Delhi District Court
Sh. Ram Kishan vs The State (Delhi Administration) on 25 September, 2017
IN THE COURT OF MS. BARKHA GUPTA,
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE 06, CENTRAL
DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
New PC No. 42187/16 (Old PC No. 133/05)
IN THE MATTER OF:
Sh. Ram Kishan
S/o Late Sh. Rishal Singh
R/o H.No. 120
Vill. & Post Office Shahbad Daulatpur
Delhi 42. .......Petitioner
Versus
1. The State (Delhi Administration)
2. Sh. Dharam Singh
S/o Late Sh. Chhattar Singh
R/o Vill. & P.O. Shahbad, Daulatupur
3. Sh. Sripal
S/o Late Sh. Chhattar Singh
R/o Vill. & P.O. Shahbad Daulatpur
4. Sh. Umed Singh
S/o Late Sh. Chhattar Singh
R/o Vill. & P.O. Shahbad, Daulatpur
5. Smt. Ishro Devi
D/o Sh. Chhattar Singh
New PC No. 42187/16 and New PC No. 42171/16 Page 1/27
W/o Late Sh. Bhoop Singh
R/o Vill. & P.O. Mundka, Delhi
6. Sh. Attar Singh
S/o Late Sh. Rishal Singh
R/o Vill. & P.O. Shahbad, Daulatpur
7. Sh. Zile Singh
S/o Late Sh. Rishal Singh
R/o Vill. & P.O. Shahbad, Daulatpur
8. Smt. Savitri
D/o Late Sh. Rishal Singh
W/o Late Sh. Suraj Bhan
R/o Vill. & P.O. Machhauli, Jhajar (HR)
9. Smt. Premvati
D/o Late Sh. Rishal Singh
W/o Late Sh. Ram Das
R/o Vill. & P.O. Sevali, Sonipat
(HR)
10. Smt. Jagrati
D/o Late Sh. Rishal Singh
W/o Sh. Rambir Singh
R/o Vill. & P.O. Mandela Kalan
Delhi.
11. Smt. Ramrati
D/o Late Sh. Rishal Singh
W/o Sh. Jagbir Singh
R/o Mandela Kalan, Delhi
12. Sh. Har Karam
New PC No. 42187/16 and New PC No. 42171/16 Page 2/27
S/o Late Sh. Hoshyar Singh
R/o Vill. & P.O. Shahbad, Daulatpur
13. Sh. Raj Karan
S/o Late Sh. Hoshyar Singh
R/o Vill. & P.O. Shahbad
Daulatupur
14. Smt. Krishna
D/o Sh. Hoshyar Singh
W/o Sh. Ranbir Singh
R/o Vill. & P.O. Hiran Kunda
Delhi
15. Sh. Surajmal
S/o Sh. Chhattar Singh
R/o Vill. & P.O. Shahbad
Daulatpur, Delhi
......Respondents/Objectors
Other details:
Date of Institution : 11.05.2005
Date of Reserving Judgment : 11.09.2017
Date of Judgment : 25.09.2017
AND
New PC No. 42171/16 (Old PC No. 119/08)
IN THE MATTER OF:
Sh. Suraj Mal
S/o Late Sh. Ran Singh
New PC No. 42187/16 and New PC No. 42171/16 Page 3/27
R/o Vill. & P.O. Shahbad Daulatpur
Delhi 42.
.......Petitioner
Versus
1. State
2. Ram Kishan
S/o Late Sh. Vishal Singh
R/o H.No. 120
Village & P.O. Shahbad Daulatpur
Delhi 42.
......Respondent/Objector
Other details:
Date of Institution : 19.07.2007
Date of Reserving Judgment : 11.09.2017
Date of Judgment : 25.09.2017
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this common judgment, I dispose off two cases i.e. case titled as "Ram Kishan Vs. State & Ors", New PC No. 42187/16 (Old PC No. 133/05) instituted on 11.05.2005 and case titled as "Suraj Mal Vs. State & Anr", New PC No. 42171/16 (Old PC No. 119/08) instituted on 19.07.2007.
