Delhi District Court
Hemlata Chawla vs Rajender Kumar Dhingra on 4 April, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SHIV KUMAR :
DISTRICT JUDGE-02,
(WEST DISTRICT), TIS HAZARI COURTS:DELHI.
Probate Case No.- 54/21
CNR No. DLWT01-07058-2021
DLWT010070582021
1. Smt Hemlata Chawla
D/o Sh. Mohan Lal Dhingra,
W/o Sh. Manoj Kumar Chawla,
R/o X-26, 3rd Floor, West Patel Nagar,
New Delhi.
2. Smt Poonam Sharma,
D/o Sh. Mohan Lal Dhingra,
W/o Late Ajay Sharma,
R/o B-100, G-3, Ext-II,
Shalimar Garden, Shaibabad, Ghaziabad.
3. Smt Manju Sehgal,
D/o Sh. Mohan Lal Dhingra,
W/o Sh. Munish Sehgal,
R/o JG-2/306, Vikaspuri, New Delhi.
PC No 54-21 Hemlata Chawla & Ors Vs Rajender Kr. Dhingra & Anr. 1/39
4. Smt. Sonu Dhingra Singh
D/o Sh. Mohan Lal Dhingra,
R/o 16/24, Ground Floor,
East Patel Nagar, New Delhi.
5. Smt Renu Dhingra Kashyap,
D/o Sh. Mohan Lal Dhingra,
W/o Sh. Nitin Kashyap
R/o 16/24, Upper Ground Floor,
East Patel Nagar, New Delhi.
..........Petitioners
Versus
1. Sh. Rajender Kumar Dhingra
S/o Sh. Mohan Lal Dhingra,
R/o Flat no. 28, Ashok Apartments,
A-2 Block, Paschim Vihar,
New Indra Prastha World School,
New Delhi-110063.
2. State of Delhi
Through SDM, Karol Bagh Zone.
......Respondents
PETITION UNDER SECTION 278 OF THE INDIAN
SUCCESSION ACT, 1925 FOR GRANT OF PROBATE.
Date of institution of the case : 29.09.2021
Date reserved for judgment on : 19.03.2025
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 04.04.2025
PC No 54-21 Hemlata Chawla & Ors Vs Rajender Kr. Dhingra & Anr. 2/39
JUDGMENT
(1) Vide this judgment, I shall decide the petition filed by the petitioner, under Section 278 of the Indian Succession Act whereby the petitioners have sought grant of Probate of the Will dated 07.08.2018, executed by late Sh. Mohan Lal Dhingra.
CASE OF THE PETITIONERS, AS PER THEIR PETITION (2) According to the petition, the case of the petitioners in nutshall is that the petitioners are the daughters of Late Sh. Mohan Lal Dhingra (hereinafter to be referred as "the deceased"), who died on 24.09.2020 at Sir Ganga Ram Hospital, Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi.
(3) It is further averred in the petition that during his life time, the deceased executed a registered Will dated 07.08.2018 and the deceased left behind his legal heirs, who are petitioners and respondent no. 1, in the present case.
(4) It is further averred in the petition that the deceased has left a Will dated 07.08.2018, registered in the office of SR-II Darapur, Sub-registrar vide deed dated 07.09.2018, in which the petitioner has been appointed as an executor by the deceased.
PC No 54-21 Hemlata Chawla & Ors Vs Rajender Kr. Dhingra & Anr. 3/39 (5) It is further averred in the petition that during his life-time, the deceased had purchased the following properties in his name:
a. Upper ground floor without roof right in property no. 16/24, measuring 200 sq. yards situated at East Patel Nagar, New Delhi.
b. Shop no. 3918 on Ground Floor, without roof/terrace rights, measuring 17' x 18' approx in the name of Anand Plastic Traders situated at Old P.O. Street, Sadar Bazar, Delhi, Basement Floor.
c. Property no. 17B without roof, measuring 7'x18' situated at Bhagwant Singh Market (prem Bhawan) Saini Market, Bahadur Garh, Sadar Bazar, Delhi.
(6) It is further averred in the petition that according to judgment vide suit no. 103/83 and 463/83, Execution no.
36/85 in the court of Smt Ramesh Sabharwal, Sub-judge, Ist Class, Delhi between Sh. Kanhaiya Lal Vs Smt Jamna Devi and others, mentioned property no. 16/24, East Patel Nagar, was purchased by Sh. Kanhiya Lal of Madan General Store, Shop no. 14, Municipal Market, Ramesh Nagar (2) Sh. Notan Dass Madan and (3) Sh. Manohar Lal all three sons of Late Sh. Bhagwan Dass Madan have been declared the joint purchasers, at a sale of Public auction on the 8th day 1988 of property no. 16/24, East Patel Nagar, Delhi, the execution of a decree of Joint Family suit Kanhaiya Lal Vs Jamna Devi & Ors and the said sale has duly confirmed by the court of Sub-Judge, Ist Class, Delhi on 02.08.1988. The permission was also granted for sale certificate to the auction by the court of Smt Kamlesh Sabharwal, Sub Judge, Ist Clause Delhi on 02.08.1988.
PC No 54-21 Hemlata Chawla & Ors Vs Rajender Kr. Dhingra & Anr. 4/39 (7) It is further averred in the petition that the above-
said entire property was acquired by Sh. Bhagwan Dass Madan from the President of India vide Regd. Lease Deed no. 58 dated 24.02.1953.
(8) It is further averred in the petition that having purchased the above-mentioned entire property by Smt Amrit Kaur Anand and Sh. Ravdeep Singh Anand from Sh. Kanhaiya Lal Mada, Sh. Norotam Dass and Sh. Mohan Lal, vide three registered agreement to sell and purchase dated 13.05.1992, 14.05.1992 and 15.05.1992, all entered in the office of Sub-Registrar, Sub-Distt no. 1, Kashmere Gate Delhi and later on Smt Amrit Kaur Anand and Sh. Ravdeep Sngh Anand had constructed the said properties according to sanction plan at their own cost and expenses.
(9) It is further averred in the petition that having purchased the above mentioned property by Sh. Harjit Singh from Smt Amrit Kaur Anand through her General Attorney Sh. Jagjit Singh Anand and Sh. Ravdoop Singh Anand through his General Attorney General of Sh. Jagjit Singh Anand. It is further averred that Sh. Ravdeep Singh Anand through his General Attorney Sh. Jagjit Singh Anand and Smt. Amrit Kaur Anand vide agreement to sell and purchase dated 12.04.1993.
