Delhi District Court
Madan Mohan Seth vs State on 16 February, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SH. SUNIL RANA
ADDL. DISTRICT JUDGEII : ROHINI : DELHI
PC NO. 56/11
Unique Code No. 02404C0208582011
Madan Mohan Seth
S/o Sh. Shanti Saroop Seth
R/o 9/40, Punjabi Bagh (West)
New Delhi26 ... Petitioner
Vs.
State ... Respondent
Date of Institution :05.08.11
Date on which case was reserved for order :04.02.12
Date of pronouncement of order :16.02.12
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment I shall decide the petition filed on behalf of the petitioner.
2. Briefly stated facts are that present petition under Section 276 of Indian Succession Act,1925 has been filed for grant of probate to the petitioner in respect of Will dt. 15.11.1999 executed by Late Sh. Ram Sarup Seth & Will dt. 05.11.2007 executed by Late Smt. PC56/11 1 Sarla Rani Seth. It has been stated that deceased Ram Sarup Seth s/o Late Ganga Bishan Seth R/o 61, Nangloi ExtensionI, Rohtak Road, Delhi41, had died on 10.01.2000 and his wife deceased Sarla Rani Seth died on 18.02.2008 and both the deceased were joint owner and in possession of (i) a residential house bearing Municipal No. 61, built on freehold land measuring 128 sq. yards approximately, situated at Nangloi, Extension no.1, forming part of khasra no. 35/16 in the area and revenue estate of village Nangloi Jat, Delhi State, Delhi, which was owned and possessed by deceased Sh. Ram Sarup Seth, by virtue of sale deed dated 17th April' 1972, duly registered in the office of Sub Registrar, S.D.No.II, Delhi; (ii) a residential plot bearing no. 90, pocket 7, Sector 24, measuring 32 sq. meters, situated in the layout plan of Rohini Residential Scheme, Delhi, which was owned by both the abovesaid deceased jointly.
3. It has been further stated that both the abovesaid executants had no issue at all, male or female and applicant/ petitioner is governed by Hindu Law of Succession and he is entitled to have absolute ownership in the properties of the deceased as the same has been bequeathed in his favour and the house bearing no. 61, situated at Nangloi, Delhi has already PC56/11 2 been sold by the petitioner through his power of attorney in view of abovesaid Will dated 15.11.1999 executed by Late Sh. Ram Sarup Seth and another Will dated 05.11.2007 executed by Late Smt. Sarla Rani Seth in favour of the petitioner in respect of their immovable properties and both the Wills are unregistered, duly executed in the presence of Witnesses and photocopies of both the Wills are annexure B and B1 and by virtue of these Wills, have bequeathed all the rights, title and interest of properties in favour of the petitioner and he is entitled to deal with the same and is claiming probate being beneficiary under the abovesaid Wills dated 15.11.1999 executed by deceased Sh. Ram Sarup Seth and Will dated 05.11.2007 executed by Smt. Sarla Rani Seth in favour of the petitioner.
4. Notice of this petition was issued to the State through collector and citation was affixed at the notice board of court house on 11.08.2011 and notice was also published in the Newspaper, Virat Vaibhav dated 17.08.2011, in terms of the order dated 05.08.11 passed by Ld. Predecessor of this court. The office of SDM, Saraswati Vihar has filed a valuation report on 17.12.2011 whereby the total value of the property bearing no. 90, Pocket 7, Sector 24, Rohini, Delhi, has been assessed as PC56/11 3 Rs.15,30,880/.
5. In order to prove its case, the petitioner has examined PW 1 Krishan Kumar Khanna, PW2 Suresh Marwah and examined himself as PW3 and Sh. Surinder Mohan Seth as PW4.
6. PW1 has deposed that he is one of the attesting witness of Will dated 15.11.1999 executed by Late Sh. Ram Sarup Seth in his presence which bears his signatures at point "A" of Ex.PW1/1 and further deposed that signature of other attesting witness, namely, Suman Marwah is at point B and signature of the testator is at points C and D and the verification letter filed by him in the present petition is Ex.PW1/2 and copy of his identity proof is Ex.PW1/3.
