Delhi District Court
S. Paramjit Singh vs State on 7 July, 2014
IN THE COURT OF AJAY GOEL, ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE-12
CENTRAL DISTRICT:DELHI
(Old Case )
PC-49/13/05
In the Matter of:
1. S. Paramjit Singh
2. S. Manjeet Singh
3. S. Surenderjeet Singh
All sons of late S. Makhan Singh
4. S. Inderjit Singh
s/o late Sh. Jagjit Singh
s/o late S. Makhan Singh
All r/o H.No. 976-A, Ward no. 7,
Mehrauli, New Delhi.
.................. Petitioners
VERSUS
State
................ Respondent
Near relatives/LRs of late Sh. S.Makhan Singh:-
1) Sh. Amarjeet Singh
s/o S. Makhan Singh-53 APP
House no. D-64, Gali no. 1,
Chander Nagar, Subhash Nagar.
2) Smt. Gubax Kaur
w/o late Sh. Hira Singh
d/o late Sh. Makhan Singh
J/3/358, DDA Flats,
Kalkaji, New Delhi.
PC- 49/13/05 Page:-1/25
3) Smt. Surinder Kaur
w/o late Sh. Gurdeep Singh
4) Sh. Jaswinder Singh
5) Satinder Pal Singh
Both( 4&5) are sons of
Late Sh. Gurdeep Singh
s/o late S. Makhan Singh
All no. 3,4 & 5 r/o H.No. 3323-C,
Chander Lok, Gurgaon, Haryana.
6) Smt. Avaneet Kaur
w/o Sh. Sarabjeet Singh
d/o late Sh. Gurdeep Singh
r/o C-129, Khajan Basti,
Nagla Raya, New Delhi.
......Respondents
Date of Institution: 9.5.05
Date of Assignment to this court: 11.7.13
Date of Arguments: 4.6.14
Date of Decision: 7.7.14
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, I shall conscientiously decide the present petition u/s 278 of Indian Succession Act for grant of letter of administration in respect of the estate of deceased Sh. S. Makhan Singh in view of Will dated 5.5.05. The brief facts of the case as narrated in the petition are that deceased late S. Makhan Singh son of Nanak Singh died on 9.5.04 and at the time of his death deceased had his permanent place of abode at New PC- 49/13/05 Page:-2/25 Delhi and also left his estate at New Delhi. It was stated that the deceased was the sole and absolute owner in the possession of the property bearing no. 976-A, Ward no. 7, land measuring 200 Sq. yards bearing khasra no. 1151/3, consisting of ground floor,having 4 rooms, 1 kitchen, 4 shops and first floor having three rooms, 2 kitchen, 2 bathrooms, 2 toilets, situated village, Mehrauli, New Delhi which property was self acquired property of the deceased and he was fully competent and empowered to dispose off the said property and bequeath it in favour of any person. It was further stated that the last Will and testament made by the deceased S. Makhan Singh was got duly registered with the Sub Registrar on 5.5.04 and the same was duly witnessed. It was stated that the amount of the assets which are likely to come to the hands of the petitioner by virtue of the said Will which were detailed in Annexure A and deceased had left no liability except the expenses incurred by petitioners on his cremation and last rituals which amount had been mentioned in Annexure-B. It was accordingly prayed that letter of administration be granted to the petitioners in respect of last Will of the deceased.
2. After the petition was filed notice of the same was issued to the Collector of State to file valuation report. Valuation report dated 25.5.06 was filed on PC- 49/13/05 Page:-3/25 record. Notice was also issued to respondents/near relatives of the deceased and besides that citation to the general public was issued by way of publication in the daily newspaper " Rashtriya Sahara" as well as by affixation in the court notice board.
3. The publication of the citation was effected in the newspaper " Rashtriya Sahara" on 16.7.05.
4. Objections to the present petition were filed on Amarjeet Singh , relation no. 1 wherein it was stated that objector being the son of late S. Makhan Singh as such have the interest in the property in question. It was stated that late Sh. Makhan Singh prior to migration was residing in Pakistan and after partition he migrated to India with other family members and brought huge quantity of gold in shape of jewellery and cash belonging to the joint family and he even received compensation in lieu of the property left behind by the family in Pakistan and Rs.1,000/- was received by him by way of money order from Pakistan. It was stated that out of the said amount and out of sale proceeds of other valuable belongings including jewellery of the join family property late Makhan Singh purchased the property in question and further raised construction from the joint funds of the family. It was stated that the property in question was purchased in the name of late Sh.
