Delhi District Court
Jag Mohan Manchanda vs State on 19 November, 2019
IN THE COURT OF SH. LAXMI KANT GAUR, ADDITIONAL
DISTRICT JUDGE, CENTRAL, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
PC No. 42404 of 2016
JAG MOHAN MANCHANDA
S/o Late Shri Chaman Lal Manchanda
R/o C95, New Rajinder Nagar,
New Delhi. .......PETITIONER
Versus
1. STATE
2. (A) MRS. RENU
W/o Late Shri Man Mohan Manchanda,
2. (B) Mr. MOHIT
S/o Late Shri Man Mohan Manchanda,
Both R/o C1A/32B,
Janak Puri, New Delhi.
2. (C) MS. SMITA ARYA
D/o Late Shri Man Mohan Manchanda
W/o Sh. Prem Arya,
C/o C1A/32, Janak Puri,
New Delhi.
3. MRS. INDU SENA
D/o Late Shri Man Mohan Manchanda
W/o Late Shri Vinod Sena,
R/o 1398, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar,
Delhi110009. ......RESPONDENTS
PC No. 42404 of 16 Jagmohan Manchanda vs. State & ors. page 1 of 22 Date of filing of the petition : 14.10.2009 Date of reserving judgment : 27.09.2019 Date of judgment : 19.11.2019 PETITION U/S 276 OF INDIAN SUCCESSION ACT, 1925 FOR GRANT OF LETTER OF ADMINISTRATION Judgment
1. By this Judgment I propose to decide the Petition filed by the Petitioner under section 276 of the Indian Succession Act for seeking Letters of Administration with Will annexed in respect of Will of Late Sh. Chaman Lal Manchanda, executed by the father of the Petitioner in his favour for the property bearing no. C95, New Rajinder Nagar, Delhi (hereinafter 'subject property') Case of the petitioner
2. It is stated in the Petition that the petitioner herein is the younger son of Late Sh. Chaman Lal Manchanda. He had been residing with the petitioner in the subject property. During his life time he had executed a WILL dated 25.08.1983 in respect of the subject property. This Will was registered with the office of the SubRegistrar, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi on the next day of its execution on 26.08.1983.
3. Late Sh. Chaman Lal Manchanda, had passed away on 06.10.1990. His PC No. 42404 of 16 Jagmohan Manchanda vs. State & ors. page 2 of 22 wife Mrs. Manorama Manchanda had predeceased him. She had passed away on 09.10.1981. He had left behind two sons and a daughter. i.e. Petitioner herein, Sh. Man Mohan Manchanda, respondent No.2 and Respondent No.3 Mrs. Indu Sena.
4. In respect of the same Will, Respondent No.2 herein had filed suit bearing No. 1922/03 (old no. 1922/91), seeking declaration that the said Will was null and void and an injunction that the Land and Building Department be restrained from mutating the subject property in the name of the Petitioner herein. Ld. Sr. Civil Judge by his judgment dated 29.07.2009 had disposed of the said suit holding interalia that the Court did not have jurisdiction to give finding as to the validity of the Will, which would be in the domain of the Probate Court. The Court gave also findings that the suit property was not allotted in lieu of the ancestral property left behind by the family in Pakistan and also that the same was the self acquired property of Late Sh. Chaman Lal Manchanda.
5. It is also stated that both the attesting witnesses are dead. The statement of one of attesting witness Ms. Anju Ragtah was recorded before the PC No. 42404 of 16 Jagmohan Manchanda vs. State & ors. page 3 of 22 Court of Ld. Sr. Civil Judge. Certified copy of her statement had been annexed with the Petition.
6. The observation of the Ld Sr. Civil Judge, 'it is the Probate Court which had the jurisdiction to decide validity of Will', led to the filing of the present petition by the Petitioner.