7. PW2 has deposed that he is one of the attesting witness of Will dated 05.11.2007 executed by Late Smt. Sarla Rani Seth in his presence which bears his signatures at point "A" in Ex.PW2/1 and signatures of other attesting witness Naresh Kumar Sehtal is at point "B" and thumb impression of the testator is at points "C" and "D" and Will was executed by the Late Sarla Rani Seth who had put her thumb impressions in his presence and the verification letter and identification proof is Ex.PW2/2 and Ex.PW2/3 respectively.
PC56/11 4
8. PW3 is the petitioner, who has deposed on the line of pleadings that his uncle Ram Sarup Seth and his wife Smt. Sarla Rani Seth, both died on 10.01.2000 and 18.02.2008 respectively. Copy of death certificate of Ram Sarup Seth is Ex.PW3/1 and that of Smt. Sarla Rani Seth is Ex.PW3/2 and during their lifetime, both the deceased were owner and in possession of property bearing no. 61 at village Nangloi Jat, Delhi and a plot bearing no. 90, pocket 7, Sector 24, measuring 32 sq. meters, at Rohini, Delhi85 and the perpetual lease deed dated 14.09.96 of plot no. 90, pocket 7, Sector 24, measuring 32 sq. meters, situated in the layout plan of Rohini Residential Scheme, Delhi is Ex.PW3/3. PW3 further deposed that both the deceased had died issueless and Will dated 15.11.1999 was executed by Sh. Ram Sarup Seth and Will dated 05.11.2007 was executed by Smt. Sarla Rani Seth in favour of the petitioner in respect of abovesaid properties in the presence of the witnesses and both the Wills are unregistered which are already exhibited as Ex.PW1/1 and Ex.PW2/1. PW3 has further deposed that by virtue of those Wills they have bequeathed all the above mentioned properties in his favour and has become the absolute owner and property bearing no. 61, Nangloi Jat has already been sold through his attorney PC56/11 5 Sh.Surinder Mohan Seth and copy of his driving license is Ex.PW 3/4 and copy of the ration card of the deceased is Ex.PW3/5 and copy of GPA is Ex.PW3/6 and agreement to sell is Ex.PW3/7, respectively.
9. PW4 has also deposed on the line of pleadings that his uncle Ram Sarup Seth died on 10.01.2000 and his wife Smt. Sarla Rani Seth died on 18.02.2008 and during their lifetime both the deceased were owner and in possession of property bearing No. 61, Village, Nangloi Jat, Delhi and plot bearing no. 90, Pocket 7, Sector 24, measuring 32 sq. meter at Rohini, Delhi85. PW4 has further deposed that both the deceased had died issueless and Will dated 15.11.1999 was executed by Ram Sarup Seth and Will dated 05.11.2007 was executed by Smt. Sarla Rani Seth in favour of petitioner in respect of abovesaid properties and both the Wills were unregistered and duly executed in the presence of witnesses and by virtue of those Wills have bequeathed all the right, title and interest of properties in favour of the petitioner.
10. I have heard the arguments on behalf of counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
11. It is a well settled principle of law that Will has to be proved by propounder. Section 2(h) of Indian Succession Act, 1925 PC56/11 6 defines Will as meaning "the legal declaration of the intention of the testator with respect to his property, which he desires to be carried into effect after his death". There are three essential factors to a Will:
(i) It must be a legal declaration of the intention of the testator, i.e., the person who makes the Will;
(ii) The declaration of intention must be with respect to the testator's property;
(iii) The documents should express a desire that his intention must be carried into effect after his death.
12. It is also a well settled principle of law that a person who propounds the Will or produces the Will before the court and wants the court to rely upon the same has to prove that:
(i) the Will in question is the legal declaration of the intention of the deceased;
(ii) the testator when executed the Will was in sound and disposing state of mind, and
(iii) the testator had executed the Will of his own free Will, meaning thereby, he was a free agent when he executed the Will.