New PC No. 42187/16 and New PC No. 42171/16 Page 4/27
2. Brief facts as revealed from the record are that Sh. Ram Kishan had filed a petition under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act contending that Late Sh. Ran Singh (hereinafter referred to as the "deceased") had executed two Wills dated 08.07.2004 and 02.12.2004 in proper state of mind and voluntarily in his favour which were also registered in the office of SubRegistrar VI, Pitampura, Delhi. He has prayed that probate be granted with respect to both the Wills in his favour.
In the said petition, Shri Suraj Mal had filed objections inter alia mentioning therein that he is the adopted son of the deceased Late Shri Ran Singh and the deceased had executed a registered Will dated 23.06.2003 in his favour in proper state of mind and has also submitted that the aforesaid Wills dated 08.07.2004 and 02.12.2004 as produced by Ram Kishan are bogus and has prayed that the petition filed by Ram New PC No. 42187/16 and New PC No. 42171/16 Page 5/27 Kishan may be dismissed to which Shri Ram Kishan has filed replication wherein he has reaffirmed and reiterated the averments made by him in the petition.
3. It may be discussed here that Shri Suraj Mal has also filed a petition under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act for grant probate contending that Late Sh. Ran Singh (hereinafter referred to as the "deceased") had adopted him as his son and the deceased also had executed a Will dated 23.06.2003 in his favour which was registered in the office of SubRegistrar, Delhi and also stated that Wills dated 08.07.2004 and 02.12.2004 claimed by Ram Kishan in his favour are bogus and hence, probate of the said Will be granted in his favour.
The objector Shri Ram Kishan has filed reply cumobjections inter alia mentioning therein that the Will dated 23.06.2003 as produced by Sh. Suraj Mal is forged and New PC No. 42187/16 and New PC No. 42171/16 Page 6/27 fabricated and hence, his petition may be dismissed to which Shri Suraj Mal has filed replication wherein he has reaffirmed and reiterated the averments made by him in his petition.
4. After completion of pleadings, in case titled as "Ram Kishan Vs. State & Ors", vide order dated 02.01.2007, following issues were framed by my Ld. Predecessor:
1. Whether the two Wills dated 08.07.2004 and 02.12.2004 as propounded by the petitioner was validly executed by the deceased Ran Singh in his sound disposing mind and same are his last Wills and testament ? OPP
2. Relief.
5. In the aforesaid case, Shri Ram Kishan in support of his case has examined four witnesses in all namely Sh. Sushil Kumar (an attesting witness to the Will dated 08.07.2004) as PW1, himself as PW2, Sh. Rakesh Kumar (an attesting witness to Will dated 02.12.2004) as PW3 and Sh. New PC No. 42187/16 and New PC No. 42171/16 Page 7/27 Dilbag Singh (an attesting witness to Will dated 02.12.2004) as PW4.
Sh. Suraj Mal has examined himself as RW1 and has further examined Sh. Balwant Singh (Pradhan of Village Shahbad Daulatpur, Delhi) as RW2 and Sh. Sarup Singh (his brother) as RW3.
6. In the case titled as "Suraj Mal Vs. State & Anr", vide order dated 05.08.2010, following issues were framed by my Ld. Predecessor:
1. Whether Will propounded by the petitioner was validly executed by testator in his sound disposing mind ? OPP
2. Whether Will propounded by the petitioner has been superceded by testator by executing another Will ? OPD
3. Whether Will plaintiff is entitled for probate at prayed for ? OPP
4. Relief.
New PC No. 42187/16 and New PC No. 42171/16 Page 8/27
7. In the aforesaid case, Shri Suraj Mal in support of his case has examined six witnesses in all i.e. himself as PW1, Sh. Rai Singh (an attesting witness to the Will dated 23.06.2003) as PW2, Sh. Sarvan Kumar (LDC, Record Room, Rohini Courts, Delhi) as PW3, Sh. Om Prakash (LDC from the office of SubRegistrar VI, Pitam Pura, Delhi) as PW4, Sh. Sanjay Sharma (UDC from office of SDM, Narela, Delhi) as PW5 and Sh. Ranvir Singh (LDC from Record Room, Rohini Courts, Delhi) as PW6.