(10) It is further averred in the petition that having purchased the above-mentioned property by Smt Meeta Arora and Sh. Kamal Arora from Sh. S. Prasan Chand Jain, General Attorney of Sh. Joginder Singh Dang, who is PC No 54-21 Hemlata Chawla & Ors Vs Rajender Kr. Dhingra & Anr. 5/39 also General Attorney of Sh. Jagjit Singh Anand. (2) Sh. Bakshi Harcharan Singh. It is further averred in the petition that Sh. Jagjit singh Anand and Sh. Bakshi Harcharan Singh, who are general attorney of Sh. Kanhiyal Lal Mohan (2) Sh. Jagjit Singh Anand and (2) Sh. Bakshi Harcharan Singh, who are also General Attorney of (1) Sh. Manohar Lal and (2) Smt P Nirmala vide registration no. 10625 dated 03.12.2001, both entered in the office of sub- Registar, Sub Distt no. 11, Janakpuri, New Delhi.
(11) It is further averred in the petition that the above- mentioned property has been purchased by Smt Bhag Rani from (1) Smt Meeta Arora and 92) Sh. Kamal Arora vide agreement to sell and purchase entered in the office of the Sub-registrar, Sub-Distt No. II, Janakpuri, New Delhi dated 15.04.2005 (12) It is further averred in the petition that the mother of the petitioner Smt Bhag Rani (Bhag Rani Dhingra) died on 04.12.2015 and after her death, there is no other legal heirs and successors of late Smt. Bhag Rani except his husband, petitioners and respondent no. 1.
(13) It is further averred in the petition that on 14.06.2016, a relinquishment deed was executed at Delhi by petitioners and respondent no. 1 in favour of their father late Sh. Mohan Lal Dhingra in respect of property i.e. Upper ground floor without roof right in property no. 16/24, measuring 200 sq. yards situated at East Patel Nagar, New Delhi.
PC No 54-21 Hemlata Chawla & Ors Vs Rajender Kr. Dhingra & Anr. 6/39 (14) It is further averred in the petition that the deceased executed the registered Will dated 07.08.2018, wherein he mentioned regarding his movable and immovable properties and the righteous ownership over the said properties, in the following manner:
a. Upper ground floor without roof right in property no. 16/24, measuring 200 sq. yards situated at East Patel Nagar, New Delhi (Given to the petitioners daughters).
b. Shop no. 3918 on Ground Floor, without roof/terrace rights, measuring 17' x 18' approx in the name of Anand Plastic Traders situated at Old P.O. Street, Sadar Bazar, Delhi, (sold during the life time of Sh. Mohan Lal). c. Basement floor in property no. 17-B without roof, measuring 7'x18' situated at Bhagwant Singh Market (Prem Bhawan) Saini Market, Bahadur Garh, Sadar Bazar, Delhi (Given to respondent respondent no. 1. The said property has been used by the respondent no. 1 for the business purposes and thus, no other property was given to the respondent no. 1 by his father, as per registered Will.
(15) It is further averred in the petition that the petitioners have received the Certificate of e-change of name bearing no. TAXKBZ/D-718 (19405) for the property bearing no.
16/24, UGF, East Patel Nagar, New Delhi by NDMC Assessment & Collection Department.
(16) It is further averred in the petition that the petitioners undertake to manage the estate with credits of the deceased Late Sh. Mohan Lal Dhingra and to make and file of full and true in inventory thereof for exhibiting the same in this court within 6 months from date of granting letters of administration to them and will also give this PC No 54-21 Hemlata Chawla & Ors Vs Rajender Kr. Dhingra & Anr. 7/39 court a true account and said estate with credits within one year from the said date.
(17) It is prayed by the petitioners that letters of administration may be issued to the petitioners jointly, in respect of registered Will dated 07.08.2018, executed by late Sh. Mohan Lal Dhingra, wherein the righteous ownership over the property i.e. Upper Ground Floor without roof rights in property no. 16/24, measuring 200 sq yards situated at East Patel Nagar, New Delhi, has been given to the petitioners.
(18) Upon filing the present petition, notice of the petition was issued to respondents. Citation for general public was published in the daily newspaper " The Statesman " dated 28.10.2021. Notice was also served to State through Chief Secretary. No one from general public has appeared in this case and has filed any objections despite such publication. Only respondent no. 1 has filed reply/objections in the present case.
CASE OF RESPONDENT NO. 1, AS PER HIS WRITTEN STATEMENT.
(19) It is contended by respondent no. 1 that no cause of action arose against the respondent no. 1 or in favour of the petitioners to file the present petition. It is further contended that the petitioners have filed the present petition, by concealing material and true facts with sole aim to mislead the Hon'ble Court and to deprive the respondent no.1 of this agreed share, therefore the PC No 54-21 Hemlata Chawla & Ors Vs Rajender Kr. Dhingra & Anr. 8/39 petitioners are not entitled to get any relief from the Hon'ble Court, the present petition is nothing other than the abuse of process of law and it is not clear which the petition has been filed for probation of Will or grant of letters of administration or for grant of succession certificate, further it is neither properly filed nor verified, as per the provision of Hon'ble High Court of Delhi, hence, the present petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed.
(20) It is further contended by respondent no. 1 that the property i.e. Upper Ground Floor without roof rights in property no 16/24, measuring 200 sq yards situated in East Patel Nagar, New Delhi was owned by Late Smt Bhag Rani Dhingra, who was mother of the petitioners and the respondent no. 1 (hereinafter to be referred as deceased mother). It is further contended by respondent no. 1 that after demise of Smt Bhag Rani Dhingra, the suit property is to be partitioned equally among all the legal heirs as she died intestate but in terms of understanding attained for family settlement, all children of deceased mother relinquished their respective rights in favour of their father Late Sh. Mohan Lal Dhingra.
(21) It is further contended that the deceased was never in the good state of physical and mental health, after the demise of his wife, Late Smt Bhag Rani Dhingra and since after August, 2016, the deceased was suffering from neurological disorder and dementia. It is further averred that the deceased was suffering from major physical PC No 54-21 Hemlata Chawla & Ors Vs Rajender Kr. Dhingra & Anr. 9/39 disorders and suffered from brain haemorrhage in the year, 1998, and he underwent open heart surgery in the year, 2014 and also got operated for knees replacement surgery in the year, 2016 and was constantly under heavy medication all the time.
