Delhi District Court
Bir Singh Ors vs State Ors on 17 September, 2024
IN THE COURT OF SH. DEEPAK DABAS
DISTRICT JUDGE (NORTH-01): ROHINI COURTS: DELHI
PC No. 37/2016
CNR No. : DLNT-01-0006252015
1. Sh. Bir Singh,
S/o Late Sh. Ramesh.
2. Sh. Prem,
S/o Late Sh. Ramesh.
3. Sh. Devender,
S/o Late Sh. Ramesh.
All Residents of :-
H. No. 649, Jatav Mohalla,
Badli Village, Delhi-110042.
4. Smt. Neelam,
D/o Late Sh. Ramesh,
W/o Sh. Vicky,
R/o A-103/HC, Pandav Nagar,
New Delhi-110008.
.... Petitioner(s)
Versus
1. The State
Govt. of NCT of Delhi
2. Smt. Usha Devi,
D/o Sh. Guljari Lal,
R/o N-71/A-211, Old Chandrawal Road,
Harijan Basti, Khyber Pass, Delhi.
3. Sh. Sandeep,
S/o Late Sh. Jasbir Singh,
R/o N-71/A-211, Old Chandrawal Road,
Harijan Basti, Khyber Pass, Delhi.
4. Sh. Deshram,
S/o Sh. Lekh Ram,
R/o H. No. 527, Badli Village,
Delhi-110042.
_______________________________________________________________________
PC No. 37/2016 Bir Singh & Ors. Vs. State & Ors. Page 1 of 17
5. Late Sh. Tara Chand (deceased)
Through LR:-
Sh. Rajesh Kumar,
S/o Late Sh. Tara Chand,
R/o H. No. 649, Badli Village,
Delhi-110042.
6. Sh. Ramchander,
S/o Sh. Lekh Ram,
R/o H. No. 512, Badli Village,
Delhi-110042.
7. Sh. Santram,
S/o Sh. Lekh Ram,
R/o H. No. 649, Badli Village,
Delhi-110042.
....Respondent(s)
Date of Institution : 12.01.2015
Date of argument : 17.09.2024
Date of Order : 17.09.2024
PETITION U/S 276 OF THE INDIAN SUCCESSION ACT ,
1925 FOR GRANT OF PROBATE/LETTERS OF
ADMINISTRATION IN RESPECT OF WILL DATED
27.04.2006 EXECUTED BY LATE SH. JASBIR SINGH IN
FAVOUR OF PETITIONER(S).
JUDGMENT
CASE OF PETITIONERS IN BRIEF :-
1. Petitioners have filed the present petition u/s 276 of The Indian Succession Act, 1925 for grant of probate/Letters of Administration in respect of will dated 27.04.2006, executed by Late Sh. Jasbir Singh in their favour, thereby bequeathing immovable property i.e. portion admeasuring 65 sq. yds. of H. No. 649, Badli Village, Delhi-110042 (hereinafter referred to as said property).
_______________________________________________________________________ PC No. 37/2016 Bir Singh & Ors. Vs. State & Ors. Page 2 of 17
2. In the petition, petitioners have stated that Late Sh. Jasbir Singh S/o Late Sh. Lek Ram had expired on 09.08.2009, leaving behind two class-1 legal heirs, namely, Smt. Usha/R-2 (wife) and Sh. Sandeep/R-3 (son). It has been further stated that in the year 1993, Sh. Jasbir Singh got married with Smt. Usha and son, namely, Sh. Sandeep was born out of said wedlock. However, in the year 1994 during his lifetime, Jasbir Singh had filed a divorce petition, seeking divorce from his wife Smt. Usha Devi as she had left her matrimonial home alongwith her son Sandeep and used to live with another man as his wife. However, Sh. Jasbir Singh had tried to provide good education to his son Sandeep, but he left his father and went to live with his mother. Even, during court proceedings Sandeep refused to recognize Jasbir Singh as father. It has been further averred that petitioners no-1 to 4, namely, Bir Singh, Prem, Devender and Neelam are children of brother of deceased testator i.e. Late Sh. Jasbir Singh. The deceased testator was living with his brother Ramesh i.e. father of all four petitioners and petitioners had taken care the deceased. It has been further averred that family members of petitioners tried to contact Sandeep and Smt. Usha to join Sh. Jasbir Singh as he was not well but they refused. During his lifetime, Late Sh. Jasbir Singh had executed a will dated 27.04.2006 in favour of petitioners no-1 to 4 as a reward for their love and affection. Late Sh. Jasbir Singh had debarred his wife Smt. Usha and son Sandeep from his property as they were not living with him and had made his life miserable. Deceased _______________________________________________________________________ PC No. 37/2016 Bir Singh & Ors. Vs. State & Ors. Page 3 of 17 testator had also debarred his five brothers, namely, Deshram, Tarachand, Ramchand, Santram and Ramesh from his property.
