to 10 failed to pursue the matter further and were accordingly proceeded against ex parte. REPLY TO THE OBJECTIONS 9 The petitioner filed a detailed reply to the objections, wherein all the allegations raised by respondent nos. 6 to 10 were denied. The petitioner reiterated and reaffirmed the averments made in the probate petition.
VALUATION REPORT 10 Notice was also issued to the concerned SDM/Collector PC No. 58/22 Mohan Lal Sharma vs. State & Ors page No. 5/15 for submission of the valuation report pertaining to the subject property. In compliance thereof, the concerned SDM furnished the valuation report assessing the value of the subject property at ₹51,17,400/-.
ISSUES 11 Vide order dated 27.07.2024, following issues were framed:
"1. Whether petitioner is entitled to probate of Will of Late Smt Shanti Devi? OPP
2. Relief"
EVIDENCE 12 In order to prove his case, the petitioner examined three witnesses:
12.1 PW1/Witness from Sub-Registrar Office, proved the registration of the Will Ex PW1/A. 12.2 PW2/petitioner tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW2/A and relied upon the following documents:
S. Document relied on Marked as
No.
1. Copy of his aadhaar card Ex PW2/1 (OSR)
(admitted document)
2. Death certificate of the deceased Ex PW2/2 (admitted
document)
3. Site plan of the subject property Ex PW2/3
4. Will dated 19.04.2014 Ex PW2/4
12.3 PW3/Sh. Suresh deposed that he was one of the
attesting witnesses to the Will executed by the deceased. He stated that the deceased was well known to his family and that he used to address her as his sister. He further deposed that the PC No. 58/22 Mohan Lal Sharma vs. State & Ors page No. 6/15 deceased had affixed her thumb impressions on the Will, exhibited as Ex. PW2/4, in his presence. He identified his signatures appearing on the said Will at points 'A' and 'B'. PW-3 further stated that, at the time of execution of the Will, the deceased was in a fit and sound state of mind.
13 The respondents did not lead any evidence in support of their objections.
FINDINGS 14 The issue-wise findings are as under:
15 "1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to grant of probate in respect of the Will of Late Smt. Shanti Devi? OPP"
15.1 At the outset, it is observed that the petitioner has rightly invoked the jurisdiction of this Court, in as much as the subject property falls within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court.
15.2 It is a settled principle of law that the burden of proving a Will lies upon its propounder. In the absence of any suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the Will, proof of the testamentary capacity of the testator and due execution thereof in accordance with law is sufficient to discharge such burden. 15.3 In order to discharge the aforesaid burden, the petitioner examined PW-3, Sh. Suresh, who categorically deposed that the Will, Ex. PW1/A (also Ex. PW2/4), had been executed in his presence and that the deceased had affixed her thumb impressions on the same in his presence. He also identified his signatures appearing at points 'A' and 'B' on the Will. PW-3 further deposed that the deceased was personally PC No. 58/22 Mohan Lal Sharma vs. State & Ors page No. 7/15 known not only to him but also to his grandfather and father. 15.4 Though the respondents had alleged that no attesting witnesses were present at the time of execution of the alleged Will and that the same had not been attested in the presence of the deceased, they failed to cross-examine PW-3 on these aspects. Moreover, it remains unexplained as to how the respondents could assert such facts when admittedly they were not present at the time of execution of the Will. 15.5 It is also pertinent to note that the Will, Ex. PW2/4, is a registered Will, which carries a presumption of genuineness. In this regard, reliance may be placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rani Purnima Devi & Anr. v. Kumar Khagendra Narayan Dev & Anr., AIR 1962 SC 567, wherein it was observed as under:
"There is no doubt that if a will has been registered, that is a circumstance which may, having regard to the circumstances, prove its genuineness. But the mere fact that a will is registered will not by itself be sufficient to dispel all suspicion regarding it where suspicion exists, without submitting the evidence of registration to a close examination. If the evidence as to registration on a close examination reveals that the registration was made in such a manner that it was brought home to the testator that the document of which he was admitting execution was a will disposing of his property and thereafter he admitted its execution and signed it in token thereof, the registration will dispel the doubt as to the genuineness of the will. But if the evidence as to registration shows that it was done in a perfunctory manner, that the officer registering the will did not read it over to the testator or did not bring home to him that he was admitting the execution of a will or did not satisfy himself in some other way (as, for example, by seeing the testator reading the will) that the testator knew that it was a will the execution of which he was admitting, the fact that the will was registered would not be of much value."
15.6 It was incumbent upon respondent nos. 6 to 10 to demonstrate as to why reliance ought not to be placed upon the PC No. 58/22 Mohan Lal Sharma vs. State & Ors page No. 8/15 Will in question, to establish the existence of circumstances giving rise to suspicion regarding its execution, or to show why the endorsement and certificate of registration made by the Sub- Registrar appended to the Will should not be accepted as genuine. However, the respondents failed to discharge the said burden.