(22) It is further contended that the Will dated 07.08.2018, is fraudulent, wrong and denied. It is further contended that there are five petitioners and which petitioner is referred as an executor in the para under reply is not clear. It is further contended that the Will dated 07.08.2018 has been executed by the deceased under influence/coercion and misrepresentation of facts.
(23) It is further contended by respondent no. 1 that no person in his good senses can state that he owns the properties which were never owned by him and it can only be stated if the Will is drafted with ulterior motives by someone else without knowing the facts.
(24) It is further contended by respondent no. 1 that the property i.e. Upper ground floor without roof right in property no. 16/24, measuring 200 sq. yards situated at East Patel Nagar, New Delhi was owned by the mother of the respondent no. 1, Late Smt Bhag Rani Dhingra and not purchased by Late Sh. Mohan Lal Dhingra as claimed by petitioners.
(25) It is further contended by respondent no. 1 that the property i.e. Shop no. 3918 on Ground Floor, without PC No 54-21 Hemlata Chawla & Ors Vs Rajender Kr. Dhingra & Anr. 10/39 roof/terrace rights, measuring 14' x 18' approx in the name of Anand Plastic Traders situated at Old P.O. Street, Sadar Bazar, Delhi, Basement Floor was never purchased or owned by the deceased rather it was taken on lease by him during his life.
(26) It is further contended by respondent no. 1 that property i.e. Basement floor in property no. 17B without roof, measuring 7'x18' situated at Bhagwant Singh Market (prem Bhawan) Saini Market, Bahadur Garh,Sadar Bazar, Delhi is a tenanted shop wherein the Respondent no. 1 is the tenant since inception and Late Sh. Mohan Lal Dhingra was neither a tenant nor the owner of the said property for any period.
(27) It is further contended that the abovesaid properties referred in Point B and C were never owned by Late Sh. Mohan Lal Dhingra. It is further contended that it was informed to respondent no.1 the by deceased that some loan was taken on the property referred at point A, during the life time of the deceased mother from a private financer by mortgaging the said property for marriage of petitioner no. 5 and for some financial help to the petitioner no. 1. It is further averred by respondent no. 1 that the said private financer was quite well known to the family of the petitioner no. 1. It is further averred that before settlement of said loan, the mother of the petitioners and respondent no. 1, Smt Bhag Rani Dhingra expired on 04.12.2015. It is further averred that the family members agreed that the said property should be disposed of and the PC No 54-21 Hemlata Chawla & Ors Vs Rajender Kr. Dhingra & Anr. 11/39 loan must be settled. It was agreed that 1/7th of the sale consideration shall be given to respondent no.1 .
(28) It is further averred that for the purpose of getting a good market rate, a relinquishment deed was executed by the parties in favour of the deceased as it was becoming quiet difficult to find an intending buyer from a number of legal heirs. It is further contended that the deceased father assured the parties that the consideration amount left after the payment of the loan will be equally distributed and all the parties to this petition agreed to the same. It is further averred that deceased father was looking after the said transaction and subsequently in the year, 2017.
(29) It is further averred that petitioner no. 1 asked the answering respondent to contribute a sum of Rs. 5 lacs for repayment of loan, post the said attack and the respondent no. 1 paid the said amount to the petitioner no. 1. It is further averred that the respondent no.1 was told that the said financial/loan transaction in respect of the house is resolved by the petitioner no. 1 and it was mutually agreed that as deceased father is attached with the house, the same will be sold off, post his demise and the sale proceeds shall be divided in equal proportion i.e. 1/6th to each child. It is further averred that as and when Sh. Mohan Lal Dhingra got unwell, he used to be admitted in Sir Ganga Ram Hospital and used to had great influence on the decisions of Sh. Mohan Lal Dhingra. It is further averred that the respondent no 1 was always beside his father, as and when, any medical or even emotional support was required. It is PC No 54-21 Hemlata Chawla & Ors Vs Rajender Kr. Dhingra & Anr. 12/39 further averred that the deceased father also used to stay with respondent no. 1 as well as other children to his convenience.
(30) It is further averred that a relinquishment deed was executed, however, the same was only for getting a good market rate for sale of property and for getting the ownership documents back from the financer from whom the loan was taken as stated in the preceding paragraphs. It is further averred that there was no transfer of ownership and it was mutually agreed and settled that the sale consideration of the said property will be divided equally among all the children lastly. It is further averred that it was only on the said representation of the petitioners that the respondent no. 1 signed the relinquishment deed and the same was actually an act of fraud.
(31) It is further contended that the deceased was never in the state of mind or health to execute the Will and the Petitioners took advantage of the same. It is further contended that the execution of the registered Will by testator/deceased father is an act of fraud as Late Sh. Mohan Lal Dhingra was taking treatment in Sir Ganga Ram Hospital and took assistance of the Petitioner No. 1 and 5, who are employed with Sir Ganga Ram Hospital. It is further contended that grave suspicion also arises on the execution of the Will in question as the deceased never had the capacity/ownership to bequeath the tenanted shop i.e. Shop No. 3918 on Ground Floor, without roof / terrace rights measuring 14' x 18' approx. in the name of Anand PC No 54-21 Hemlata Chawla & Ors Vs Rajender Kr. Dhingra & Anr. 13/39 Plastic Traders situated at Old P.O.Street, Sadar Bazar, Delhi, which he had surrendered during his life time and the Shop No. 17-B, without roof / terrace rights measuring 7 X 18' approximately situated at Bhagwant Singh Market (Prem Bhawan) Saini Market, Bahadur Garh Road, Sadar Bazar, Delhi, in which the respondent no. 1 is the tenant since inception. The deceased father always had a cordial relationship with the respondent no. 1, who is his only son and there was no reason for excluding the rights of the respondent no.1, which otherwise, he had as the property i.e. Upper Ground Floor without roof rights in Property No. 16/24, measuring 200 Sq Yards situated in East Patel Nagar, New Delhi was owned by his deceased mother.
(32) It is further contended that the abovesaid Shop No. 17-B, not owned by the deceased, is bequeathed in the Will, specifically to respondent No. 1, shows that the deceased never wanted to deprive respondent No. 1 of his estate and it seems that Petitioners while taking the advantage of his mental illness, misrepresented to him that respondent no. 1 is being given a part of his estate and allured him to execute the Will in question.