Sh. Ram Kishan has examined himself as RW1 and has examined Sh. Sushil Kumar (an attesting witness to the Will dated 08.07.2004) as DW2 and Sh. Dilbagh Singh (an attesting witness to the Will dated 02.12.2004) as RW3.
8. I have heard final arguments in both the petitions as advanced by Shri D.K. Sharma, Ld. counsel for Shri Ram New PC No. 42187/16 and New PC No. 42171/16 Page 9/27 Kishan and Shri S.S. Khatri, Ld. Counsel for Shri Suraj Mal and have given my thoughtful consideration to rival submissions made by them and have also gone through the material as placed on record.
It may be discussed that the other respondents in none of the petitions have raised any objections nor advanced any final arguments. Now, in the paras underneath, the Issues as framed in both the cases would be discussed.
9. It may be discussed that Shri Ram Kishan has produced two registered Wills dated 08.07.2004 and 02.12.2004 which as per him were executed by the deceased in his favour whereas Shri Suraj Mal has also produced one registered Will dated 23.06.2003 executed by the deceased in his favour and accordingly, since all the aforesaid three Wills are stated to be executed by the deceased with respect to his properties, hence, the issues framed in both the cases are New PC No. 42187/16 and New PC No. 42171/16 Page 10/27 interlinked which needs to be discussed together. Accordingly, in the paras underneath, Issue No. 1 framed in case titled as "Ram Kishan Vs. State & Ors". and Issue Nos. 1 and 2 framed in case titled as "Suraj Mal Vs. State & Anr" would be discussed together being interrelated.
10. Issue No. 1
: "Whether the two Wills dated 08.07.2004 and 02.12.2007 as propounded by the petitioner was validly executed by the deceased Ran Singh in his sound disposing mind and same are his last Wills and testament ?"
OPP.
Issue No. 1: "Whether Will propounded by the petitioner was validly executed by testator in his sound disposing mind ?" OPP Issue No. 2 : "Whether Will propounded by the petitioner has been superceded by testator by executing another Will ?" OPD New PC No. 42187/16 and New PC No. 42171/16 Page 11/27
11. Shri Ram Kishan has adduced his evidence by way of his affidavits Ex.PW2/A and Ex.RW1/1 wherein he has reiterated his contentions made in the petition and in the objections filed by him.
He has deposed that the deceased Late Shri Ran Singh had executed Wills dated 08.07.2004 and 02.12.2004 which are Ex.PW1/C and Ex.PW1/D respectively in his favour in full senses and in sound disposing mind without any undue influence or pressure from any corner, which Wills were also registered in the office of SubRegistrar, Pitampura, Delhi in the presence of attesting witnesses. He has also deposed that the earlier Will dated 23.06.2003 which was executed by the deceased in favour of Sh. Suraj Mal was revoked and cancelled by the deceased and thereafter, the deceased executed Wills dated 08.07.2004 and 02.12.2004 in his favour. He has also filed the copy of the ration card and death certificate of the New PC No. 42187/16 and New PC No. 42171/16 Page 12/27 deceased and proved them as Ex.PW1/A and Ex.PW1/B respectively.
During his crossexamination, Shri Ram Kishan has stated that the deceased was not having any ownership documents in respect to the property as mentioned in the Wills dated 08.07.2004 and 02.12.2004. He has also admitted that in the month of June, 2003, the deceased had executed a Will in favour of Shri Suraj Mal, which was registered but he does not know exact date and has also stated that the said Will was managed by Sh. Suraj Mal in collusion with his Advocate. From the testimony of Sh. Ram Kishan, it is shown that the deceased had executed a Will dated 23.06.2003 in favour of Suraj Mal and further, Ram Kishan was well aware of execution of earlier Will dated 23.06.2003 by the deceased in favour of Suraj Mal and Ram Kishan also knew that the said Will was registered.