PC- 49/13/05 Page:-4/25 Makhan Singh being the karta of joint family whereas the fact remained that the same was purchased from the joint family funds and out of the compensation received by late Makhan Singh qua the property left behind by the family in Pakistan. It was stated that at the time of purchase of the said property late Makhan Singh was not doing any job or business and as such he was not in a position to purchase any property of his own and on the contrary the objector was working with his brother Gurdeep Sing(now deceased) and was earning handsome amount at that time also and as such the objector had contributed his earnings in the construction of the above mentioned property and as such late Makhan Singh was not competent to execute any will and was incompetent to bequeath the property in favour of the petitioners. It was stated that the alleged Will is nothing but a fabricated piece of paper and even otherwise the execution of alleged Will in favour of the petitioners is highly unbelievable in view of the fact that the petitioners were not on good terms with the deceased in his last days as he was not properly looked after by the petitioners and on the other hand the objector was very near and dear to the deceased Makhan Singh and had been looking after him till his last breath. It was stated that Sh. Makhan Singh was too weak in his last days and he was not in a PC- 49/13/05 Page:-5/25 position to move from the bed and even was not mentally fit. It was staed that late Sh. Makhan Singh was not possessing sound disposing mind prior to his death and as such the execution of the alleged Will is highly suspicious and cannot be believed since late Sh. Makhan Singh expired on 9.5.04 whereas the Will in question was executed on 5.5.04. It was stated that the Will in question was forged by the petitioners in order to grab the joint family property. Further, joint objections were filed on behalf of relation no. 3,4 and 5 on the one hand and by Smt.Avaneet Kaur, relation no. 6 daughter of late Sh. Gurdeep Singh on the other hand, however similar objections were raised by them as were raised by relation no. 1 Amarjeet Singh. Accordingly it was prayed that the probate petition filed by the petitioner by dismissed.
5. Separate reply to objections of objectors were filed on behalf of the petitioner in which contents of the petition were reiterated and those of the objections were denied.
6. Relation no. 2 gave her no objection to the present petition and did not contest the case.
7. Vide order dated 11.7.06 from the pleadings of parties, the following issues were framed:-
PC- 49/13/05 Page:-6/25
1) Whether the Will dated 5.5.04 as propounded by the petitioner was validly executed by the deceased Makhan Singh in sound disposing mind and same is his last Will and testament?OPP
2) Relief.
8. In evidence, petitioners produced PW-1 petitioner no. 1 himself, PW-2 Sh. Sanjay Rawat, UDC from Sub Registrar Office, Sh. Nand Kumar Verma was also examined as PW-2, PW-3 Harinder Singh Chadha. PW-1 petitioner no. 1 reiterated case of petitioners as set out in the petition and relied upon Will Ex. PW-1/1. PW-2 Sh. Sanjay Rawat, UDC from office of Sub Registrar brought the registration record of Will executed by S. Makhan Singh and Will was Ex. PW-2/A. PW-2 Nand Kumar Verma stated himself to be attesting witness of the Will in question and identified his signatures on the Will and stated that when he went to the office of Sub Registrar Will was already signed by Makhan Singh and Mr. Chadha and thereafter he signed the Will. PW-3 Haridner Singh Chadha also stated himself to the attesting witness to the Will. He stated that in his presence registrar enquired from Makhan Singh whether he executed his will of his own free Will to which he admitted it and then he signed it. PW-3 stated that he signed before the Sub Regsitrar and then he signed it. One more witness was with him who was jain and is bania and resides in the PC- 49/13/05 Page:-7/25 neighbourhood but he did not know his name.
9. In defence, objectors examined RW-1 Ms. Surinder Kaur, objector/relation no. 3, RW-2 Amarjeet Singh, objector/relation no. 1, RW-3, Jaswinder Singh, relation/objector no. 4 and RW-4 Sh. Ajay Kumar, LDC from BDO office. RW-1, 2 and 3 are the objectors and they reiterated their case as set out in the objections and relied upon receipt Ex. RW-1/1(colly.). RW-4 Sh. Ajay Kumar brought the receipt book being maintain by their office for the period 18.12.70 to 24.11.1971 and stated that record about other receipt books is with Gram Sabha Pradhan, Chattarpur. He identified Ex. P-13 as the true copy of the receipt from their record dated 10.11.1971.