(33) It is further contended that the petitioners have misused or forged the documents for depositing the property tax in their names. It is further averred that as per the provisions of MCD, it is mandatory to furnish/produce original property documents for verification, which the Petitioners claim as not in their possession. Further more deposit of the Property Tax does not give ownership rights PC No 54-21 Hemlata Chawla & Ors Vs Rajender Kr. Dhingra & Anr. 14/39 in favour of any person.
(34) It is further averred that the petitioners are asking for Letter of Administration whereas in the preceding para they requested for Probate. It seems to be like that the petitioners are quiet confused in the pleadings.
(35) It is further averred that the petition is liable to be dismissed as neither the Suit Property is properly valued nor the requisite court fees is paid. It is further averred that the suit is undervalued for the purpose of Court Fees and Petitioners are not having the symbolic or physical possession of any of the portion of the Suit Premises and hence they are liable to pay the Court Fees on the market value of the Suit Premises.
REJOINDER FILED ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONERS:
(36) Rejoinder has been filed on behalf of the petitioners to the Written statement/objections filed on behalf of respondent no. 1 and the petitioners denied the objections taken by the respondent no. 1.
(37) It is submitted that the respondent no. 1 not taken care of the deceased in his old age and has run away from all his responsibility, after taking the huge money and property from his parents and also illegally captured all his business and also liable for the account.
(38) It is further submitted that the respondent no. 1, has first cheated the deceased and has never taken care for him and even after bypass surgery of the deceased took place, PC No 54-21 Hemlata Chawla & Ors Vs Rajender Kr. Dhingra & Anr. 15/39 respondent no. 1 and his wife will not ready to look after or to spend singly penny and now respondent no. 1, is claiming false medical status of the deceased and loan story, which is never happened.
(39) It is further submitted that Section 278 of Indian Succession Act deals with petition for grant of letters of administration, while the effect of letters of administration has been given in Section 220 of the Act, which lays down that the grant of letters of administration entitles the administrator to all the right belonging to intestate as effectual as if the administrator had been granted at the moment after death.
(40) It is further averred that in the present case, respondent no. 1 always become the disobedient though the late father and mother given him the Paschim Vihar Duplex flat property which respondent no. 1 sold and purchased the present property that property must not be given to the disobedient son, long back before the death late Sh. Mohan Lal Dhingra disclosed the will details to the respondent no.1 at that time respondent no. 1 made some hue and cry even then the father said before all the relative to respondent no. 1 that what they given to respondent no. 1 even he not deserve for the same. It is further submitted that respondent no. 1 was having all the business, liquid money, shops and other investments in his possession, though he never willing to help for anything whereas his visit to in-laws was very frequent and routine, no time for his own parents.
(41) It is further averred that the petitioners are having right, title and interest in the suit property. It is further averred that the respondent no. 1 is having no right but PC No 54-21 Hemlata Chawla & Ors Vs Rajender Kr. Dhingra & Anr. 16/39 made as a party being one of the legal heirs only.
(42) It is further averred that one of the suit property i.e. Upper Ground floor without roof right in property no.
16/24, measuring 200 sq. yards situated in East Patel Nagar, New Delhi was owned by the Late Smt Bhag Rani Dhingra (mother of the petitioners and respondent no. 1). It is further averred that post demise of Late Smt Bhag Rani Dhingra, the suit property is to be partitioned equally among all the legal heirs as she died intestate but in terms of understanding attained for family settlement, all children of Late Smt Bhag Rani Dhingra relinquished their respective rights in favour of their father Late Sh. Mohan Lal Dhingra including the R-1 as he already got his share. It is further averred that the deceased, despite all odds was having good health and sound mind and even he arranged the marriages of three daughters, after separation of his son, otherwise the full building would have been there in place of one floor.
(43) On the basis of the pleadings, the following issues were framed vide order dated 04.04.2022.
1. Whether the Will dated 07.08.2018 executed by Late Shri Mohan Lal Dhingra S/o Late Sh. Chela Ram Dhingra is his last genuine, legal, valid Will and duly executed in his sound disposing mind? OPP.
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for Probate/Letter of Administration on the basis of the aforesaid Will, as claimed? OPP PC No 54-21 Hemlata Chawla & Ors Vs Rajender Kr. Dhingra & Anr. 17/39
3. Whether the petition is liable to be dismissed for the objections raised by the respondent/objector no. 1 in the written objections. OPR.
4. Relief.
(44) Parties were directed to adduce evidence.
EVIDENCE ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER.
(45) Petitioners in support of their case have examined following witnesses:
(1). PW-1/Smt Renu Dhingra Kashyap
( Petitioner no. 5)
(2) PW-2/ Sh. Charanjeet Singh (attesting Witness of the Will).
(3)PW-3/ Sh. Chaman Lal (Summoned witness).
(46) Smt Renu Dhingra Kashyap appeared in the witness box as PW-1 and tendered her affidavit in evidence as Ex PW-1/A and she reiterated & reaffirmed the averments of her petition and rejoinder. PW-1 has relied upon the following documents:
Ex PW-1/1: Original Will dated 07.08.2018 executed by Sh. Mohan Lal Dhingra.
Ex PW-1/4: Original death certificate of Late Sh. Mohan Lal Dhingra issued by MCD.
Mark A: Photocopy of death certificate of Late Smt. Bhag Rani Dhingra.
Mark B: Photocopy of the relinquishment deed dated PC No 54-21 Hemlata Chawla & Ors Vs Rajender Kr. Dhingra & Anr. 18/39 14.06.2016.
Mark C: Photocopy of the MCD Mutation E-
certificate dated 28.12.2020 in respect of property bearing no. 16/24, UGF, East Patel, Nagar New Delhi-1100018.
(47) PW-2, Sh. Charanjeet Singh, who is one of the attesting witnesses of the will dated 07.08.2018, has tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex PW-2/A and he identified the signatures of the testator, Sh. Mohan Lal Dhingra at point A, on the Will and he also identified his signatures and identified the signatures of other attesting witness PW-2 further deposed that he, testator and other attesting witness had signed the Will, at the same time.
(48) PW-3, Sh. Chaman Lal has appeared before the court as summoned witness along with summoned record i.e. Will dated 07.08.2018, executed by late Sh. Mohan Lal Dhingra and deposed that the said Will is registered at registration no. 694, in the book no. 3, Volume no. 8152 on Page no. 105 to 107 dated 07.08.2018. PW-3 further deposed that the said certificate is issued by the Sub- registrar-II, Basaidarpur, New Delhi and the certified copy of the said record is Ex PW-3/1 (OSR).