Contest by Respondent No.2 Sh. Man Mohan Manchanda
7. Respondent No.2 Sh. Man Mohan Manchanda had filed Objection/reply to the said Petition. He had stated that the Petition filed by the petitioner was barred under section 10 of the Code. Matter is subjudice, as objector had filed an appeal against the said order of Ld. Sr. Civil Judge and pending before Ld. Additional District Judge. The Will in respect of the subject property could not have been executed considering that Late Respondent No.2 Sh. Man Mohan Manchanda as subject property was ancestral property having been given as rehabilitation benefit against the ancestral property left in Pakistan. Will being propounded was forged and fabricated. Will was executed under the coercion and pressure of the Petitioner. It was not executed by the executant in the sound state of mind. Statement given by Ms Anju Ragtah cannot be PC No. 42404 of 16 Jagmohan Manchanda vs. State & ors. page 4 of 22 read in this case.
No contest by Respondent No. 3
8. Respondent No. 3 has supported the case of the Petitioner and has gone to the extent of saying that after the death of their father Late Respondent No.2 Sh. Man Mohan Manchanda there were certain formalities which were required to be completed for the withdrawal of the money left behind by their father in the bank. They all had signed the documents for the purpose, including the respondent no. 2, which including one of the documents where in one of the columns it was mentioned that the deceased had executed a Will whereby subject property had been bequeathed in favour of the Petitioner. Issues
9. On the basis of the pleadings following issues were framed:
1). Whether Will in question was validly executed by deceased Sh. Chaman Lal Manchanda in sound disposing mind ? OPP
2). Whether the petitioner is entitled for Letters of Administration in respect of Will in question? OPP
3). Whether the Petition is not maintainable having not been complied with the PC No. 42404 of 16 Jagmohan Manchanda vs. State & ors. page 5 of 22 provisions of Section 284 of Indian Succession Act? OPR
4). Relief.
Examination of witnesses Petitioner's Witnesses
10.There were in all five witnesses examined by the Petitioner including himself.
11.Witness PW1 Sh. Babu Lal is a UDC from the office of SubRegistrar III, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi. He had produced the record related to the registration of Will Ex.PW1/1 executed by Chaman Lal Manchanda registered at Sl. No. 2304, Book no.3, Volume no. 251 at pages 7576, which was registered on 27.08.1983.
12.Witness PW2, is the daughter of one of the attesting witnesses Sh. Ramesh Chander Kapoor. She had filed her affidavit in the examination in chief. She had identified signature of her father appearing on the Will and also placed on record death certificate of her father PW2/1 who had passed away on 13/10/2004.
13.Witness PW3 Sh. K.L. Narang, Manager from Indian Overseas Bank New Rajinder Narang had appeared in the Court and deposed about the PC No. 42404 of 16 Jagmohan Manchanda vs. State & ors. page 6 of 22 inquiry being conducted by the Bank in terms of RBI guidelines for the closure of the bank account of Late Chaman Lal Manchanda. He had identified certified copy of the said Inquiry Report Ex PW3/A and also certified copy of Indemnity Bond Ex.PW3/B submitted to the branch and accepted by it.
14. Witness PW4 is the petitioner in this case. He had filed his affidavit in the examinationinchief on the lines of the petition he has filed. He deposed about the execution of the Will Ex PW1/1 in his presence by his father and signed by the attesting witness in the presence of the witnesses Late Sh. Ramesh Chander Kapoor and Late R.P. Bhasin and also they having signed in his presence. He had identified signatures of his father on the Will and the said attesting witnesses having signed in his presence. He had placed on record death certificate of his father Ex.PW4/2 and also the death certificate of the Witness Late Sh. R.P. Bhasin Ex.PW4/3 besides referring to the death certificate Ex.PW2/1 of Late Sh. Raman Chander Kapoor already referred to in the testimony of Ms. Anju Ragdah as Ex.PW2/1. He also deposed about the registration of the said Will before the Registrar, judgment of Ld Sr Civil Judge and PC No. 42404 of 16 Jagmohan Manchanda vs. State & ors. page 7 of 22 dismissal of the appeal by the Court of Ld ADJ preferred against the said Judgment of Ld Sr. Civil Judge.