13. The onus of proof rests squarely on the person propounding a Will and in the absence of any suspicious circumstances surrounding its execution, the proof of PC56/11 7 testamentary capacity and testator's signatures as required by law would normally suffice in discharging the onus. Where, however, suspicious circumstances are found to exist, the propounder of the Will must explain them and dispel all the suspicion to the satisfaction of the court before it is accepted as genuine. This would be so even in those cases where such a plea has not been raised and on proved circumstances has given rise to doubt. In such cases also, it is for the propounder to satisfy the conscience of the court and explain the circumstances which raised the suspicion of the court and it is for those who propound the Will to remove that suspicion. What are suspicious circumstances must invariably be judged in the facts and circumstances of each particular case. If, however, propounder takes a prominent part in the execution of the Will which confers substantial benefit on him that itself is a suspicious circumstances attending the execution of the Will and appreciating the evidence in such a case, the court should proceed in vigilant and cautious manner.
14. The position of law relating to Wills is settled by plethora of decisions. The following points are thus, required to be borne in mind: (1) The burden is on the propounder to prove PC56/11 8 due and valid execution of the Will.
(2) The propounder is required to show by satisfactory evidence that the Will was signed by the testator, that at the relevant point of time the testator was in a sound and disposing state of mind, and that he understood the nature and effect of the disposition when he put his signature to the document out of own free Will.
(3) Generally speaking when the evidence adduced in support of the Will is uninterested and satisfactory Courts would be justified in making the finding in favour of the propounder. The onus upon him can be said to have been discharged on proof of these essential facts.
(4) If, however, there are any suspicious circumstances, surrounding the Will, initial onus becomes very heavy.
(5) The propounder of the Will is required to remove the suspicions from the mind of the Court by cogent and satisfactory evidence.
The result of the application of above mentioned general and broad principles always depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case and the nature and quality of the evidence adduced by the parties.
15. In the proof of a Will, the court must take the cumulative effect of the suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the Will and then apply the test whether in the circumstances PC56/11 9 of the case, the judicial conscience of the court is satisfied that the propounder has dispelled all clouds of suspicion with which the execution of the Will is shrouded. Suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will when not explained will entail refusal of grant of probate and it is the paramount duty of the propounder to explain away the suspicious circumstances attending the execution of the Will. There is no presumption that the Will in question is a legal and valid Will and its execution is to be proved in accordance with law, i.e., as per the provision of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act and also prove that it is the last and genuine testament explaining all such suspicious circumstances alleged to be shrouding it.
16. It is a well settled principle of law that attesting witness has to speak not only about the signature of the testator in his presence but he has also to speak that each of the attesting witness who have signed the Will in presence of the testator. The requirement of law in this respect, as is apparent that two attesting witnesses have to sign the Will in presence of the testator and testator has to either sign the Will in their presence or has to acknowledge to each of them that the Will was signed by him. In terms of Section 68 of Indian Evidence Act, while making PC56/11 10 attestation, there must be an animus attestandi, on the part of the attesting witness. Thus, it is evident that to constitute a valid Will, the testator or testatrix had to sign the Will and it has to be attested by two witness.
17. As per the provision of Section 63 of Indian Succession Act, it has to be proved that the Will has been executed in the presence of two witnesses who in turn, attested the same. The abovesaid Wills though is not registered one and there is no law that the Will should compulsorily be a registered one but when the Will is unregistered, then the evidence led by the propounder of the Will is to be scrutinized with great care and caution as the same speaks after the death of the testator.
18. Apex Court in H. Venkatchala Iyengar Vs. B.N.Thimmajamma & others, AIR 1959 SC 443, has observed that the mode of proving the Will ordinarily does not differ from that of proving any other document except as to the special requirement of attestation prescribed by Section 63 of Indian Succession Act. Proof in either case cannot be mathematically precised and certained and so the test should be one of satisfaction of a prudent mind in such matter and onus must be on the propounder and in absence of suspicious circumstances PC56/11 11 surrounding the execution of the Will, proof of testamentary capacity and signature of the testator as required by law may be sufficient to discharge the onus, where, however, there are suspicious circumstances, the onus would be on the propounder to explain them to the satisfaction of the court before the Will can be accepted as genuine.
