Delhi District Court
Arun Chopra & Anr. vs . State & Anr. on 17 April, 2015
Arun Chopra & Anr. Vs. State & Anr.
In the Court of Additional District Judge02, South District,
Room No. 602, Sixth Floor, Saket Courts Complex, New Delhi
In the matter of :
PC No. 239/2011
Unique No.02406C0240842011
1. Arun Chopra s/o Late Sh.H.L.Chopra
r/o J13A, Kailash Colony, New Delhi
2. Sarvjit Chopra w/o Sh.Arun Chopra
r/o J13A, Kailash Colony, New Delhi
...... Petitioners
Versus
1. State, NCT of Delhi
2. Vivek Chopra s/o Late Sh.H.L.Chopra
r/o J13A, Kailash Colony, New Delhi
Through Next Friend & Guardian
Ms. Amrita Chopra D/o Sh.Arun Chopra
r/o J13A, Kailash Colony, New Delhi.
...... Respondents
Date of filing : 17.09.2011
Date of Institution : 19.09.2011
Decision reserved on : 17.04.2015 (forenoon)
Date of Decision : 17.04.2015
JUDGMENT
(on Petition u/s 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 for grant of probate in respect of Will dated 25.03.2000 in respect of Estate of deceased Sh.Harbans Lal Chopra) PC No. 239/11 Page 1 of 8 Arun Chopra & Anr. Vs. State & Anr.
Petitioners' Case 1.1 Sh.Harbans Lal Chopra (died on 26.05.2000, his death certificate is now Ex.PW1/3, hereinafter referred as the deceased) was permanent resident of J 13A Kailash Colony, New Delhi110048. Petitioner no.1 Sh.Arun Chopra is elder son of deceased, petitioner no.2 Smt. Sarvjit K. Chopra is wife of petitioner no.1 (i.e. daughter in law of the deceased) and respondent no.2 Sh. Vivek Chopra is younger son of the deceased. 1.2 Sh. Harbans Lal Chopra wrote his last Will dated 25.03.2000 (now Ex.PW2/B, earlier Mark A/PW1) in respect of his estate. The petitioners 1 and 2 have been nominated as an Executors of the said Will by the deceased, that is why the present petition.
No other application was filed for grant of probate or letter of administration regarding the said Will. Moreover, the petitioners have to discharge certain liabilities/debts out of the value of the estate of the deceased. That is why the present petition for grant of probate with Will dated 25.03.2000. The petition is not only verified by the petitioner no.1 himself but it is also accompanied declaration that the attesting witnesses namely Sh.S.L.Chopra and Sh.P.N.Chopra have respectively expired on 04.10.2006 and 11.10.2010, their death certificate were placed on record in support of this fact.
PC No. 239/11 Page 2 of 8 Arun Chopra & Anr. Vs. State & Anr.
2.1 The citation to the petition was published in the Statesman dated 28.02.2014 as well as at prominent place in the Saket Court Complex, inviting the public to join the proceedings, however, no one came forward to participate in the proceedings.
2.2 The citation was also issued to respondent no.2 Sh. Vivek Chopra, however, considering that he is mentally incapable to see his interest and welfare vis a vis he has been undergoing medication of Kailash Hospital Limited by order dated 29.04.014. Ms.Amrita Chopra daughter of petitioners, was appointed as his next friend and guardian to see his welfare, since she has no adverse interest towards the respondent no.2.
2.3 The respondent no.2 through his next friend Ms. Amrita Chopra through Counsel filed reply to the petition, while confirming the contents of petition and without protesting the same, by explaining that respondent no.2 is single person, he is unmarried because of his mental state of mind. There is no objection to allow the petition.
2.4 Since there was no protest to the petition and being non contentious matter, the petitioner was asked to establish the case by leading evidence.
3.1 In order to establish the case, petitioner no.1 Sh.Arun Chopra/PW1 entered into the witness box and not only deposed on the lines PC No. 239/11 Page 3 of 8 Arun Chopra & Anr. Vs. State & Anr.
of petition but also tendered record of his identity (viz. driving licence , ration card, provisional certificate of degree). He also tendered death certificate of deceased (now Ex.PW1/3) vis a vis record of medical treatment/certificate (now Ex.PW1/4) of respondent no.2 Vivek Chopra that he is suffering from and undergoing treatment of Paranoid Schizophrenia. The petitioner also got examined Ms.Sudesh Prabhakar PW2, aged about 74 years, cousin of Sh.Arun Chopra, to prove writing / signatures of attesting witnesses (since the attesting witnesses are dead) and of testator Sh.Arun Chopra. PW2 had also produced her identity card (now Ex.PW2/A) in proof of her identity. Then evidence was closed.