15. Witness PW 5 Sh. Shivajeet Yadav record custodian from Department of Archives had produced record related to Lease Deed in respect of the subject property executed between Govt. of India and Late Chaman Lal Manchanda and registered in the office of SubRegistrar. Respondent's witness(s)
16.Respondent No. 2 had filed his own affidavit in examination in chief. Before his crossexamination could be conducted he had passed away. No contest by the Legal heirs of Late Man Mohan Manchanda
17.After the passing away of Late Sh. Man Mohan Manchanda his legal heirs were allowed to be substituted under Order 22 Rule 4 CPC. His wife Mrs. Renu Manchanda and her son Mr. Mohit Manchanda had appeared in court and stated that they did not want to contest and the Court may proceed to decide the case as per law. Their statements had been recorded to this effect. Her daughter Mrs. Sumita Arya, however, chose not to appear in the Court despite notices being sent to her. She was proceeded exparte.
PC No. 42404 of 16 Jagmohan Manchanda vs. State & ors. page 8 of 22 No contest by Respondent No. 3 Mrs. Indu Sena
18.It has already been noted that Mrs. Indu sena had filed written statement favouring the case of the Petitioner. She had given a statement in the Court to that effect. She had deposed that she had no objection if on the basis of the Will Ex.PW1/1, Letters of Administration is granted in favour of her brother i.e. Petitioner.
Hearing
19.I have heard the counsel for the Petitioner, written submissions filed and the record of this case.
Findings Whether Will in question was validly executed by deceased Sh. Chaman Lal Manchanda in sound disposing mind? OPP
20. Section 63 1of the Indian Succession Act provides as to how a Will is 1
63. Execution of unprivileged Wills. --Every testator, not being a soldier employed in an expedition or engaged in actual warfare, 12 [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 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 acknowledgement of his signature or mark, or the signature of such other person; and each of the witnesses shall sign the Will in the presence of the testator, but it shall not be necessary that more than one witness be present at the same time, and no particular form of attestation shall be necessary.
PC No. 42404 of 16 Jagmohan Manchanda vs. State & ors. page 9 of 22 required to be executed. According to it, the Will shall be attested by two or more witnesses, each of whom has seen the testator sign the Will 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. Thus, it is necessary that a Will is attested by at least two witnesses.
21. Section 68 2of the Evidence Act provides as to how a document which is required to be attested by witnesses can be proved. According to it If a document is required by law to be attested, it shall not be used as evidence until one attesting witness at least has been called for the purpose of proving its execution, if there be an attesting witness alive. Unlike in the case of other such documents in the case of Will even if it is registered it would still be necessary to prove the Will in this way. 2
68. Proof of execution of document required by law to be attested.--If a document is required by law to be attested, it shall not be used as evidence until one attesting witness at least has been called for the purpose of proving its execution, if there be an attesting witness alive, and subject to the process of the Court and capable of giving evidence: [Provided that it shall not be necessary to call an attesting witness in proof of the execution of any document, not being a will, which has been registered in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), unless its execution by the person by whom it purports to have been executed is specifically denied.] PC No. 42404 of 16 Jagmohan Manchanda vs. State & ors. page 10 of 22 In case attested witness can not be found
22. In case none of the attesting witnesses can be found, according to section 693 of the evidence Act. it must be proved that the attestation of one of the attesting witnesses at least is in his handwriting, and that the signature of the person executing the document is in the hand writing of that person.
23.Will ExPW1/1 would show that it has been signed by Sh. R.C Kapoor and Sh. R.P. Bhasin as the attesting witnesses.
24.Witness PW2 Ms. Anju Ragtah had appeared and placed on record death certificate of her father Sh. Ramesh Chandra Kapoor , ExPW2/1. There were no questions asked if this attesting witness had not died. Similarly witness PW 4 i.e Petitioner had also placed on record death certificate of the other witness Sh. R.P. Bhasin PW4/3. There were no questions asked about the genuineness of this document as well. Therefore, one may safely say that both the attesting witness had passed away and the only other way this document could be proved was, as 3 S.69 Proof where no attesting witness found. -- If no such attesting witness can be found, or if the document purports to have been executed in the United Kingdom, it must be proved that the attestation of one attesting witness at least is in his handwriting, and that the signature of the person executing the document is in the hand writing of that person.
PC No. 42404 of 16 Jagmohan Manchanda vs. State & ors. page 11 of 22 provided for under section 69 of the Evidence Act.