19. It is elementary to observe that onus to prove the Will is on the propounder and the onus becomes heavier if there are suspicious circumstances. The propounder is under the legal obligation to dispel all the suspicious circumstances by adducing, convincing and cogent evidence. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in H. Venkatchala Iyengar (supra) has held that the propounder must show by satisfactory evidence that the Will was signed by the testator and he was at the relevant time in a sound disposing state of mind; that he understood the nature and effect of disposition and then put the signature on the document of his own free will. A constitution bench has reiterated the aforementioned view in the case of Shashi Kumar Banerjee & Others Vs. Subodh Kumar Banerjee AIR 1964 SC 529. The observation of their lordship in this regard read as under: The onus of proving the Will is on the propounder PC56/11 12 and in the absence of suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the Will, proof of testamentary capacity and the signature of the testator as required by law is sufficient to discharge the onus where, however, there are suspicious circumstances, the onus is on the propounder to explain them to the satisfaction of the court before the court accept Will as a genuine. Where the caviator alleges undue influence, fraud and coercion, the onus is on him to prove the same. Even where there are no such pleas but the circumstances gives rise to doubts, it is for the propounder to satisfy the conscience of the court. The suspicious circumstances may be as to the genuineness of the signature of the testator, the condition of the testator's mind, the disposition made in the Will being unnatural, improbable or unfair in the light of relevant circumstances or there might be other indication in the Will to show that the testator's mind was not free. In such a case, the court would naturally expect that all legitimate suspicion should be completely removed before the document is accepted as the last Will of the testator. If the propounder succeeds in removing the suspicious circumstances, then and only then court would grant probate.
There are other judgments on the issues that all the doubts are required to be removed by propounder and he has to explain the suspicious circumstances to the complete satisfaction of the court. Reference in this regard may be made in the PC56/11 13 case of Indu Bala Bose & others Vs. Manindra Chandra Bose & another, 1982 (1) SCC 20;
Gurdian Kaur & Others Vs. Kartar Kaur & Others 1998 (4) SCC 384 and Vrindavanibai Sambhaji Mane Vs. Ramchandra Vithal Ganeshkar, 1995 (5) SCC 215.
20. In the present case, the propounder/petitioner is relying on two Wills, one Will dated 15.11.1999 executed by Late Sh. Ram Sarup Seth and another Will dated 05.11.2007 executed by Late Smt. Sarla Rani Seth, and no Will in original has been placed on record. Petitioner has examined only one attesting witness of both the Wills and nothing has been stated or brought on record to explain away why the other witness have not been examined who is alive and capable of giving evidence.
21. In the present matter, the petitioner did not file the original Will on record for the reasons best known to him, when the original are available with him. In such cases, the original documents must be on record to show that signature of the testator is so placed that it would appear that the testator wanted to create the same document. The evidence on behalf of the petitioner falls short and the suspicion has not been removed by the proper and cogent evidence.
PC56/11 14
22. In the instant case, no evidence has been brought on record to show as to who drafted the Wills and as per whose instructions it was drafted. Even in the Wills it was not stated as to who was the scribe of the Wills and as per whose instructions it was written down and by whom. It is a matter of record that facts stated in both the Wills of deceased claiming to have been bequeathed the property by Will revealed that the testator and the testatrix were seriously ill and bedridden, when the Will was executed but there is no evidence whatsoever as regard the mental status of the deceased testator or testatrix at the time of execution of the Will. Neither the petitioner nor the attesting witnesses have deposed that the testator and testatrix had voluntarily executed the Will and that they were a free agent at the time of execution of the Will and there was no evidence whatsoever to explain this suspicious circumstances.
23. It is pertinent to mention herein that no such evidence has been adduced by the petitioner to show that at the time of execution of the Will Ex.PW2/1 testatrix was in sound and stable state of mind to such an extent that she was able to understand the real nature of the document which she was executing.
24. In the present case, there are certain suspicious PC56/11 15 circumstances concerning the execution of the Will which are as follows:
(i) The original Wills have not been placed on record for the reasons best known to the petitioner, when the originals are available with him.
(ii) The Will dated 15.11.1999, Ex.PW1/1 executed by Sh. Ram Sarup Seth was signed by testator showing his signature as "Ram Saroop Seth" and as per Ex.PW3/1(death certificate), Ex.PW 3/5(ration card) as well as name of lessee in the perpetual lease of DDA is mentioned as "Ram Saroop Seth".
(iii) Nothing has been stated in this regard why both the attesting witnesses in the Wills dated 15.11.1999 and 05.11.2007 had not been examined when second witness is alive and capable of giving evidence.