(49) Vide order dated 20.05.2024, the evidence on behalf of the petitioner was closed, as per statement of ld counsel for petitioner.
PC No 54-21 Hemlata Chawla & Ors Vs Rajender Kr. Dhingra & Anr. 19/39 EVIDENCE ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT NO. 1 (50) From the side of respondent no.1, only one witness has been examined i.e respondent no. 1/Sh. Rajender Kumar Dhingra as DW-1.
(51) Sh. Rajender Kumar Dhingra appeared in the witness box as DW-1 and tendered his affidavit in evidence as Ex DW-1/A and he reiterated & reaffirmed the averments of his objections.
FINAL ARGUMENTS (52) I have heard Ld counsel for the petitioner and ld counsel for respondent no. 1 and have perused entire record, including pleadings, documents and testimonies of the witnesses, recorded in court from both sides. Written submissions alongwith judgments have also been filed on behalf of petitioners and respondent no. 1 and the same have been duly considered while passing this judgment.
CONTENTIONS ON BEHALF OF PETITIOENRS (53) It is argued by ld. counsel for the petitioners that the respondent no. 1 had no cordial relations with the deceased, therefore he separated in 1998 and he purchased new house with the assistance of the deceased.
(54) It is further argued by ld. counsel for the petitioners that the father of the petitioners had more faith in daughters, so it is natural that the father executed Will in the favour of his daughters (petitioners).
PC No 54-21 Hemlata Chawla & Ors Vs Rajender Kr. Dhingra & Anr. 20/39 (55) It is further argued by ld. counsel for the petitioners that the respondent no. 1 has failed to prove that any loan was taken by the parents of petitioners on the property bearing no. 16/24, mentioned in the Will.
(56) It is further argued by ld. counsel for the petitioners that the father of the petitioners was healthy and having sound disposing state of mind, at the time of execution of Will. The deceased was working 3 months prior to his death. The deceased was also attending court cases, before his death.
(57) It is further argued by ld. counsel for the petitioners that there is no suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the Will in question.
(58) It is further argued by ld. counsel for the petitioners that the respondent no. 1 has failed to prove that the deceased was under influence or fraud was committed with him or he was misrepresented, at the time of execution of Will in question.
(59) It is further argued by ld. counsel for the petitioners that Will in question is a registered Will so presumption of genuineness is attached to the proceedings conducted in the office of Sub-Registrar for registration of the Will in question.
(60) It is further argued by ld. counsel for the petitioners that the petitioners have duly proved the Will in question by examining one of the attesting witnesses, who has identified his signatures, signatures of second attesting witness and signatures of the deceased on the Will in question.
PC No 54-21 Hemlata Chawla & Ors Vs Rajender Kr. Dhingra & Anr. 21/39 CONTENTION ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT NO. 1.
(61) The deceased was under influence and fraud was played upon him by the petitioners as the deceased was suffering from depression, neurological disorder and dementia since 2016. The deceased was not having mental capacity and he was not in sound disposing state of mind at the time of execution of Will in question.
(62) The Will in question is surrounded by various suspicious circumstances and these suspicions have not been removed by the petitioners.
(63) The properties mentioned in the Will were not owned by the deceased. The deceased had no capacity to bequeath these properties by executing the Will in question.
(64) The shop number 3918 was a tenanted shop. The deceased was never owner of the said shop. The shop no. 3918 is a tenanted shop of respondent no. 1. The deceased was neither a tenant nor the owner of the said shop for any period.
(65) One of the petitioners was with the deceased, at the time of execution of Will in question. The petitioners has played active role in preparation of Will.
(66) The respondent no. 1, being the only son of the deceased and had cordial relations with the deceased, so there was no plausible reason for the deceased to execute the Will in such a manner that would exclude the respondent no. 1 from PC No 54-21 Hemlata Chawla & Ors Vs Rajender Kr. Dhingra & Anr. 22/39 inheriting his property.
STATUTORY PROVISIONS INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT CASE.
(67) Before adjudicating the issues, I would like to discuss various relevant statutory provisions involved in the present case.
(68) 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".
(69) Section 59 of Indian Succession Act declares that every person(not being a minor) "of sound mind" may dispose of his property by Will.
(70) 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 thus:-
"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 directions.
(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 PC No 54-21 Hemlata Chawla & Ors Vs Rajender Kr. Dhingra & Anr. 23/39 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".
(71) The provisions contained in Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 are also to be kept in mind in such type of matters.
"Section 68 of Indian Evidence Act states that if a document is required by law to be attested, it shall not be used as evidence until one attesting witness at least has been called for the purpose of proving its execution, if there be an attesting witness alive and subject to the process of the Court and capable of giving evidence.
"Provided that it shall not be necessary to call an attesting witness in proof of the execution of any document, not being a will, which has been registered in accordance with the provisions of Indian Registration Act 1908 unless its execution by the person by whom it purported to have been executed is specifically denied."(72)
ISSUE -WISE FINDING My issue-wise findings are as under:
1. Whether the Will dated 07.08.2018 executed by Late Shri Mohan Lal Dhingra S/o Late Sh. Chela Ram Dhingra is his last genuine, legal, valid Will and duly executed in his sound disposing mind? OPP.
3. Whether the petition is liable to be dismissed for the objections raised by the respondent/objector no. 1 in the written objections. OPR.
PC No 54-21 Hemlata Chawla & Ors Vs Rajender Kr. Dhingra & Anr. 24/39 (73) The burden to prove issue no. 1 is upon the petitioners and burden to prove issue no. 3 is upon respondent no. 1. In order to prove issue no. 1, the petitioners have examined three witnesses and their names are under:
(1). PW-1/Smt Renu Dhingra Kashyap. (Petitioner no. 5).
(2) PW-2/ Sh. Charanjeet Singh (attesting Witness of the Will).
(3)PW-3/ Sh. Chaman Lal (Summoned witness).
(74) In order to prove issue no. 3, the respondent no. 1 has examined only one witness i.e. respondent no. 1 himself.
(75) Before deciding the above said issues, I would like to discuss some of the judgments passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as well as by the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi regarding the settled principles for proving the due execution of the Will.