25.Witness PW2 Ms. Anju Ragtah had identified signature of her father on the Will Ex PW1/1. There was a question put to her in the cross examination if she had brought any document to show that she was the daughter of Late Ramesh Chander Kapoor. She had produced a PAN card showing name of her father mentioned on this document. She was asked many questions including if she had brought any document to show signature of her father and about the errors in her testimony recorded in the previous suit before Ld Sr. Civil Judge. None of them, however, did touch the question if she was incapable of identifying the signature of her father on the Will. I am of the view, it can be presumed in the normal course that a daughter would be able identify signature of her father.
26. Respondent No. 2 Late Man Mohan Manchanda had filed his affidavit in evidence though he could not be crossexamined as he had passed away. In a sense his affidavit can be read in evidence 4 but there would be a question mark on its probative value. In other words what has been stated in the affidavit cannot be accepted without any corroborative 4 Krishan Dayal vs Chandu Ram 1969 Delhi 1090 PC No. 42404 of 16 Jagmohan Manchanda vs. State & ors. page 12 of 22 evidence. Thus, his mere statement in the affidavit that Will is forged, without any evidence to support, would not be good enough to believe that the Will was forged.
27.Thus in my view on the balance of probabilities, it can be said that the attestation appearing on the Will Ex.PW1/1 in the name of Sh. R.P. Kapoor is in his handwriting.
28. Witness PW4 i.e. Petitioner too in his testimony categorically had stated that his father i.e Late Chaman Lal Manchanda executor of the Will had signed the Will Ex.PW1/1 in his presence and he identified signatures of late Sh. Chaman Lal Manchanda appearing at Points A, B, C and D on the Will.
29. It was suggested to him in the crossexamination that the signature appearing on the Will were not his father (testator) and at the same it was also suggested to him that the testator signed the Will under pressure and coercion. Similar is the stand of the respondent No.2 in the objections filed by him. In paragraph 5 of the preliminary objections it is stated "Will presented before Hon'ble High Court is forged, fabricated and manufactured by the Petitioner". In the next paragraph PC No. 42404 of 16 Jagmohan Manchanda vs. State & ors. page 13 of 22 i.e paragraph 6 it is stated "the Will has been executed under pressure, coercion of the Petitioner" hence liable to be set aside." It is further stated "executant was not of sound mind at the time of executing the Will hence the Will is not executed free of mind by the deceased."
30.I am the view that the stands taken by Respondent No.2 are contradictory in nature. When he say that the signatures were obtained under pressure and coercion or when he signed it he was not of sound mind, it means that though the signature appearing on the will are that of the testator but he did not sign it on his free Will. Thus, the question is not of the genuineness of the signatures but free will of the testator to execute the Will. I am of the view, if this is the stand of the respondent then the stand of the Respondent that the Will was forged does not survive.
31.I am of the view in the given circumstances there is reason to believe that the Will does bear the signatures of the testator at points A,B,C and D.
32. One may here refer to the Judgment Uttam Singh And Anr. vs Hukum Singh And Ors 38 Ind Cas 651, it reads as under:
PC No. 42404 of 16 Jagmohan Manchanda vs. State & ors. page 14 of 22 "This appeal arises out of a suit on foot of a mortgage. The only question which we have to decide in the present appeal is as to whether or not the lower Appellate Court was justified in holding that the mortgage had been proved. Section 59 provides that a mortgage can only be effected by a registered instrument signed by the mortgagor and attested by at least two witnesses. Section 68 of the Evidence Act provides that ' if a document is required by law to be attested, it shall not be used as evidence until one attesting witness at least has been called for the purpose of proving its execution if there be an attesting witness alive, and subject to the process of the Court and capable of giving evidence." Section 69 provides: ' If no such attesting witness can be found, or if the document purports to have been executed in the United Kingdom, it must be proved that the attestation of one attesting witness at least is in his handwriting, and that the signature of the person executing the document is in the handwriting of that person." In the present case it was proved and admitted that all the attesting witnesses were dead. A witness was called who proved to the satisfaction of the Court that the attestation of two of the attesting witnesses was in their handwriting. It was also proved that the signature, of the person executing the document was in the handwriting of that person. It is contended that this was not sufficient proof and that it was necessary to produce some witness (though not an attesting witness) who would be able to state that the mortgage was in fact executed by the executant in the presence of the attesting witnesses. We think that there is no force in this contention. Once it was proved that the witnesses were dead, the evidence PC No. 42404 of 16 Jagmohan Manchanda vs. State & ors. page 15 of 22 on the record (if believed) would be sufficient to prove the mortgage. Once this evidence was given, there was a presumption of the due execution of the document which it lay upon the other side to rebut [see Wright v. Sanderson, Sanderson, In re (1884) 9 P.D. 149 : 53 L.J.P. 49 : 50 L.T. 769 : 32 W.R. 560 : 48 J.P. 180], We think the decree was correct and should be affirmed. We dismiss the appeal with costs. ( emphasis supplied).