3. After receiving the petition, notice of same was issued to The State, respondents as well as to the general public/public at large and publication was also made in daily English newspaper, namely, "The Statesman", dated 05.05.2015 as well as daily Hindi newspaper, namely, "Veer Arjun", dated 07.05.2015.
4. It is pertinent to mention that on 27.03.2015, Respondents no-5 to 7 had appeared before the court and had given their NOC vide joint statement qua present petition. On 20.04.2015, R-4/Deshram had appeared before the court and had given his NOC vide separate statement qua present petition. Since, none had appeared on behalf of R-2/Usha Devi and R-3/Sandeep in spite of service, Ld. Predecessor of this court had proceeded R-2/ Usha Devi and R-3/Sandeep as ex-parte vide order dated 29.07.2015. On 08.10.2015, counsel for objector/R-2 and Objector/R-3 had appeared and moved an application u/o 9 rule 7 CPC. The said application was allowed subject to cost of Rs. 1000/- and objections were filed.
CASE OF RESPONDENT-2 & 3 IN BRIEF:-
5. Objections/WS was filed on behalf of R-2 and R-3.
In their objections/written statement R-2 and R-3 have taken some preliminary objections and have given reply on merits also. In the objections/written statement, R-2 and R-3 have stated that they are legal heirs and successors of deceased testator as R-2/Usha is legally wedded wife and _______________________________________________________________________ PC No. 37/2016 Bir Singh & Ors. Vs. State & Ors. Page 4 of 17 R-3/Sandeep is son of Late Sh. Jasbir Singh as well as lawful and exclusive owners of the property of deceased after his death. The will dated 27.04.2006, allegedly executed by Late Sh. Jasbir Singh is false, forged and fabricated and petitioners have prepared the same in collusion with respondents no-4 to 7 i.e. brothers of Late Sh. Jasbir Singh with malafide intention to grab their property. It has been further stated that alleged written family settlement was never arrived between Late Sh. Jasbir Singh, his brothers and sisters and same has been fabricated by the petitioners. It has been further stated that an oral family settlement was arrived at and as per same the property in question i.e. H. No. 649, Badli Village, Delhi, admeasuring 65 sq. yds. as well as three other properties had also come in the share of Late Sh. Jasbir Singh. The said three properties except property in question i.e. H. No. 649, Badli Village, Delhi, admeasuring 65 sq. yds. have already been grabbed by the petitioners and respondents no. 4 to 7 and now they in connivance with each other are also trying to illegally usurp the property in question i.e. H. No. 649, Badli Village, Delhi, admeasuring 65 sq. yds. The present petition is an afterthought and counter blast to the domestic violence complaint filed by the respondent no-2. The divorce petition filed by Late Sh. Jasbir Singh could not reach at any conclusion since the same was ordered to be consigned to record room sine die and to be revived only on clearing the arrears of maintenance. It has been further stated that R-2 and R-3 have performed last rites of Late Sh. Jasbir _______________________________________________________________________ PC No. 37/2016 Bir Singh & Ors. Vs. State & Ors. Page 5 of 17 Singh in the above said property and since then R-2 has been in possession of the above said property. Hence the present petition is liable to be dismissed. After the death of her husband, R-4 to R-7 with their family members started harassing, torturing physically as well as mentally R-2 and R-3 with malafide intention to grab the above said property and they had beaten R-2/Usha Devi and tried to kill R-3/ Sandeep. Therefore, R-2/Usha Devi with her son i.e. R-2/Sandeep came to her parental home to save their lives after locking their belongings in the property in question. R-2 and R-3 were forcefully and illegally dispossessed and with the indulgence of the concerned police, their occupation was restored in the property in question. Thereafter, some goonda elements have forcefully eliminated R-2 and R-3 from the said property by breaking open the locks and stealing their belongings. Resultantly, R-2/Usha Devi had filed a complaint to SHO PS Samaipur Badli, Delhi, vide DD No. 36B, dated 05.01.2014. It has been further stated that R-2/Usha Devi and her son R-3/ Sandeep are lawful and exclusive owner of property in question having legal possession over the same. Neither petitioners nor R-4 to R-7 have ever been in possession and occupation of the property in question. The alleged will is false and fabricated and was never executed by Late Sh. Jasbir Singh. Petitioners do not have any right, title or interest in the property in question. The petitioners and R-4 to R-7 have evil eyes on the property of R-2, hence, present petition is liable to be dismissed.