(76) In a case titled as H. Venkatachala Iyengar v. B.N. Thimmajamma [H. Venkatachala Iyengar v. B.N. Thimmajamma, AIR 1959 SC 443, Hon'ble Apex Court has laid down the following propositions:
1. Stated generally, a will has to be proved like any other document, the test to be applied being the usual test of the satisfaction of the prudent mind in such matters. As in the case of proof of other documents, so in the case of proof of wills, one cannot insist on proof with mathematical certainty".
2. Since Section 63 of the Succession Act requires a will to be attested, it cannot be PC No 54-21 Hemlata Chawla & Ors Vs Rajender Kr. Dhingra & Anr. 25/39 used as evidence until, as required by Section 68 of the Evidence Act, one attesting witness at least has been called for the purpose of proving its execution, if there be an attesting witness alive, and subject to the process of the court and capable of giving evidence".
3. Unlike other documents, the will speaks from the death of the testator and therefore the maker of the will is never available for deposing as to the circumstances in which the will came to be executed. This aspect introduces an element of solemnity in the decision of the question whether the document propounded is proved to be the last will and testament of the testator.
Normally, the onus which lies on the propounder can be taken to be discharged on proof of the essential facts which go into the making of the will."
4. Cases in which the execution of the will is surrounded by suspicious circumstances stand on a different footing. A shaky signature, a feeble mind, an unfair and unjust disposition of property, the propounder himself taking a leading part in the making of the will under which he receives a substantial benefit and such other circumstances raise suspicion about the execution of the will. That suspicion cannot be removed by the mere assertion of the propounder that the will bears the signature of the testator or that the testator was in a sound and disposing state of mind and memory at the time when the will was made, or that those like the wife and children of the testator who would normally receive their due share in his estate were disinherited because the testator might have had his own reasons for excluding them. The presence of suspicious circumstances makes the initial onus heavier and therefore, in cases where the circumstances attendant upon the execution of the will excite the suspicion of the court, the propounder must remove all legitimate suspicions before the document can be accepted as the last will of the testator.
(5) It is in connection with wills, the execution of which is surrounded by suspicious circumstances that the test of PC No 54-21 Hemlata Chawla & Ors Vs Rajender Kr. Dhingra & Anr. 26/39 satisfaction of the judicial conscience has been evolved. That test emphasises that in determining the question as to whether an instrument produced before the court is the last will of the testator, the court is called upon to decide a solemn question and by reason of suspicious circumstances the court has to be satisfied fully that the will has been validly executed by the testator.
(6) If a caveator alleges fraud, undue influence, coercion, etc. in regard to the execution of the will, such pleas have to be proved by him, but even in the absence of such pleas, the very circumstances surrounding the execution of the will may raise a doubt as to whether the testator was acting of his own free will. And then it is a part of the initial onus of the propounder to remove all reasonable doubts in the matter."
(77) The Hon'ble Apex Court in a case titled as Janki Narayan Bhoir Vs Narayn Namdeo Kadam, JT 2002 (10) SC 340 has discussed the provisions of section 63 of Indian succession Act and Section 68 of Indian evidence act for proving due execution of Will by the testator as follows:-
"On a combined reading of Section 63 of the Succession Act with Section 68 of the Evidence Act, it appears that a person propounding the Will has got to prove that the Will was duly and validly executed. That cannot be done by simply proving that the signature on the Will was that of the testator but must also prove that attestations were also made properly as required by clause (c) of Section 63 of the Succession Act."
" In a way, Section 68 gives a concession to those who want to prove and establish a Will in a Court of law by examining at least one attesting witness even though Will has to be attested at least by two witnesses mandatorily under Section 63 of the Succession Act. But what is significant and to be noted is that that one attesting witness examined should be in a position to prove the execution of a PC No 54-21 Hemlata Chawla & Ors Vs Rajender Kr. Dhingra & Anr. 27/39 Will. To put in other words, if one attesting witness can prove execution of the Will in terms of clause (c) of Section 63, viz., attestation by two attesting witnesses in the manner contemplated therein, the examination of other attesting witness can be dispensed with. The one attesting witness examined, in his evidence has to satisfy the attestation of a Will by him and the other attesting witness in order to prove there was due execution of the Will. If the attesting witness examined besides his attestation does not, in his evidence, satisfy the requirements of attestation of the Will by other witness also it falls short of attestation of Will at least by two witnesses for the simple reason that the execution of the Will does not merely mean the signing of it by the testator but it means fulfilling and proof of all the formalities required under Section 63 of the Succession Act. Where one attesting witness examined to prove the Will under Section 68 of the Evidence Act fails to prove the due execution of the Will then the other available attesting witness has to be called to supplement his evidence to make it complete in all respects. Where one attesting witness is examined and he fails to prove the attestation of the Will by the other witness there Will be deficiency in meeting the mandatory requirements of Section 68 of the Evidence Act."
" Where the attesting witness, who is called to prove the execution, is not in a position to prove the attestation of the Will by the second witness, the evidence of the witness called falls short to the mandatory requirements of Section 68."
(78) In Hari Singh & Anr. Vs State & Anr. 176 (2011) DLT 199 (DB), the Hon'ble High Court made reference to FAO No. 874/2003 dated 21.11.2007 titled Jagdish Lal Bhatia vs Madan Lal Bhatia which dealt with the legal burden of proof when a Will is propounded and also spelt as to what would constitute suspicious circumstances and PC No 54-21 Hemlata Chawla & Ors Vs Rajender Kr. Dhingra & Anr. 28/39 what form of affirmative proof should be sought by the court to satisfy the judicial conscience that the document propounded is the last, legal and valid custom of the testator. These are as under:
I. The legal burden to prove due execution always lies upon the person propounding a will. The propounder must satisfy the judicial conscience of the court that the instrument so propounded is last will of a free and capable testator.
II. The onus is discharged by the propounder adducing prima facie evidence proving the competence of the testator and execution of the will in the manner contemplated by the law. The contestant opposing the will may bring material on record meeting such prima facie in which event the onus would shift back on the propounder to satisfy the Court affirmatively that the testator did know well the contents of the will and in sound disposing capacity executed the same. (see the decision of the Supreme Court in Madhukar D. Shende v Tarabai Aba Shedge, AIR 2002 SC 637).
III. No specific standard of proof can be enunciated which must be applicable to all the cases. Every case depends upon its circumstances. Apart from other proof, conduct of parties is very material and has considerable bearing on evidence as to the genuineness of will which is propounded. Courts have to be vigilant and zealous in examining evidence. Rules relating to proof of wills are not rules of laws but are rules of prudence.