15.7 Similarly, in the absence of any cross-examination of PW-3, the allegation that PW-3 was a close associate or friend of the petitioner also remains unsubstantiated and unproved on record.
15.8 Respondent nos. 6 to 10 further contended that the deceased was seriously ill and not in a sound state of mind at the time of execution of the Will, Ex. PW2/4. However, no cogent evidence whatsoever has been placed on record in support of the said contention.
15.9 A perusal of the Will reveals that the deceased was approximately 80 years of age at the time of execution thereof. It may reasonably be presumed that, at such an advanced age, the deceased may have been suffering from certain age-related ailments and declining physical health. Nevertheless, unless it is established that such physical infirmities had resulted in impairment of her mental faculties to the extent of rendering her incapable of understanding the nature and effect of her acts, it cannot be concluded that the deceased lacked testamentary capacity or soundness of mind. This is particularly so in the facts of the present case where the Will is a registered document and the Sub-Registrar, while acting under the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908, read with Section 114 of the Indian PC No. 58/22 Mohan Lal Sharma vs. State & Ors page No. 9/15 Evidence Act, 1872, would have satisfied himself regarding the due execution and attestation of the Will by putting appropriate questions to the executant at the time of registration. Accordingly, the said objection is devoid of merit. 15.10 Respondent nos. 6 to 10 also contended that the deceased used to sign in Hindi and never affixed her thumb impressions on documents. However, they failed to place on record even a single document containing the admitted signatures of the deceased. Likewise, the allegation that the deceased suffered from trembling or shivering of hands is also unsupported by any documentary or oral evidence.
15.11 Another objection raised by respondent nos. 6 to 10 was that the deceased had equal love and affection for all her children and, therefore, there was no reason for excluding the other legal heirs from the Will. However, such a circumstance by itself cannot render the Will suspicious. It is a settled proposition of law that a probate court cannot dictate the manner in which a testator ought to distribute his or her property, nor can it substitute its own notions of fairness or morality in place of the wishes of the testator. Once a Will is found to be genuine and duly executed, effect must be given to the same even if it results in exclusion of close relatives or confers benefit upon one heir to the exclusion of others. In this regard, reliance may be placed upon Ramabai Padmakar Patil v. Rukminibai Vishnu, (2003) 8 SCC 537, and Ved Mitra Verma v. Dharam Deo Verma, (2014) 15 SCC 578.
15.12 Rather, as repeatedly held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, one of the principal objects of executing a Will is to alter PC No. 58/22 Mohan Lal Sharma vs. State & Ors page No. 10/15 the ordinary line of succession. Therefore, the mere fact that the natural heirs have been excluded wholly or partly, or that the normal course of succession has been departed from, cannot by itself constitute a suspicious circumstance surrounding the Will. 15.13 In the celebrated decision of Boyes v. Cook, (1880) 14 Ch D 53, the well-known "Armchair Rule" governing interpretation of Wills was enunciated in the following terms:
"You may place yourself so to speak, in [the testator's] armchair and consider the circumstances by which he was surrounded, when he made his will to assist you in arriving at his intention"
15.14 The deceased was survived by three sons and one daughter. However, two of her sons had predeceased her. The recitals contained in the Will clearly indicate that the deceased was residing with the petitioner, whereas the legal heirs of her predeceased sons were living separately and were allegedly not concerned with her welfare. The deceased further recorded in the Will that her widowed daughters-in-law had misbehaved with her.
15.15 Having regard to the advanced age and background of the deceased, it is plausible that she may have held traditional and patriarchal views and intended to bequeath her estate exclusively in favour of her surviving son. In such circumstances, the bequest made in favour of the petitioner, being her only surviving son, cannot be said to be unnatural, improbable, or surrounded by suspicious circumstances.
15.16 Another contention raised by respondent nos. 6 to 10 is that the deceased was residing in Delhi and, therefore, had no occasion or reason to travel to Uttar Pradesh for registration of PC No. 58/22 Mohan Lal Sharma vs. State & Ors page No. 11/15 the Will. The said contention also stands answered from the recitals contained in the Will itself, which disclose that the deceased was also the owner of certain immovable property situated at Chibramau, Kannauj, where the Will came to be registered.
15.17 The further contention of respondent nos. 6 to 10 that respondent no. 6 had incurred expenditure towards construction of the second floor of the subject property is of no relevance for adjudication of the present probate proceedings. Likewise, the plea that the subject property had been allotted by the DDA for the benefit of the entire family and that the deceased had no authority to bequeath the same is wholly untenable. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the deceased was the recorded owner of the subject property.