33. One may say on the basis of the above judgment that once signatures of the attesting witness and that of the executor have been proved on the Will in terms of section 69 of the evidence Act, there is a presumption of its due execution and therefore it is for the other side to rebut it.
34.It has been stated above that there is nothing from the side of the respondent No. 2 except affidavit filed by the respondent which is hardly sufficient to rebut the presumption without any supporting evidence.
35.Thus one may say that the petitioner has been able to prove the execution of the Will ExPW1/1.
Whether the Will was executed in sound disposing mind
36. It has already been noted above that there is an allegation that the Will had not been executed by the Petitioner in a state of sound disposing PC No. 42404 of 16 Jagmohan Manchanda vs. State & ors. page 16 of 22 mind.
37. Witness PW4 i.e Petitioner in his testimony has stated not only that the testator at the time of the execution of the Will was in a sound state of mind but also that the Will was executed in his presence. In the cross examination he had deposed "My father was once hospitalized in the year 1965 for prostrate surgery. My father never suffered any serious ailment but he was a diabetic. As we were not called upon by the office of the registrar to produce medical certificate of my father as such there was no occasion to prove it." This line of crossexamination was not followed by any suggestion being given or indicating as to how was it being claimed that the testator was not of sound mind and incapable of disposing of his property by executing a WILL. There is nothing in the crossexamination to discredit his testimony as what he had deposed about the soundness of the mind of the testator to execute the Will.
38.Neither in the affidavit filed in examination in chief by respondent no.2 nor anywhere in the pleadings it has been stated as to what kind of unsoundness of mind was he suffering from or how was it being claimed that he was of unsound mind.
PC No. 42404 of 16 Jagmohan Manchanda vs. State & ors. page 17 of 22
39.It therefore can be said that the Will had been executed by the testator in sound disposing mind.
40.Thus one may conclude that the Petitioner has been able to prove the execution of Will dated 25.08.1983 by Late Chaman Lal Manchanda and also that it was executed by him in sound disposing state of mind.
41.Issue is accordingly decided in favour of the Petitioner. Whether the petitioner is entitled for Letters of Administration in respect of Will in question? OPP
42.Will Ex PW1/1 would show that the Testator Late Sh. Chaman Lal Manchanda had bequeathed subject property C95, New Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi in favour of the Petitioner. Once the Petitioner has been able to prove execution of Will in his favour, there is no impendent in concluding that the Petitioner is entitled to Letters of Administration with Will annexed being granted in favour of the Petitioner.
Whether the petition is not maintainable having not been complied with the provisions of Section 284 of Indian Succession Act? OPR
43. This is a petition filed under section 276 of the Indian Succession Act for seeking Letters of Administration with Will annexed. Though, there PC No. 42404 of 16 Jagmohan Manchanda vs. State & ors. page 18 of 22 is an allegation levelled in the objection filed on behalf of the respondent no.2 that there has been a non compliance of section 284 of the Indian Succession Act, it has, however, not been explained that as to what kind of violation or non compliance the petitioner has made. Section 284 of the Indian Succession Act deals with caveats. It provides, that in cases of probate or Letters of Administration, caveat can be lodged with a District Judge or a District delegate. It is nowhere stated if there had been any caveat filed by the respondent no.2 in terms of section 284 of the Indian Succession Act. Apparently, there is some misunderstanding in raising this issue by the respondent no.2. In my view, no finding is called for on this issue.