(iv) There is no evidence has been brought on record to show as to who drafted the Wills and as per whose instructions it was drafted. Even in the Will it was not stated as to who was the scribe of the Will and as per whose instructions it was written down and by whom as in both the Wills it has been stated that the testator and testatrix were suffering from acute diseases and were bedridden and admittedly Will dated 05.11.2007 executed by Smt.Sarla Rani Seth is in English and her thumb impressions are only on the last page of the Will.
(v) No evidence has been brought on record to this effect that she was in sound and stable state of PC56/11 16 mind to such an extent that she was able to understand the real nature of the document which she was executing and that the contents of the Will was read over to her before putting her thumb impression on the said Will dated 05.11.2007.
(vi) Both the Wills were executed two months before the death of executors and contents and language of both the Wills are almost identical while there is a gap of about 8 years in the execution of the Will dated 15.11.1999 executed by Late Sh. Ram Sarup Seth and Will dated 05.11.2007 executed by Late Smt. Sarla Rani Seth.
25. The abovesaid suspicious circumstances raise doubts and required cogent and satisfactory evidence to explain them to the satisfaction in order to remove the suspicion from the mind of the court before granting the probate to the petitioner.
26. Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act reads as under: "Every testator, not being a soldier employed in an expedition or engaged in actual warfare, [or an airman so employed] or engaged or a mariner at sea, shall execute his will according to the following rules:
a) The testator shall sign or shall affix his mark to the Will, or it shall be signed by some other person in his presence and by his direction.
b) The signature or mark of the testator or the signature of the person signing for him, shall be so PC56/11 17 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 been some other person sign the will, in the presence and by the direction of the testator, or has received form the testator a personal acknowledgment of his signature or mark, or of 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."
27. Therefore, reading Section 68 of the Evidence Act with Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act, it is seen that it would be sufficient even if one attestor is examined. But, that attestor should speak to nil the elements of clause (c) of Section 63 of the Succession Act. The attestor witness should also speak not only about the testator's signature or affixing his mark to the Will in his presence and had attested the Will after taking acknowledgment from the testator of the signature or mark, but should also speak that each of the witnesses had signed the Will in the presence of the testator. But unfortunately for the petitioner, this is very much lacking from the evidence of PWs.
PC56/11 18
28. In case titled, Gopalakrishnan Pillai Vs. Meenakshi AIR 1967 SC 155, it has been held that Will was attested by two persons but the propounder relied only on the testimony of one of them for proof of the execution and attestation of the Will. On the basis of evidence, hon'ble Supreme Court came to the conclusion that the attestor, who was the witness, did not see the other attestor putting his signature on the Will and thus upheld the High Court view that the propounder failed to prove the signature of the other attestor of the attestation of the Will by him and on this ground alone it was held that the Will was not proved.
29. It is also well settled that the combined effect of the two provisions of Section 68 of Indian Evidence Act and Section 63(c) of Indian Succession Act, the propounder has got to prove that the Will was duly and validly executed and that must be done by not only proving that the signature on the Will was that of the testator but that the attestation was also properly made as required by Section 63 (c) of Indian Succession Act. If two attesting witnesses have signed in each other's presence, it is not necessary to examine both of them to prove that they had received acknowledgment from the testator. But, if that attestation to the signatures were not made at the same time, it is necessary PC56/11 19 to prove that both the persons, who put down the attesting signatures on different occasions, had done so on the acknowledgment of the testator. Accordingly, where a Will duly signed by the testator was attested by two witnesses, not in presence of each other but in different times, on the acknowledgment by the testator of his own signatures, the evidence of one of the attesting witness is not sufficient to prove execution of the Will. Since in the present matter, PWs did not depose that the other attestor also attested in his presence, the proof of the other attestation is not available from the evidence on record.
30. In Madhukar D. Shende Vs. Tarabai Aba Shedag, AIR 2002 SC 637, it has been held that the conscience of the court has to be satisfied by the propounder of the Will adducing evidence so as to dispel any suspicious or unnatural circumstances attaching to a Will and the law of evidence does not permit conjecture of suspicion having the place of legal proof not permit them to demolish a fact otherwise prove by legal and convincing evidence.
31. The propounder has to prove by satisfactory evidence that the Wills was signed by the testator, that the testator at the PC56/11 20 relevant time was in sound and disposing state of mind, that he or she understood the nature and effect of disposition and put his signatures on the document of his own free Will.