15.18 The final objection raised by respondent nos. 6 to 10 is that the present petition is liable to be stayed under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in view of the pendency of a suit for possession concerning the subject property. The said objection is equally devoid of merit.
15.19 It is well settled that, for the applicability of Section 10 CPC, the matter directly and substantially in issue in both proceedings must be identical in entirety. In this regard, reliance is placed upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in National Institute of Mental Health and Neuro Sciences v. C. Parameshwara, AIR 2005 SC 242, wherein it was held as under:
"8. The object underlying Section 10 is to prevent Courts of concurrent jurisdiction from simultaneously trying two parallel suits in respect of the -same matter in issue. The object underlying Section 10 is to avoid two parallel trials on the same PC No. 58/22 Mohan Lal Sharma vs. State & Ors page No. 12/15 issue by two Courts and to avoid recording of conflicting findings on issues which are directly and substantially in issue in previously instituted suit. The language of Section 10 suggests that it is referable to a suit instituted in the civil Court and it cannot apply to proceedings of other nature instituted under any other statute. The object of Section 10 is to prevent Courts of concurrent jurisdiction from simultaneously trying two parallel suits between the same parties in respect of the same matter in issue. The fundamental test to attract Section 10 is, whether on final decision being reached in the previous suit, such decision would operate as res-judicata in the subsequent suit. Section 10 applies only in cases where the whole of the subject matter in both the suits is identical. The key words in Section 10 are "the matter in issue is directly and substantially in issue" in the previous instituted suit. The words "directly and substantially in issue" are used in contra- distinction to the words "incidentally or collaterally in issue"."
15.20 There can be no dispute that the scope of adjudication in probate proceedings is limited in nature. In a petition seeking probate, the Court is primarily concerned with examining the genuineness, due execution, and validity of the Will. On the other hand, in a suit for possession, the Court is required to adjudicate upon a wider range of issues and surrounding circumstances, including questions relating to title, ownership, possession, and other civil rights of the parties--issues which ordinarily do not arise for consideration in probate proceedings. Thus, the ambit of a civil suit is substantially broader than that of a probate petition. 15.21 For the aforesaid reason, the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, in the case of Praveer Chandra vs Aprajita & Ors, AIRONLINE 2019 DEL 1902, has also observed that:
"A probate petition, strictly speaking, cannot be considered to be a "previous suit" under Section 10 CPC. Ideally, a probate petition and the partition suit between the same parties ought to be heard and adjudicated together, in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and conflicting findings/decisions."
15.22 For the aforesaid reasons, neither can the present probate proceedings be stayed on account of the pendency of the PC No. 58/22 Mohan Lal Sharma vs. State & Ors page No. 13/15 connected civil suit for possession, nor can the civil suit be stayed merely because the present probate petition is pending adjudication.
15.23 The petitioner has categorically deposed that the Will, Ex. PW2/4, constituted the last Will and testament of the deceased. The said assertion has remained unchallenged and unrebutted.
15.24 Accordingly, the Will in question stands duly proved in accordance with the requirements of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, and Section 67 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam.
15.25 Consequently, this Court is satisfied that the deceased had duly executed the Will dated 19.04.2014 while being in a sound and disposing state of mind and that the same constituted her last Will and testament.
15.26 Issue No. 1 is, accordingly, decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
16 "2. Relief."
16.1 Since no executor has been appointed under the Will dated 19.04.2014, only Letters of Administration, and not Probate, can be granted in favour of the petitioner. 16.2 In view of the foregoing observations and findings, the present petition is hereby allowed. Let Letter of Administration in respect of the Will dated 19.04.2014 executed by Late Smt. Shanti Devi be issued under the seal of this Court, in the form set forth in Schedule VII of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, in favour of the petitioner, subject to his furnishing:
PC No. 58/22 Mohan Lal Sharma vs. State & Ors page No. 14/15 ▪ ad-valorem court fees of the value of the subject property;
▪ furnishing administration bond (personal) under Section 291 of the Act, and ▪ filing within six months from the grant of the Letter of Administration an inventory as prescribed in Section 317 of the Act. However, since the petitioner is the sole beneficiary, the filing yearly compliances is dispensed with.
17 This Court deems it appropriate to emphasize here that nothing stated herein-above shall be construed as an expression of opinion in respect of the title of the deceased.
18 File be consigned to record room only after completion of
formalities and due compliance. RICHA
Digitally signed
by RICHA
GUSAIN
GUSAIN SOLANKI
SOLANKI Date: 2026.05.11
15:39:43 +0530
Pronounced in the open court (RICHA GUSAIN SOLANKI)
on 11.05.2026 District Judge-07, South East
Saket Courts
New Delhi
PC No. 58/22 Mohan Lal Sharma vs. State & Ors page No. 15/15