During his further crossexamination, Ram New PC No. 42187/16 and New PC No. 42171/16 Page 13/27 Kishan has admitted that "It is correct that after execution of the Will dated 23.06.2003, the deceased Late Shri Ran Singh never raised any objection or filed any complaint for cancellation of the said Will."
From the same, Ram Kishan himself has clearly admitted again that after the deceased had executed Will in favour of Suraj Mal, the deceased never either filed any complaint nor cancelled the said Will nor raised any objection regarding his executing the said Will in favour of Suraj Mal. The same clearly implies that the deceased himself was well aware of executing the said Will dated 23.06.2003 in favour of Suraj Mal and it executed voluntarily to which the deceased never ever raised any objection.
Shri Ram Kishan has further admitted during his crossexamination that the deceased was residing with Shri Suraj Mal till his death and also admitted that Shri Suraj Mal went to Haridwar to dispose of the bones of the deceased. New PC No. 42187/16 and New PC No. 42171/16 Page 14/27
During his further crossexamination, Ram Kishan has also stated that he purchased the house no. 119 at Village & Post Office Shahbad, Daulatpur, Delhi from the deceased in the beginning of year 2001 and also made the payment to the deceased at the same time and has also admitted that he never got the sale deed/documents of the said property executed in his favour nor insisted for it as the deceased had assured him that he would execute necessary documents in his favour. He has also stated that on 02.12.2004 the sale deed with respect to the aforesaid property no. 119 was executed by the deceased in his favour on which date itself, the deceased has also executed the Will dated 02.12.2004 in his favour.
The same in considered opinion of the court does not sound convincing that when Ram Kishan had given entire sale consideration for H.No. 119 to the deceased in the beginning of the year 2001, yet when he kept silent and never New PC No. 42187/16 and New PC No. 42171/16 Page 15/27 ever insisted for execution of any documents with respect to property no. 119 in his favour till December, 2004 for which he has stated that the deceased had assured him that prior to his death, he would execute documents in his favour. It is not understandable as to how Ram Kishan and the deceased were so sure that the deceased would remain alive by December, 2003 and thereafter, within next six months, the deceased had expired. The said contention of Sh Ram Kishan for waiting for execution of documents with respect to property no. 119 in his favour by the deceased does not sound convincing.
12. It is also surprising to note here that on one hand, Shri Ram Kishan has admitted that earlier, the deceased had executed a Will dated 23.06.2003 in favour of Shri Suraj Mal, but the deceased revoked it and also himself has admitted that the deceased had never ever challenged the said Will dated 23.06.2003 nor raised any objections. Further, it is also not New PC No. 42187/16 and New PC No. 42171/16 Page 16/27 understandable that when admittedly Shri Ram Kishan had given amount with respect to sale of house no. 119 to the deceased in the beginning of year 2001, then for said reason he waited till 02.12.2004 for execution of sale deed/documents in his favour. It may be true that Sh. Ram Kishan may be a distant relative of the deceased, but certainly nobody would wait for such a long time for execution of documents with respect to property in his favour more so, if entire sale amount is already paid for which no plausible explanation is given by Ram Kishan. Further, Shri Ram Kishan has also admitted that with respect to property no. 119, he gave the entire sale consideration to the deceased, but no agreement to sell was executed and even no receipt was issued which does not inspire confidence of court as if a person gives a substantial amount to purchase a property, he would certainly ensure that some document must be executed. Further, Shri Ram Kishan has also admitted that even after he purchased the H.No. 119, New PC No. 42187/16 and New PC No. 42171/16 Page 17/27 he permitted the deceased to collect the rent from the tenants of said property and did not apprise anybody at all about the said transaction and even after the death of the deceased, he never ever either asked Sh. Suraj Mal to vacate the said house nor told him that now Suraj Mal is tenant in house no. 119 or that now Ram Kishan is entitled to receive/collect the rent. It is also shown on record that the electricity and telephone bills are in the name of Suraj Mal and till filing of petition, Sh. Ram Kishan never made any effort to get at least the electricity connection in his name. In considered opinion of the court, the said contention of Ram Kishan that he purchased H.No. 119 from the deceased in the year 2001 does not inspire confidence of court.