PC No 54-21 Hemlata Chawla & Ors Vs Rajender Kr. Dhingra & Anr. 29/39 IV. Expanding on the care and caution to be adopted by the courts, and presumptions to be raised, in the decision reported as (1864) 3 Sw& Tr. 431 In The Goods of Geale, it was opined that where a person is illiterate or semi literate or the will is in a language not spoken or understood by the executor, the court would require evidence to affirmatively establish that the testator understood and approved all the contents of the will.
V. One form of affirmative proof is to establish that the will was read over by, or to, the testator when he executed it.
If a testator merely casts his eye over the will, this may not be sufficient.
VI. Courts have to evaluate evidence pertaining to the circumstances under which the will was prepared. If a will is prepared and executed under circumstances which raise a well grounded suspicion that the executor did not express his mind under the will, probate would not be granted unless that suspicion is removed.
VII. A word of caution. Circumstances can only raise a suspicion if they are circumstance attending, or at least relevant to the preparation and execution of the will itself.
VIII. Another point that has to be considered is about the improbability in the manner in which the instrument is scripted. Instance of suspicious circumstances would be alleged signatures of testator being shaky and doubtful, condition of the testator's mind being feeble and debilitated, bequest being unnatural, improbable and unfair.
PC No 54-21 Hemlata Chawla & Ors Vs Rajender Kr. Dhingra & Anr. 30/39 IX. Suspicious circumstances are a presumption to hold against the will.
Greater is the suspicion more heavy would be the onus to be discharged by he who propounds the will.
X. A will is normally executed by a person where he intends to alter the rule of succession or where he desires a particular form of inheritance and to that extent, nature of bequest is not of much substance to invalidate a will, but consistent view taken by the courts is that this could be treated as a suspicious circumstance. What weightage has to be attached to this suspicion would depend upon case to case.
XI. Suspicion being a presumptive evidence, is a weak evidence and can be dispelled.
(79) It is settled preposition of the law the onus is always upon the propounder of the Will to prove the due execution of Will and to remove all the suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the Will.
(80) PW-2 has deposed that the deceased wanted to distribute all his assets equally among all his children. PW-2 has not stated that the deceased wanted to exclude respondent from inheriting his property.
(81) PW-2 has deposed that he has not read the Will. PW-2 further deposed that Will was not read over to him or to other witness or to Late Sh. Mohan Lal, the deceased, in the office of sub-registrar.
PC No 54-21 Hemlata Chawla & Ors Vs Rajender Kr. Dhingra & Anr. 31/39 (82) PW-2 has deposed that he does not know, who brought the Will. PW-2 further deposed that he cannot say, if the Will was got changed by the daughter of the deceased, who accompanied the deceased to the sub- registrar.
(83) Petitioner has deposed in his cross examination as under:
"I do not know who had accompanied my deceased father to sub registrar office for the execution of the Will Ex PW-1/1".
(84) From the testimony of PW-2, it is proved that the Will in question was neither read by PW-2 nor read over to PW-2 nor to the deceased and other attesting witnesses, in the presence of PW-2. PW-2 has also not deposed that the Will in question was read by the deceased, in his presence.
(85) One of the daughters of the deceased was also present in the sub-registrar office with the deceased, at the time of execution of Will in question but the petitioners have not disclosed her name and the said daughter has not been examined in the court.
(86) From the testimonies of petitioner as well as PW-2, it is not proved that the deceased was aware of the contents of Will in question, at the time of signing the same.
(87) Merely identifying the signatures of the deceased, on the Will in question by PW-2, does not prove the due execution of PC No 54-21 Hemlata Chawla & Ors Vs Rajender Kr. Dhingra & Anr. 32/39 the Will in question.
(88) The respondent has alleged that the deceased was not physically as well as mentally fit to execute the Will in question. Petitioners have denied that her father/the deceased was suffering from depression in the year 2015, after the death of her mother. Petitioner further denied that the deceased was suffered from dementia since the year, 2017. The respondent no. 1 has not led any evidence to prove that the deceased was not in sound mind at the time of execution of the Will in question.
(89) The respondent has alleged that the will in question has been got executed from the deceased by putting undue influence, coercion as well as by misrepresentation of facts to the deceased. It is admitted by the petitioners that deceased had more faith in them and they were looking after the deceased. The initial burden is upon the petitioners to prove that the Will was signed by the deceased voluntarily, in order to give effect to its terms and the deceased was aware about the effects of distribution of the properties mentioned in the Will.
(90) PW-1 further deposed that she was appointed as executor by the deceased. PW-1 further deposed that the deceased had already given share of his property to the respondent i.e. Basement floor in property no. 17B, situated Bhagwant Singh Market, Sadar Bazar, Delhi.
(91) PW-1 further deposed that probably her father executed this will as he had already given share to her brother way back in 1998. PW-1 further deposed that her father gave him one flat and a shop with stocks and material. PW-1 further deposed that PC No 54-21 Hemlata Chawla & Ors Vs Rajender Kr. Dhingra & Anr. 33/39 she does not know what is the address of the shop which was given by her father to her brother as stated here-in-above. She does not know even the address of the flat which was given by her father to her brother. She does not have any document to corroborate her averments regarding purchase of a shop and a house by her father in favour of her brother. Again said, her brother took cash from her father for purchasing the house and the shop was previously with her father. She does not know whether her father was the owner of the said shop or not. She does not know the owner of the shop no. 17B, Sadar Bazar, Delhi, or that the said shop is owned by Anand Saini and respondent no. 1 is a tenant in the said shop since 1987.
(92) As per PW-1, the deceased has already given one flat and one shop to the respondent no. 1,way back in 1998 but surprisingly the PW-1 does not know the address of that flat and shop. In cross examination, PW-1 changed her version and stated that cash was given to respondent no. 1 for purchasing the flat. In regard to shop, she does not know whether his father was the owner of the said shop. She also failed to produce any document to corroborate, the abovesaid fact.
(93) As per Will in question, the respondent no. 1 has not been totally excluded. Respondent no. 1 has been given basement of property no. 17 B. In the Will, it is also mentioned that the deceased has already given share to the respondent no.1, then why again property has been given to respondent no. 1. This fact has not been explained either in the Will or by petitioner/PW-1.