_______________________________________________________________________ PC No. 37/2016 Bir Singh & Ors. Vs. State & Ors. Page 6 of 17 ISSUES :-
6. On completion of pleadings, the following issues were framed on 12.01.2016 :-
i. Whether the Will in question dated 27.04.2006 is genuine and true? OPP ii. Whether probate/letter of administration can be granted to petitioner? OPP.
iii. Whether the present petition is without any cause of action? OPR2-3 iv. Whether the petitioner has not approached this court with clean hands and has suppressed the material facts from this court? OPR2-3 v. Whether the present petition suffers from non- join- der of necessary parties? OPR2-3 vi. Whether the present petition is an afterthought and counter blast to the domestic violence complaint filed by respondent no-2? OPR2-3 vii. Whether the petitioner has not affixed ad-volerum court fees on the petition? OPR2-3 viii. Relief.
EVIDENCE LED BY PETITIONERS:-
7. P-1/Bir Singh himself entered into witness box as PW-1 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex PW-1/A. He had also relied upon following documents:-
i. The original SPA, dated 05.12.2014 i.e. Ex PW-1/1; ii. The original will dated 27.04.2006 i.e. Ex PW-1/2; iii. Original Family Settlement, dated 27.12.2001 i.e. Ex PW-1/3; and _______________________________________________________________________ PC No. 37/2016 Bir Singh & Ors. Vs. State & Ors. Page 7 of 17 iv. Original death certificate of Late Sh. Jasbir i.e. Ex PW-1/4.
PW-1 was cross-examined on behalf of R-2 and R-3.
8. To prove the will in question, petitioner has also examined attesting witness of will i.e. PW-2 Sh. Ramesh.
PW-2 tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex PW-2/A. PW-2 relied upon will Ex PW-1/2. PW-2 deposed that he stood witness in the said will and signed at point-C in the presence of testator and testator had signed the will in his presence at point-D. Another attesting witness Sh. Raj Kumar also signed the said will in his presence at point-E. The testator was in sound disposing mind when he executed the said will. The contents of will were read over and explained to the testator and after un- derstanding the contents the testator signed the will. PW-2 was cross-examined on behalf of R-2 and R-3.
9. Thereafter, PE was closed by Ld. Predecessor of this court vide order dated 15.01.2019 and case was fixed for respondents' evidence. However, R-2 and R-3 failed to lead RE in spite of various opportunities granted to R-2 and R-3. Accordingly, RE on behalf of R-2 and R-3 was closed vide order dated 14.02.2023 and case was fixed for final arguments.
FINAL ARGUMENTS:-
10. Arguments advanced by Ld. Counsel for petitioners were heard. I have perused the record carefully. It is pertinent to mention that final arguments were not advanced on behalf of R-2 and R-3 in spite of several _______________________________________________________________________ PC No. 37/2016 Bir Singh & Ors. Vs. State & Ors. Page 8 of 17 opportunities in this regard.
ISSUEWISE FINDINGS:-
ISSUES NO. 1 & 2:-
i. Whether the Will in question dated 27.04.2006 is genuine and true? OPP ii. Whether probate/letter of administration can be granted to petitioner? OPP.
11. Issue no-1 and issue no-2 are inter related/inter con-
nected, hence, they are taken up together.