10.I have gone through the entire records including the pleadings, documents and the testimony of witnesses examined on record and have heard the arguments addressed by counsel.
11. Issue no. 1 :- Before proceeding to decide this issues, I would like to discuss the relevant law and judgments on this point. Section 278 of Succession Act deals with petition for grant of letter of administration while the effect of letter of administration has been given in Section 220 of the Act which lays down that the grant of letter of administration entitles the administrator to all the rights belonging to intestate as effectual if the PC- 49/13/05 Page:-8/25 administrator had been granted at the moment after death. It is further settled preposition of law that grant of letter of administration does not create any title but is only declaratory existing in the LRs of the deceased.
12.Section 2(h) of the Indian Succession Act describes the Will to be a legal declaration of the intention of the testator with respect to his property, which he desires to be carried into effect after his death and as such Will is the only document, which becomes executable after the death of its executor. The person, who produces the Will before the Court or propounds the same and wants the court to rely thereupon, has to prove that:-
1) Will in question is a legal declaration of the intention of the deceased.
2) The testator, while executing the will, was in a sound and disposing state of mind.
3) The testator has executed the Will of his own free; meaning thereby that he was free from all sorts of influence coercion, fear or force when it was executed.
Reliance placed on AIR 1989 Gujarat 75(DB) titled as Vijaya Ben Vashram Vs. State of Gujrat. It is further a settled proposition of the law that no specific format of the Will or specific form of attestation is required.
PC- 49/13/05 Page:-9/25 Reliance placed on AIR 1998 Madhya Pradesh 1 titled as Ku. Chandan & Anr. Vs. Longa Bai& Anr."
13.Section 63 of the Act of 1925 has three several requirements as regards the execution of Will viz.
"(a) the testator shall sign 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 signatures 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 Indian Evidence Act, 1872 lays down that if a document is required by law to be attested and the attesting witness is alive and subject PC- 49/13/05 Page:-10/25 to the process of the court capable of giving evidence, must be called to prove its execution. Execution consists of signing a document read out, read over and understood and to go through the formalities necessary for validity for a legal act.
15. So, a document has to be proved as per the Evidence Act, particularly in terms of Chapter-V starting with Section 61 and Section 68 of Indian Evidence Act being relevant. However, in this context Section 63 of Indian Succession Act gives an exception which requires as to how a Will is to be executed and proved. Section 63 (c) of the Indian Succession Act requires atleast two attesting witnesses as a mandatory condition, the witness may be more than two but not less than two. The non-compliance with the requirement of the attestation in respect of the Will, which is otherwise valid and is perfectly enforceable document, under the provision of Section 63 Sub-Section (c) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, renders the testamentary document, of no effect. Will is a document required by law to be attested, and if the standard of proof as envisaged by Section 68 of the Evidence Act, 1872 and Section 63(3) of the Act falls short of legal requirement, a will which is neither registered, nor proved to be attested and executed in accordance with law, cannot be taken into consideration PC- 49/13/05 Page:-11/25 for purpose of establishing claim of the legatee, reference can be made to Mst. Gullan Devi Vs. Mst. Punu @ Puran Devi & Ors. AIR 1989 J&K 51.
16. In nutshell, the propounder of the Will is required to prove not only the ingredients discussed about but also to take away suspicious circumstances if any, surrounding the Will, to the satisfaction of the conscience of the Court. Further it is pertinent to mention that probate of a Will can be granted only where the testator appoints an executor of the Will and in terms of the Section 222, 234 & 276(e) in other cases only letters of administration with Will annexed can be given.
17. The decisive aspect is to ascertain as to whether the Will is genuine and duly executed Will of testator so as to say that it was executed by him in disposing mind out of his own free will and without any force, coercion or fraud and the petitioner was required to dispel all circumstances which are casting doubt on the execution of Will without any force, coercion or fraud.
18.The intention in the Will are to be ascertained by all possible and available circumstances. In this context reference can be made to the judgment in Anil Kak Vs. Kumari Sharada Raje and others (2008) 7 Supreme Court Cases 695, wherein it has been observed as under:
"37.-The testator's intention is collected from a consideration of the whole PC- 49/13/05 Page:-12/25 will and not from a part of it. If two parts of the same will are wholly irreconcilable, the court of law would not be in a position to come to a finding that the Will dated 4.11.1992 could be given effect to irrespective of the appendices. In construing a Will, no doubt all possible contingencies are required to be taken into consideration. Even if a part is invalid, the entire document need not be invalidated, only if it forms a severable part.
In Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th Edn. Vol. 50p. 239, it has been observed as under:
"Leading principle of construction- The only principle of construction which is applicable without qualification to all wills and overrides every other rule of construction, is that the Testator's intention is collected from a consideration of the whole will taken in connection with any evidence properly admissible, and the meaning of the will and of every part of it is determined according to that intention."
Similarly, in (1971) 1 MLJ 127 P. Manavala Chetty V. P. Ramanujan Chetty, it has been further held as under:
"9..... It is the obvious duty of the Court to ascertain and given effect to the true intention of the Testator and also avoid any construction of the Will which will defeat or frustrate or bring about a situation which is directly PC- 49/13/05 Page:-13/25 contrary to the intentions of the Testator. At the same time, it must be borne in mind that there are obvious limits to this doctrine that the court should try to ascertain and give effect to the intentions of the testator. The law requires a will to be in writing and it cannot, consistently with this doctrine, permit parol evidence or evidence of collateral circumstances to be adduced to contradict or add to or vary the contents of such a will. No evidence, however, powerful it may be, can be given in a court of construction in order to complete an incomplete Will, or project back a valid will, if the terms and conditions of the written will are useless and ineffective to amount to a valid bequest, or to prove any intention or wish of the testator not found in the Will. The testator's declaration or evidence of collateral circumstances cannot control the operation of the clear provisions of the Will. The provisions of the Succession Act referred to earlier indicate the limits of the court's power to take note of the testator's declaration and the surroundings circumstances i.e. evidence of collateral circumstances."
19.In the case of H. Venkatachala Iyengar Vs. B.N. Thimmajamma & others AIR 1959 SC 443, it has been observed as follows:
"It is well known that the proof of Wills presents a recurring topic for PC- 49/13/05 Page:-14/25 decision in Courts and there are a large number of judicial pronouncements on the subject. The party propounding a Will or otherwise making a claim under a Will is no doubt seeking to prove a document and, in deciding how it is to be proved, we must inevitably refer to the statutory provisions which govern of documents. Section 67 and 68 of the Evidence Act are relevant for the purpose. Under S. 67, if a document is alleged to be signed by any person, the signatures of the said person must be proved to be in his handwriting, and for proving such a handwriting under SS. 45 and 47 of the Act the opinions of experts and of persons acquainted with the handwriting of the person concerned are made relevant. Section 68 deals with the proof of the execution of the document required by law to be attested; and it provides that such a document shall not be used as evidence until one attesting witness at least has been called for the purpose of proving its execution. These provisions prescribe the requirements and the nature of proof which must be satisfied by the party who relies on a document in a court of law. Similarly, SS 59 and 63 of the Indian Succession Act are also relevant. Section 59 provides that every person of sound mind, not being a minor, may dispose of his property by will and the three illustrations to this Section indicate what is meant by the PC- 49/13/05 Page:-15/25 expression 'a person of sound mind' in the context. Section 63 requires that the testator shall sign or affix his mark to the ill or it shall be signed by some other person in his presence and by his direction and that the signatures or mark shall be so made that it shall appear that it was intended thereby to give effect to the writing as a Will. This Section also requires that the will shall be attested by two or more witnesses as prescribed. Thus, the question as to whether the will set up by the propounder is proved to be the last will of the testator has to be decided in the light of these provisions. Has the testator signed the Will? Did he understand the nature and effect of the deposition in the Will? Did he put his signatures to the Will knowing what is contained? State broadly it is the decision of these questions which determines the nature of the finding on the question of the proof of wills. It would prima facie be true to say that the Will has to be proved like any other document except as to the special requirements of attestation prescribed by S. 63 of the India Succession Act. As in the case of proof of other document so in the case of proof of Wills it would be idle to except proof with mathematical certainty. The test to be applied would be the usual test of the satisfaction of the prudent mind of such matters." In this context, reference may also be made to a decision in PC- 49/13/05 Page:-16/25 Seth Beni Chand Vs. Smt. Kamla Kunwar and others, (1977)1 SCR
578.