3.2 The petitioner had filed certain record of property or of death certificates of attesting witnesses in support of petition, however, the same are not tendered in evidence. Then case was put to final hearing. 3.3 At the juncture of final arguments, the petitioner's wife Smt. Sarvjit K. Chopra had appeared and she was apprised of contents of Will under adjudication, which mentions her name as one of the Executor, immediately she came with an application under Order I R 10 CPC to implead her as petitioner to the petition. After hearing both the sides, the application was allowed and Smt. Sarvjit K. Chopra was impleaded as petitioner no.2 to the petition. She was asked to lead evidence, consequently she entered into PC No. 239/11 Page 4 of 8 Arun Chopra & Anr. Vs. State & Anr.
the witness box as PW3 and then evidence was closed. No evidence has been led by the respondent no.2. Hence, the case at the stage of final arguments, the same were heard before lunch session.
4.1 (Findings) : The contentions are assessed in the light of material on record, either in the form of oral testimony of witnesses or documentary record vis a vis statutory provisions of the law of Indian Evidence Act and the Indian Succession Act. Firstly, it is a noncontentious matter. However, still the petitioners are required to establish the petition. Sh Harbans Lal Chopra had expired on 26.05.2000, his death certificate (Ex.PW1/3) has been proved. The petitioner has placed on record copy of Sale Deed dated 15.9.1959 in respect of plot bearing no.J 13/A, measuring 504 sq.yds of residential colony known as Kailash, village Zamurd on Lajpat Nagar and Kalkaji Link road now known as Kailash Colony, New Delhi in favour of Sh.Harbans Lal Chopra.
4.2 The Will under consideration is of 25.03.2000 (Ex.PW2/B). The law with regard to proof of Will is laid down in Section 68 of Indian Evidence Act r/w the provisions of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, which mandate that a Will is to be attested by the two witnesses and atleast one of them shall prove the same by appearing in Court. The petitioner no.1 has made a declaration to the petition that both the witnesses have expired prior PC No. 239/11 Page 5 of 8 Arun Chopra & Anr. Vs. State & Anr.
to filing of the petition. In that eventuality, the provisions of Section 69 of the Indian Evidence Act are to be invoked that in case the attesting witnesses are not found, a person who is acquainted with the writing and signature of the concerned person may come in the witness box and prove writing of the attesting witness. To meet this requirement, the petitioners got examined PW2 Ms.Sudesh Prabhakar w/o Sh.Jitender Kumar Prabhakar to establish that not only Sh.Harbans Lal Chopra is her uncle, but also she had seen him writing and signing usually and she had come to Delhi from Calcutta on the day Will was subscribed by Sh.Harbans Lal Chopra.
4.3 The witness PW2 was asked many questions by the Court, since the affidavit A1 talks about some aspects like she had letter from her uncle/witness Sh.S.L.Chopra vis a vis she is able to identify signatures of her three uncles (namely testator and two witnesses) on the Will. But during reply to court questions, many hidden facts emerged like the Will was typed when she was at the residence of testator in Delhi, she was able to decipher her affidavit being computerized generated hard copy but the Will Ex.PW2/B was typewritten, whereas the Will Ex.PW2/B is a computer generated hard copy. She further elaborated that first of all manuscript substance of Will was prepared by Sh.Harbans Lal Chopra with the assistance of two witnesses then it was got typed, there was no computer at the residence of Sh.Harbans PC No. 239/11 Page 6 of 8 Arun Chopra & Anr. Vs. State & Anr.
Lal Chopra, but typewriter on which the Will was typed. To say PW 2 came to the witness box just to identify the writing and signatures of testator and of witnesses but during reply to court question many more facts were elaborated that although she is not a witness in the Will but the Will was prepared on the same very day and it was also typed on the typewriter at the residence of Sh.Harbans Lal Chopra. Since there was no computer at the residence of Harbans Lal Chopra but typewriter there and the Will Ex.PW2/B is a computer generated hard copy, then how the version of PW2 can be believed that the Will was typed? The oral version of PW2 is substantially in conflict with the material record of hard copy of Will, since in case of typewriter to be operated manually, there is only single machine and in case of computer, the inputs are CPU, hardware of monitor, keyboard and for output the printer, whereas PW2 talks about single machine of typewriter. The presence of PW2 on the day Will was stated to be subscribed is surrounded by suspicious circumstances. 4.4 PW2 Ms.Sudesh Prabhakar has been living in Calcutta, she is aged about 74 years and in her reply to court questions, she said that she had seen the witnesses either writing cheque book or some other material, whereas both the witnesses are resident of Delhi and nowhere in the entire testimony of PW2 she narrated that she had usually seen them writing and signing, therefore, the statement of PW2 does not fulfill the requirement of PC No. 239/11 Page 7 of 8 Arun Chopra & Anr. Vs. State & Anr.
section 69 of Indian Evidence Act. Consequently the petitioners fail to establish the proof of Will (Ex.PW2/B), free from suspicious circumstances.
5. In view of the conclusions drawn herein above and for want of proof of Will, the petition is dismissed.
File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open Court (Inder Jeet Singh )
on Friday Chaitra 27, Saka 1937 Additional District Judge02 (South),
Saket / New Delhi /17.04.2015
PC No. 239/11 Page 8 of 8