13. On the other hand, Sh. Suraj Mal has also adduced his evidence by way of his affidavit wherein he has reiterated that the deceased had executed the Will dated New PC No. 42187/16 and New PC No. 42171/16 Page 18/27 23.06.2003 in his favour which was registered. During his crossexamination by Shri Ram Kishan, he has stated that the bills i.e. the electricity bill, telephone bill etc. of H.No. 119 are in his name i.e. in the name of Suraj Mal. Admittedly, Sh. Ram Kishan has never made any effort to get the said bills transferred in his own name and never ever asked Sh. Suraj Mal that he is entilted to recover the rent with respect to the said house which sounds strange that if a person is owner of the house, he would exercise all his legal rights but no effort is shown to be made by Ram Kishan even remotely.
14. The most important aspect is that Shri Ram Kishan has produced the Wills dated 08.07.2004 and 02.12.2004 as Ex.RW1/C and Ex.RW1/C stated to be executed by the deceased in his favour, however, he has not identified the signature/thumb impression of the deceased on any of the New PC No. 42187/16 and New PC No. 42171/16 Page 19/27 said Wills and even the attesting witnesses to the Wills dated 08.07.2004 and 02.12.2004 have nowhere identified signature/thumb impression of the deceased on either of the said Wills.
Shri Sushil Kumar who is stated to be an attesting witness to the Will dated 08.07.2004 has neither identified even his own signature on the Will dated 08.07.2004 nor identified signature/thumb impression of the deceased on it.
Further, Shri Dilbagh Singh who is an attesting witness to the Will dated 02.12.2004 has identified only his signature on it, but has nowhere identified the signature/thumb impression of the deceased on the said Will. Further, another attesting witness Shri Rakesh Kumar to the Will dated 02.12.2004 has identified only his signature on the said Will, but has nowhere identified signature/thumb impression of the deceased on it.
New PC No. 42187/16 and New PC No. 42171/16 Page 20/27
Accordingly, in the given facts and circumstances, it is clearly shown on record that though the Wills dated 08.07.2004 and 02.12.2004 are produced by Shri Ram Kishan as stated to be executed by the deceased in his favour, however, neither Sh. Ram Kishan nor any of the attesting witnesses have identified the signature/thumb impression of Shri Ram Kishan on either of the said Wills.
On the other hand, Shri Suraj Mal has proved the Will dated 23.06.2003 executed by the deceased in his favour as Ex.PW1/10 and has also deposed that the testator i.e. the deceased and the attesting witnesses namely Sh. Rai Singh Rana and Shri R.S. Beniwal have signed the said Will and has also identified their signatures/thumb impressions at points A, A1, A2, B, B1, B2, B3 and C. Further, Shri Rai Singh Rana who is one of the attesting witnesses to the Will dated 23.06.2003 has also identified the thumb mark of the deceased on the said Will New PC No. 42187/16 and New PC No. 42171/16 Page 21/27 Ex.PW1/10 and has also identified his own signature and thumb mark on it and he has also identified signature of the other attesting witness Shri R.S. Beniwal on the Will dated 23.06.2003 which is Ex.PW1/10.
During crossexamination of Sh. Rai Singh Rana nothing is shown on record if he has deposed falsely or if the said Will Ex.PW1/10 does not bear his signature or signature of the other attesting witness or if it does not bear thumb impression of the deceased and has duly identified them in the court. He has very categorically stated about the manner in which the said Will dated 23.06.2003 was executed by the deceased and nothing is shown on record if at the time of execution of the said Will, the testator/deceased was not in fit and conscious state of mind or if he did not execute it voluntarily on his own without any fear, force or pressure or undue influence of any sort.