20.The independence and exercise of the free Will is one of the attributes of the human being and existence, subject to of-course the reasonable restrictions imposed by the civilized society in various form i.e. statutory, customary, moral, social etc. The exercise of right by an individual in the property owned by him or her is one such characteristic of the property given to its owner having considerable freedom to the extent of absolute to do whatever one wants to do with the property in question. This freedom is one of the very vital attributes of ownership of the property rather the sole most important one. In this context, the property, being subject matter of one's discretion to use, subject to the reasonable restriction has been brought into the domain of testamentary document. Thus, the Will is nothing but manifestation of the concept of ownership of property and its attributes wherein the owner of the property expresses his/ her wish to dispose off or transfer the property in favour of the entity chosen by him and that seems to be reason why no specific proforma or format of the Will is prescribed anywhere. The requirement of valid Will is that it should be the last testamentary document of the testator, made in sound disposing PC- 49/13/05 Page:-17/25 mind in presence of two attesting witnesses and free from any kind of force, theft or coercion etc.
21. In case of any confusion or mix up and even otherwise, at times, the documents have to be read thread bare in between the lines so as to ascertain as to what exactly is being conveyed based upon the intentions of the writer of the document subject to the condition that sufficient indications are there in the document itself and the attending circumstances also contribute and indicates towards the particular inference cumulatively and collectively.
22. Now I have to see whether in the present case the above principles have been duly made out or not.
23. As far as the ingredient whether the testator was in sound disposing mind at the relevant time of execution of the Will is concerned objector has contended that testator was too weak in his last days and he was not in a position to move from bed and even was not mentally fit. Though there is no medical document on record which could show that the medical condition of the testator but PW-1 himself admitted during cross examination that testator as not able to stand of his own and he was helped by Inderjjit Singh when he was photographed at the office of sub registrar.
PC- 49/13/05 Page:-18/25 PW-3 also during cross examination was asked about health condition of testator to which he stated that his son was holding him by his hand and taking him. The said admissions on the part of PW-1 and PW-3 makes it clear that on the date of execution of the Will in question i.e. on 5.5.04 the physical condition of the testator was not good and he was even unable to walk of his own. Even the photograph on the back of the Will also show that testator was standing with the help of somebody. Further it is pertinent to mention here that place of death mentioned in the death certificate is written as house. PW-1 during cross examination also admitted that as per death certificate he died in the house and voluntarily stated that when he was taken to the hospital before admission he was declared dead. However later on he admitted that testator was admitted in the hospital on 6.5.04. PW-1 himself was not sure as to whether the testator was admitted to the hospital or not and gave contradictory stand on the same. Even though he admitted that death certificate was got prepared by him but during cross examination could not comment as to why it is written that testator died at home whereas as per him testator died in the hospital. Besides that, PW-3 during cross examination stated that testator died in the hospital at 1.30 p.m on 9.5.04 and he was admitted in the hospital on PC- 49/13/05 Page:-19/25 6.5.04 in the afternoon. He also stated that testator developed weakness between 5-6th May because he was hale and hearty before the execution of this Will. The statements of PW-1 and PW-3 remained contradictory on the aspect as to whether testator was admitted to the hospital or not since as per PW-3 testator was admitted to the hospital on 6.5.04 whereas as per PW-1 when testator was taken to the hospital before admission he was declared dead though later on he admitted that testator was admitted on 6.5.04. The said contradictions in the statements of PW-1 and PW-3 definitely raise question of doubt on the health of the testator. Even otherwise the Will in question was executed on 5.5.04 whereas testator admittedly died on 9.5.04 that within four days of execution of the Will in question and as already observed it has already come on record that physically the testator was not in good condition on 5.5.04, hence the total medical condition of the testator cannot be given a clean chit. Rather photocopy of the election i-card of testator is on record as per which he was 75 years on 1.1.94 meaning thereby at the time of his death he was around 85 years of age, hence it was more onerous upon the petitioners to prove that at such an age the physical and mental condition of the testator was good. Hence, in view of the above, it cannot be held that testator PC- 49/13/05 Page:-20/25 was hale and hearty at the relevant time of execution of the Will and further that his poor physical condition had not effected his cognitive faculties.