12. In order to prove the will in question, petitioners have produced and examined one attesting witnesses i.e. PW-2/Ramesh. In his examination in chief PW-2/Ramesh relied upon his evidence by way of affidavit i.e. Ex PW-2/A. PW-2 stated that he had signed the said will at point-C as a witness in the presence of testator and the testator had signed the said will in his presence at point-D. PW-2 further stated that the other witness, namely, Sh. Raj Kumar had also signed on said will in his presence at point-E. PW-2 further deposed that the testator was in sound disposing mind when he executed the will in question. The contents of the will was read over and explained to the testator and only after understanding the contents, the testator had signed the said will.
13. Section 63 of The Indian Succession Act, 1925 deals with execution of unprivileged wills. Section 63 of said Act is also being reproduced herein for sake of convenience and ready reference :-
_______________________________________________________________________ PC No. 37/2016 Bir Singh & Ors. Vs. State & Ors. Page 9 of 17
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.
14. Section 68 of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 deals with proof of execution of document required by law to be attested. Section 68 of said Act is also being reproduced herein for sake of convenience and ready reference :-
68. Proof of execution of document required by law to be attested. - If a document is required by law to be at-
tested, it shall not be used as evidence until one attest- ing 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 capa- ble of giving evidence :
_______________________________________________________________________ PC No. 37/2016 Bir Singh & Ors. Vs. State & Ors. Page 10 of 17 [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.]
15. In Pitamber Singh & Anr. Vs. Rattu Singh & Anr., decided on 08.10.2018 by Hon'ble High Court of Chhatisgarh, Bilas Pur held as under :-
"28. From the aforesaid narration of facts, it is quite vivid that compliance of Section 63(c) of the Succession Act, 1925 is missing though strict compliance of the said provision is imperative. Defendant No.1 being propounder of the will must have proved that the testator has signed the will in presence of attesting witnesses Parsuram (DW-2) & Buturam (DW-3) and the attesting witnesses have also signed in presence of the testator. Section 63(c) of the Succession Act, 1925 clearly lays down the requirement of valid and enforceable will that it shall be attested by two or more witnesses, each of them has seen the testator signing or affixing his mark to the will and each of the witnesses has signed the will in presence of the testator as held by the Supreme Court in H.Venkatachala Iyengar (supra) that a will has to be proved like any other document except that evidence tendered in proof of will should additionally satisfy the requirement of Section 63 of the Succession Act, 1925 apart from under Section 68 of the Evidence Act, 1872.
29. Analysing the facts of the present case, it would appear that defendant No.1 being the testator of the will has failed to prove the attestation of will in accordance with Section 63(c) of the Succession Act, 1925 read with Section 68 of Evidence Act, 1872. Both the attesting witnesses Parsuram (DW-2) & Buturam (DW-3) did not state before the Court that testator Thakni Devi signed the will in their presence and they signed the will in presence of the testator. Mere signing of a will as a witness would not per se amount to compliance of Section 63(c) of the Succession Act, 1925 as animo attestandi is absolutely missing. In the matter of Bhagat Ram v. Suresh 9, it has been held that to be an attesting witness it is essential that the witness should have put his signature animo attestandi _______________________________________________________________________ PC No. 37/2016 Bir Singh & Ors. Vs. State & Ors. Page 11 of 17 for the purpose of attesting that he has seen the executant sign or has received from him a personal acknowledgment of his signature. Therefore, this Court is fully satisfied that execution and attestation of will is not found established in accordance with law and defendant No.1 has failed to discharge his burden placed upon him by law to prove attestation of a will.
30. Apart from this, the first appellate Court is absolutely unjustified in holding that it is for the plaintiffs to establish execution and attestation of will in accordance with law. Defendant No.1, being propounder of the will, was duty bound to prove execution and attestation of will in accordance with law.
31. Consequently, I hold that defendant No.1 being propounder of will has failed to establish due attestation of will in accordance with Section 63(c) of the Succession Act, 1925 and Section 68 of the Evidence Act, 1872, and the finding recorded by the first appellate Court deserves to be set aside."
16. Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in a case titled as "Anita Khosla Vs. State", reported as 2010 (96) AIC 766 had held as under :-
"12. It was contended by the learned counsel for the objectors that since PW-2 and PW-3 did not sign in the presence of each other, there was no proper execution of the Will. I, however, find no merit in the contention. The evidence on record does not show that PW-2 was not present when the Will was attested by PW-3 or that PW-3 was not present when it was attested by PW-2. In fact, their affidavits indicate that both of them were present together when the Will was first signed by the Testator and then by these witnesses. Moreover, a bare perusal of Section 63(c) of Indian Succession Act would show that a Will is required to be attested by two or more witnesses and each of them must have seen the Testator sign or affixing his mark to the Will or should have seen some other person signing the Will in the presence and under the directions of the Testator or should have received a personal acknowledgment from the Testator with respect to his signature or mark or signature of the another person who signs the Will in the presence and under the direction of the Testator and _______________________________________________________________________ PC No. 37/2016 Bir Singh & Ors. Vs. State & Ors. Page 12 of 17 it is also necessary that each witness should sign the Will in the presence of the Testator. This, however, is not the requirement of law in India that both the attesting witnesses should also sign in the presence of each other.
13. Though the English law requires that both the witnesses must be present at the same time and both must see the Testator execute the documents as his Will, the Indian law expressly lays down to the contrary by providing in clause 6(c) of Section 63 that "it shall not be necessary that more than one witness be present at the same time." In fact, it is also not necessary that all the witnesses must see the Testator sign. It may as well happen that one witness may see the executor sign and the other witness may not see him sign, but the Testator may acknowledge his signature before him.
14. There are number of modes of proving signature or writings of persons, such as, by calling the person who signed or wrote the document; by calling a person in whose presence the document was signed or written; by calling a handwriting expert; by calling a person acquainted with the handwritings of the person by whom the document is supposed to be signed or written; by comparison in Court of the disputed signatures or writings with some admitted signatures or writings; by proof of an admission by the person, who is alleged to have signed or written the document that he signed or wrote it, etc. In case the document happens to be a Will, there is a slight distinction, which has to be kept in mind. Unlike other documents, the Will speaks from the death of the Testator, and so, where it is propounded or produced before a Court, the Testator who has already departed the world cannot be called upon to say whether it is his will or not.
15. Section 68 of Evidence Act, to the extent, it is relevant, provides that if a document is required by law to be attested, it shall not be used as evidence until at least one attesting witness has been called for the purpose of proving its execution if there be an attesting witness alive, and giving evidence." Since the Will is a document required by law to be attested by at least two witnesses, the petitioner could have proved it by producing one of the attesting witnesses of the Will. The petitioner has duly proved execution of the Will dated 02nd April, 2003, by producing not one, but both _______________________________________________________________________ PC No. 37/2016 Bir Singh & Ors. Vs. State & Ors. Page 13 of 17 the attesting witnesses to the Will.
17. In "Girja Datt Singh vs Gangotri Datt Singh"
AIR 1955 SC 346, it was held that in order to prove the due attestation of the will the propounder of the will has to prove that the two attesting witnesses saw the Testatory sign the will and that they themselves signed the same in the presence of the testator. As regards the proof and attestation, reference was made to Section 68 of the Evidence Act and it was held that it is necessary to comply with the provisions of the Evidence Act to prove the due execution and attestation of the will by calling at least one attesting witness in case he is alive and one cannot presume from the mere signatures appearing at the foot of the endorsement of registration or at the foot of the document that the witnesses appended their signatures to the documents as attesting witnesses.
17. In the present case, perusal of testimony of attesting witnesses i.e. PW-2 clearly shows that PW-2 had seen the testator signing on the said will. PW-2 has clearly and specifically deposed that he had signed the said will in the presence of testator and testator had signed the said will in his presence. PW-2 has also specifically deposed that the other witness, namely, Sh. Raj Kumar had also signed the said will in his presence. PW-2 also deposed regarding the mental condition of testator and stated that the testator was in sound disposing mind when he executed the will in question.
18. PW-2 was cross-examined at length by counsel for R-2 and R-3. Perusal of cross-examination of PW-2 on behalf of R-2 and R-3 shows that Ld. Counsel for R-2 and R-3 has failed to shake the testimony of PW-2. The testimony of PW-2 is clear, consistent and inspires confidence. There is no reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW-2.