New PC No. 42187/16 and New PC No. 42171/16 Page 22/27
15. As already discussed earlier, it is duly shown on record that though Shri Ram Kishan has claimed that the deceased had executed the Wills dated 08.07.2004 and 02.12.2004 in his favour and vide the said Wills, the deceased revoked the earlier Will dated 23.06.2003 executed by the deceased in favour of Sh. Suraj Mal, however, Shri Ram Kishan could not prove any of the Wills dated 08.07.2004 and 02.12.2004 in accordance with law as already discussed at length as neither he nor any of the attesting witnesses to the said Wills dated 08.07.2004 and 02.12.2004 have identified the signature/thumb impression of the deceased on either of the said Wills which is a very crucial aspect.
On the other hand, Shri Suraj Mal has not only been able to show and rather proved on record that the Will dated 23.06.2003 was executed by the deceased in his favour, but has also produced the attesting witness as already discussed who has duly identified not only his signature on the New PC No. 42187/16 and New PC No. 42171/16 Page 23/27 Will dated 23.06.2003 which is Ex.PW1/10, but also identified thumb impression of the deceased on it as well. It may also be pertinent to discuss here that in the given facts and circumstances, the Wills dated 08.07.2004 and 02.12.2004 cannot be stated to be legally proved in the eyes of law. Further, though Shri Ram Kishan has crossexamined Shri Suraj Mal and the attesting witness to the Will dated 23.06.2003 at length, but there is nothing on record to show if the deceased did not execute the said Will dated 23.06.2003 in favour of Suraj Mal or if he executed it under any fear, force, coercion or pressure or undue influence or at that time, the deceased was not in sound, conscious disposing mind. From the testimony of Sh. Suraj Mal and the attesting witness Shri Rai Singh Rana, it is shown that the deceased had executed the Will dated 23.06.2003 in a sound disposing mind, health and conscious state of mind and the Will dated 23.06.2003 does not suffer from any infirmity or illegality. Further, as already New PC No. 42187/16 and New PC No. 42171/16 Page 24/27 discussed above at length, the contention of Shri Ram Kishan that the deceased sold house no. 119 in the beginning of 2001, for which he executed sale deed and Will on 02.12.2004 also does not inspire confidence of the court as the same does not sound convincing as already discussed earlier at length. It may be discussed even at the cost of repetition that the Wills dated 08.07.2004 and 02.12.2004 stated to be executed by the deceased in favour of Shri Ram Kishan are not duly proved on record.
16. Accordingly, in the given facts and circumstances, on the basis of material as placed on record and in view of aforesaid discussion, the Will dated 23.06.2003 as propounded by Sh. Suraj Mal seems to be validly executed by the testator/deceased Shri Ran Singh in sound disposing mind and the Wills dated 08.07.2004 and 02.12.2004 as propounded by Shri Ram Kishan having superseded/revoked the Will dated New PC No. 42187/16 and New PC No. 42171/16 Page 25/27 23.06.2003 do not seem genuine. The aforesaid issues are decided accordingly.
17. Now, in the paras underneath, the Issue No. 2 framed in case titled as "Ram Kishan Vs. State & Ors". And Issue nos. 3 and 4 framed in case titled as "Suraj Mal Vs. State & Anr". would be dealt with.
Issue No. 2: "Relief"
Issue No. 3: "Whether Will plaintiff is entitled for probate at prayed for ?" OPP Issue No. 4: "Relief"
18. In view of the aforesaid discussion on earlier issues, this court is of the considered opinion that the Will dated 23.06.2003 is proved on record whereas the Wills dated 08.07.2004 and 02.12.2004 are not duly proved on record. In view of the above, Shri Suraj Mal is entitled to probate with New PC No. 42187/16 and New PC No. 42171/16 Page 26/27 respect to Will dated 23.06.2003.
With aforesaid observations, the petition of Sh. Suraj Mal is allowed with costs whereas the petition filed by Shri Ram Kishan is dismissed with no order as to costs. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
Both the files be consigned to Record Room as per rules after compliance of necessary legal formalities. Announced in open court Dated: 25.09.2017 (BARKHA GUPTA) Addl. District Judge06 (Central), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi New PC No. 42187/16 and New PC No. 42171/16 Page 27/27