24. Now I will deal with the question of valid execution of the Will. There are two witnesses to the Will in question i.e. Nand Kumar Verma and Sh. Harinder Singh Chadha who were examined as PW-2 and PW-3 respectively. PW-2 Nand Kumar Verma though identified his signatures on the Will in question, however he deposed that when he went to the office of Sub Registrar Will was already signed by Makhan Singh and Mr. Chadha. He did not know his complete name. Thereafter he signed at point A. He further deposed that signatures were already there and he made enquiries from the Sub Registrar why he was to sign and then he was told that he knew Makhan Singh very well. He stated that he had to sign it stating that he knew Makhan Singh very well. He also stated during cross examination that nobody signed in his presence. The above said testimony of PW-2 Nand Kumar Verma clearly shows that neither the testator nor another attesting witness signed the Will in question in his presence which makes the execution of the Will faulty since it is mandatory as per law that the attesting witnesses and the testator must sign in presence of each other. Rather the above testimony of PW-2 shows that he was not even aware as PC- 49/13/05 Page:-21/25 to what document he was signing and he signed the document for the reason that he knew Makhan Singh. Further, this witness deposed that when he reached the office of Sub Regsitrar there was a dark room where Makhan Singh was standing and when he entered there he was asked whether he knew Makhan Singh. During cross examination he stated that there was only one person in that room apart from him and Makhan Singh who was the clerk of the Sub Registrar whereas PW-3 Sh. Harinder Singh Chadha deposed that in his presence the registrar enquired from Makhan Singh whether he executed his Will of his own free Will to which he admitted and then he signed it. PW-3 stated that first Makhan Singh signed before the sub registrar and then he signed it. He further stated that one more witness was with him who was jain. He further stated that he was bania and resided in the neighbourhood but he did not know his name. PW-3 contradicted the stand of PW-2 by saying that he, testator and another witness was present before the sub registrar. The above testimony of PW-3 even raised doubt on the identify of other witness who as per him was a jain whereas as per the Will as well as case of the petitioner other witness was PW-2 Sh. Nand Kumar Verma. From the above said, it is clear that the testimonies of both the attesting witnesses were not corroborated PC- 49/13/05 Page:-22/25 and suffers from contradiction which has not only raised suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the Will but has proved to be fatal to the case of the petitioners.
25. Further perusal of the Will in question shows that the property in question was bequeathed to the petitioners by the testator, however there is no reason mentioned for debarment of other sons and daughter in the same who were also surviving legal heirs of the testator. Even there is no mention of the other son Amarjeet Singh, Gudeep Singh(since deceased) and daughter Gurbax Kaur what to talk about the reason of their debarment. Petitioners have pleaded that objectors had strained relationship with the testator therefore they were debarred by him, however it a point of consideration if the situation was such then why the testator did not mention the said reason in the Will itself. Rather during cross examination petitioner no. 1/PW-1 deposed that whatever NSC his father was having he had distributed and some of the NSCs were given to Amarjit Singh also. When the testator had given a share in NSCs to the objector Amarjit Singh then why he would debar him while making a Will for his estate. It is also not understandable that if testator had strained relationship then why he gave some of his NSCs to the objector Amarjit Singh. The Will in question PC- 49/13/05 Page:-23/25 is silent in regard to the reasons of debarment of objectors and the same are not only fully explained by the testator while executing the Will which give rise to unnatural and suspicious circumstances. Further, it is admitted case of the petitioner no. 1 that he and Sh. Inderjeet Singh another beneficiary of the Will were present at the time of execution of the Will. He even deposed that the Will was written on 5.5.04 in his presence. When petitioner no. 1 and Inderjeet Singh were present at the time of execution of the Will and even PW-1/petitioner was also present at the time of drafting of the Will, hence his influence on the testator cannot be ruled out. Thus in view of the above observations, the execution of the Will in question is surrounded with heavy suspicion and the Will in question cannot be given a clean chit. Accordingly in view of the above said Will dated 5.5.04 cannot be stated to be the last testamentary disposition of the testator out of free will and without coercion and is accordingly rejected. Though it is contended by the objectors that the testator was not competent to execute the Will in question since the property in question was purchased in the name of testator being the Karta of the joint family whereas the fact remains that the said property was purchased from the join family funds. However, except for the bald assertion nothing has been brought on record to prove the same and mere bald assertion PC- 49/13/05 Page:-24/25 is not sufficient.Hence the said objection of the objector is rejected. Even otherwise as already oberved the Will in question has already been rejected and this question whether the property in question was self acquired or joint family property hardly makes any difference. Issue no. 1 is accordingly decided in favour of the objectors and against the petitioners.
26. Relief:- In view of the above finding on issue no. 1, instant petition stands dismissed. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in open court (Ajay Goel) on 7.7.14 ADJ-12(Central)/Delhi PC- 49/13/05 Page:-25/25