PC No 54-21 Hemlata Chawla & Ors Vs Rajender Kr. Dhingra & Anr. 34/39 (94) The Will is silent as to what property or in what form, share of family properties has been given to respondent no. 1. As per PW-1, the share in property was given to respondent no. 1 in 1998 and will in question is of 2018. Had any share in family properties been given to respondent no. 1, then those properties would have been mentioned specifically in the Will. Petitioners have also not disclosed those family properties which were given to the respondent no. 1 by the deceased. Petitioners have failed to prove that the deceased had given any property to respondent no. 1.
(95) DW-1 has stated in para no. 8,in his affidavit as under:
" The shop which I am running today, was taken on rent by my father but I have been running the said shop during the life time of my father since 1994 and I have been paying the rent of the said shop to the landlord since 1994".
(96) The petitioners have not disputed the above-said fact and no suggestion has been given on behalf of the petitioner to deny the above-said fact.
(97) It is written/mentioned in the Will that deceased is the absolute owner of the basement property bearing no. 17B & shop no. 3918. There is no document on record to support that the deceased was the owner of the basement floor in property no. 17B. Rather PW-1 stated that she does not know who is owner of said property. PW-1 deposed that shop no. 3918 was sold by their father so these facts raises doubt regarding genuineness of the Will in question.
PC No 54-21 Hemlata Chawla & Ors Vs Rajender Kr. Dhingra & Anr. 35/39 (98) DW-1 deposed that he had cordial relations with his parents, during their life-time and this fact is not disputed on behalf of the petitioner during the cross-examination of DW-1. Moreover, had respondent no. 1 strained relations with his father, he would not have executed relinquishment deed in his favour on 14.06.2016.
(99) It is mandatory for the petitioners to prove that the deceased was aware about the contents of Will, at the time of signing it and he had voluntarily signed the Will with intent to give it effect. Reliance is placed upon following judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court.
(100) In a case titled as Meena Pradhan & Ors. vs Kamla Pradhan & Anr. In Civil Appeal No. 3351 of 2014, decided on 21 September 2023, the Hon'ble Apex Court has deduced the principles in order to prove the Will and the same are as under; -
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.
(101) In a case titled Kavita Kanwar Vs Mrs Pamela Mehta decided on 19.05.2020 passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held as follows:
23. It remains trite that a Will is the testamentary document that comes into operation after the death of the testator. The peculiar nature of such a document has led to solemn provisions in the statutes for making of a Will and for its proof in a Court of law.
Section 59 of the Succession Act provides that every person of sound mind, not being a minor, may PC No 54-21 Hemlata Chawla & Ors Vs Rajender Kr. Dhingra & Anr. 36/39 dispose of his property by Will. A Will or any portion thereof, the making of which has been caused by fraud or coercion or by any such importunity that has taken away the free agency of the testator, is declared to be void under Section 61 of the Succession Act; and further, Section 62 of the Succession Act enables the maker of a Will to make or alter the same at any time when he is competent to dispose of his property by Will. Chapter III of Part IV of the Succession Act makes the provision for execution of unprivileged Wills (as distinguished from privileged Wills provided for in Chapter IV) with which we are not concerned in this case.
(102) In view of the above said judgment, it is settled proposition of law that the deceased must have aware about the contents of the Will at the time of signing the said Will.
(103) In a case titled "Pratap Singh And Another vs The State & Another, decided on 12 August, 2010 as under:
"8. Much emphasis has been laid that the alleged Will is a registered Will but registration of a Will is not mandatory. The Appellant No. 1 who had appeared in the witness box has stated that their father executed the Will dated 11th March, 1983 which was duly registered with the Sub-Registrar, Delhi as document No. 686 in Additional Book No.3, Volume No.272 on pages 103 to
104. It is well settled, merely because the Will is a "registered Will", it is no assurance that the same is genuine and validly executed document with a sound disposition of mind and free Will".
(104) In a case titled Leela & Ors Vs Muruganantham & Ors, Civil appeal no. 7578 of 2023, Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in para no. 20 has observed as follows:
20. There can be no doubt with respect to the manner in which execution of a Will is to be proved.
In the light of plethora of decisions including the decisions inMoturu Nalini Kanth v. Gainedi PC No 54-21 Hemlata Chawla & Ors Vs Rajender Kr. Dhingra & Anr. 37/39 Kaliprasad (Dead,through Lrs.)2 and in Derek AC Lobo's case (supra) this position is well settled that mere registration of a Will would not attach to it a stamp of validity and it must still be proved in terms of the legal mandates under the provisions of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act and Section 68 of the Evidence Act. It is not the case of the appellant that the Will dated 06.04.1990 is a registered one.
23. The Trial Court rightly held that the propounder of the Will has to establish by satisfactory evidence that the Will was signed by the testator, that the testator at the relevant time was in a sound disposing state of mind and that he understood the nature and effect of the dispositions and put his signature out of his own free will.
(105) In view of abovesaid judgments, it is held that mere registration of Will does not prove the due execution of the Will. The petitioner has to prove the Will, as per requirements of law.
(106) In view of the foregoing discussions, it is held that the petitioners have failed to prove due execution of the Will in question by the deceased. The petitioners have also failed to prove that the deceased was aware about the contents of the Will, at the time of signing the said Will. The petitioners have also failed to remove the suspicious circumstance surrounding the execution of the Will in question. Accordingly issue no. 1 & 3 are decided against the petitioners and in favour of respondent no. 1.
(107) Findings on issue no. 2
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for Probate/Letter of Administration on the basis of the aforesaid Will, as claimed? OPP PC No 54-21 Hemlata Chawla & Ors Vs Rajender Kr. Dhingra & Anr. 38/39 (108) In view of the findings on issue no. 1 & 3, it is held that petitioners are not entitled for issuance of Probate/letters of administration, on the basis of Will in question. Accordingly the issue no. 2 is decided against the petitioners and in favour of respondent no. 1.
Relief (109) In view of findings on issues no. 1 to 3, the petition of the petitioners stands dismissed. Parties to bear their own cost. File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
SHIV Digitally signed by
SHIV KUMAR
KUMAR Date: 2025.04.04
17:41:31 +0530
Announced in the open court (Shiv Kumar )
on 04.04.2025 District Judge-02 (West)
Court no. 127, THC,
Delhi.
PC No 54-21 Hemlata Chawla & Ors Vs Rajender Kr. Dhingra & Anr. 39/39