Letters of Administration does not confer title to the property of Deceased
44. A Testamentary court is only concerned with finding out whether or not the Testator had executed the testamentary instrument of his free will. It is settled law that the grant of a Probate or Letters of Administration does not confer title to property. They merely enable administration of the estate of the deceased 5. It may therefore be 5 Delhi Development Authority vs Mrs. Vijaya C. Gurshaney & Anr on 26 August, 2003 - [ (2003)7 SCC 301] PC No. 42404 of 16 Jagmohan Manchanda vs. State & ors. page 19 of 22 understood by the parties clearly that this Judgment does not confer any title on the Petitioner in respect of the Property. Execution of Administration and Surety Bond under section 291 Indian Succession Act.
45. It is not always necessary that the surety bond as required under section 291 of the Indian Succession Act should be of the same value as that of the value of the property. In the given facts of the case, I am of the view that asking the petitioner to furnish an Administrative Bond with one surety in the sum of Rs. One Lac would meet the ends of justice. The petitioner is to accordingly submit the Administrative cum Surety Bond. Compliances to be made under section 317 of Indian Succession Act.
46.Petitioners herein would be required to exhibit inventories within six months and one year as is required u/s 317 of the Indian Succession Act from the date of the issue of the Letters of Administration in the Form No.178 and 179 Vol. 6, Delhi High Court Rules respectively. Valuation under Section 19 -I of the Court Fees Act
47. It may be noted here though the Petitioner Sh. Jagmohan Manchanda may be held to be entitled for the Letters of Administration with the Will annexed but, the same shall, however, be issued only after PC No. 42404 of 16 Jagmohan Manchanda vs. State & ors. page 20 of 22 Petitioner has filed the valuation of the properties which is the subject matter of the Will, valued at the value of the property as it was on the date of the filing of the petition, in the Form as given in Schedule III of the Court Fees and accepted by the Court as is required under section 19I6 of the Court Fees Act and in consequence thereof necessary Court Fee has been filed. One may also make reference to the Judgment of the Hon'ble High Court in DRA Mountford v. Govt of NCT of Delhi 2018 SCC OnLine Del 8892 in this respect. Relevant part of the Judgment reads as under:
"19. Considering the law cited above the question of valuation of assets and payment of the court fee shall arise only once the Will is held to be valid and the Court directs the grant of probate or letter of administration with Will annexed and the final valuation shall be done by the Collector of the area at that time."
Conclusion
48.In view of the foregoing discussion and facts and circumstances of the case, I am granting Letters of Administration in favour of the Petitioner, 6 [19I. Payment of Courtfees in respect of probates and letters of administration.--
(1)No order entitling the petitioner to the grant of probate or letters of administration shall be made upon an application for such grant until the petitioner has filed in the Court a valuation of the property in the form set forth in the Third Schedule, and the Court is satisfied that the fee mentioned in No. 11 of the First Schedule has been paid on such valuation.1[19I. Payment of Courtfees in respect of probates and letters of administration.--(1) No order entitling the petitioner to the grant of probate or letters of administration shall be made upon an application for such grant until the petitioner has filed in the Court a valuation of the property in the form set forth in the Third Schedule, and the Court is satisfied that the fee mentioned in No. 11 of the First Schedule has been paid on such valuation." (2)The grant of probate or letters of administration shall not be delayed by reason of any motion made by the Collector under section 19H, sub section (4).] PC No. 42404 of 16 Jagmohan Manchanda vs. State & ors. page 21 of 22 namely, Sh. Jagmohan Manchanda u/s 276 of the Indian Succession Act in respect of the estate of the Testator Late Sh. Chaman Lal Manchanda as referred to in the Will.
49. Let the same be issued in favour of the petitioner Sh. Jagmohan Manchanda on the execution Administrative cum Surety Bond in the sum of Rs.One Lac and on the submission of the valuation of the properties/estate as referred to in the Will in the Form as given in Schedule III of the Court Fees and accepted by the Court as is required under section 19I of the Court Fees Act and in consequence thereof necessary Court Fee has been filed. He would also be required to exhibit inventories and accounts within six months and one year as discussed above under section 317 of the Indian Succession Act.
50.Ordered accordingly.
51.File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court on 19th November 2019 (LAXMI KANT GAUR) Additional District Judge(05), Central District, Delhi.
PC No. 42404 of 16 Jagmohan Manchanda vs. State & ors. page 22 of 22