32. The Will in question is surrounded by suspicious circumstances and petitioner/propounder of the Will has miserably failed to explain the same. In the present case, attesting witness stated that he was one of the attestor and beyond this he did not utter a single word. In a case where the circumstances attendant upon the execution of the Will excite the suspicion of the court, the propounder must remove all legitimate suspicion before the document can be accepted as a genuine and last Will of the testator. The propounder of the Will must remove all suspicious circumstances by cogent evidence which is reliable. The initial burden is on the propounder only and it is the propounder's duty to prove the Will, its execution and attestation and also remove doubt as to the suspicious circumstances attendant of the Will's execution. The presence of suspicious circumstances makes the initial onus heavier and the duty of the propounder of the Will to dispel and explain the suspicious circumstances. In the instant case, when the evidence of witness is scrutinized, it does not prove the genuineness of the Will as the PC56/11 21 Will is shrouded by the suspicious circumstances and such suspicious circumstances have not been dispelled by the propounder of the Will by leading evidence to establish that the Will was a genuine document. Evidence of witnesses are not reliable as the same are shrouded by suspicious circumstances which have not been removed by the propounder.
33. It is well settled that even when it is proved that Will bears the signature of testator as well as of the attesting witness yet the court expects the person propounding the Will to remove all suspicious circumstances which is around the Will and if any genuine, reasonable or bonafide doubt is created regarding the execution of the will or the mental factuality of the testator, a duty is cast upon the propounder to remove the circumstances by placing satisfactory evidence on record and the probate court would require to examine the evidence in support of the Will with great vigilance and scrutiny and the propounder is not entitled to probate unless the evidence remove such suspicion.
34. Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled Janki Narayan Bhoir V. Narayan Nanideo Kadam, AIR 2003 SC 761, has held that the Will cannot be proved by simply proving the signature on the Will to be that of the testator and it must also be proved that PC56/11 22 the attestations were also made properly as required by Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act. Considering the testimony of PW1 and PW2 who are attesting witnesses to the Wills, they have failed to prove the proper attestation of the Will as required u/s 63 (c) of the Indian Succession Act.
35. In the instant case, I am of the view that the petitioner has not been able to lead evidence regarding the execution of Will in question in accordance with Section 63(c) of Indian Succession Act nor the petitioner has been able to lead enough evidence to prove the execution and attestation of the Will in accordance with the provision of Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act. There is no explanation as to why the petitioner has not taken any steps to summon the second attesting witness. The statement of the only attesting witness cannot be relied upon regarding the attestation of the Will by the second witness. The petitioner has also not been able to prove that the testator/testatrix was in sound and disposing mind while executing the Will in favour of the petitioner. In the present matter there are suspicious circumstances which have also not been cleared by the petitioner. Petitioner has not discharged the onus to prove that the Will is free from suspicion. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble PC56/11 23 High court of Delhi in case titled Surender Kumar Grover Vs. State & others, 177 (2011) DLT 188.
36. The law is well settled that the conscience of the court must be satisfied that the Will in question was not only executed and attested in the manner required under the Indian Succession Act'1925 but it should also be found that the said Will was the product of the free volition of the executant who had voluntarily executed the same after knowing and understanding the contents of the Will. Therefore, whenever there is any suspicious circumstances, the obligation is cast on the propounder of the Will to dispel suspicious circumstances as held in case titled, Gurdial Kaur & Others Vs. Kartar Kaur & Others, 1998(4) SCC 384.
37. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case, evidence placed on record, the settled principle of law, the discussion made above and the precedents on this point, it is clear that so called Wills which are said to have been executed by deceased were not duly proved as is required by law as per the provision of Section 63, 67 and 68 of Indian Evidence Act and in view of the ratio laid down by the hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of H. Venkatchala Iyengar Vs. B.N.Thimmajamma PC56/11 24 (Supra). Therefore, it can be easily concluded that the Wills have not been proved in accordance with law and probate cannot be granted to the petitioner. Accordingly, present petition is hereby dismissed. However, no order as to cost.
38. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the Open Court (SUNIL RANA)
On this 16 Day of February'2012 Addl. District JudgeII: Rohini
th
PC56/11 25