_______________________________________________________________________ PC No. 37/2016 Bir Singh & Ors. Vs. State & Ors. Page 14 of 17
19. In the present case, the testator has bequeathed the property in question in favour of children of his brother in stead of giving the same to his own legally wedded wife and his son. For doing so, testator has stated in will that his wife has been residing with some other man as husband and wife and even his son, namely, Sandeep never comes to see him. Testator in his will has further stated that he had got Sandeep admitted in some school but Sandeep had not resided with him and had even refused to recognize him in court and due to this reason he was deeply hurt. It is also a matter of record that some litigation were also pending between testator and his wife/R-2/Usha Devi. Thus, the testator has given reasons for his said conduct i.e. giving his property to children of his brother instead of his own wife and son.
20. Keeping in view the totality of facts, circumstances and discussion made herein above, I am of the considered view that the petitioners and PW-2 have duly proved the execution as well as attestation of the will in question. It has also been proved that the testator was in sound disposing mind when he executed the said will.
21. Hence, Issue no-1 and issue no-2 are decided in favour of petitioners and against R-2 and R-3. The petitioners are entitled to grant of letters of administration in terms of said will.
ISSUE NO-3 to ISSUE NO. 7 :-
iii) Whether the present petition is without any cause of action? OPR2-3 _______________________________________________________________________ PC No. 37/2016 Bir Singh & Ors. Vs. State & Ors. Page 15 of 17
iv) Whether the petitioner has not approached this court with clean hands and has suppressed the material facts from this court? OPR2-3
v) Whether the present petition suffers from non-
joinder of necessary parties? OPR2-3
vi) Whether the present petition is an afterthought and counter blast to the domestic violence complaint filed by respondent no-2? OPR2-3
vii) Whether the petitioner has not affixed ad-
volerum court fees on the petition? OPR2-3
22. Onus of proving Issue no-3 to Issue no-7 is upon R-2 and R-3.
23. It is a matter of record that R-2 and R-3 have not produced/examined any witness in support of their case/ contentions in spite of several opportunities in this regard. R-2 and R-3 neither themselves entered into witness box nor examined any other witness in support of their objections/case. In the present case, R-2 and R-3 have not led any evidence to prove their case.
24. Since, R-2 and R-3 have not examined any witness to prove their contentions, the aforesaid issues i.e. Issue no-3 to Issue no-7 are hereby decided against R-2 and R-3.
RELIEF
25. In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances, this court has no reason to deny the prayer made by the petitioners in this petition. The averments made in the petition have been proved by the petitioners. The petition stands allowed in favour of the petitioners, namely, P-1/ _______________________________________________________________________ PC No. 37/2016 Bir Singh & Ors. Vs. State & Ors. Page 16 of 17 Bir Singh P-2/Prem, P-3/Devender and P-4/Neelam.
26. Therefore, it is ordered that Letters of Administration with will attached be issued/granted in favour of petitioners, namely, P-1/ Bir Singh, P-2/Prem, P-3/Devender and P-4/Neelam in respect of said property i.e. portion admeasuring 65 sq. yds. of H. No. 649, Badli Village, Delhi-110042, in terms of said will Ex PW-1/2, executed by Late Sh. Jasbir Singh.
27. The Letter of Administration shall be issued subject to furnishing by petitioners, the requisite court fees, administration bond and one surety bond to the satisfaction of the court. The valuation shall be based on the value assessed by the SDM, Alipur, Delhi.
28. Petitioners are hereby directed that an inventory of the scheduled properties of deceased shall be filed in the court within six months from the date of grant of letters of administration and a statement of account shall also be filed within one year thereafter.
29. Accordingly, the present petition stands allowed and disposed of. File be consigned to record Room after necessary compliance. Digitally signed by DEEPAK DEEPAK DABAS Announced in the open court Date:
DABAS 2024.09.18
20:22:02
on 17th day of September 2024 +0530
(Deepak Dabas)
District Judge-01/North
Rohini Courts/Delhi
_______________________________________________________________________ PC No. 37/2016 Bir Singh & Ors. Vs. State & Ors. Page 17 of 17