Delhi District Court
Meenu vs Ravinder Singh on 6 March, 2026
IN THE COURT OF NAVEEN GUPTA, DISTRICT JUDGE-09
WEST DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CNR No.DLWT01-005168-2017
CS DJ No. 688/2017
In the matter of :-
Meenu
W/o Sh. Rajiv Singh Kukreja,
D/o Late Sh. Gurbaksh Singh,
R/o House No. 152, Avtar Enclave,
Paschim Vihar, New Delhi-110063.
..... Plaintiff
VERSUS
1. Ravinder Singh
S/o Late Sh. Gurbaksh Singh,
R/o S 2/40, Old Mahavir Nagar,
Tilak Nagar, New Delhi.
Also at:-
Singh Battery House
Plot No. 36, Shop No. 5,
Community Centre, Naraina Industrial Area,
Phase-I, Opposite Punjab and Sind Bank,
Delhi.
2. Baljeet Kaur
D/o Late Sh. Gurbaksh Singh,
R/o House No. 122A, Ashok Enclave,
Part-III, Faridabad, Haryana.
3. Paramjeet Kaur
D/o Late Sh. Gurbaksh Singh,
R/o G-14, Second Floor, Hari Nagar,
G-Block, Gali No. 5,
New Delhi-110058.
CS DJ 688/2017 Page no. 1/34
Digitally
signed by
NAVEEN
NAVEEN GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2026.03.06
16:40:53
+0530
4. Parvinder Kaur
W/o Sh. Ravinder Singh,
R/o S 2/40, Old Mahavir Nagar,
Tilak Nagar, New Delhi-110018.
5. Punjab and Sind Bank
Through its Branch Manager/Principal Officer
Address: B-38/39,
Naraina Industrial Phase-I,
New Delhi-110028.
..... Defendants
Date of institution : 05.06.2017
Reserved for judgment : 17.02.2026
Judgment pronounced on : 06.03.2026
SUIT FOR PARTITION, POSSESSION, DECLARATION,
RENDITION OF ACCOUNTS AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION
JUDGMENT
1. This is a suit for decree of partition, possession, declaration, rendition of accounts and permanent injunction filed by the plaintiff. Succinctly put, the case of plaintiff, as per original plaint, is that she is daughter of late Sh. Gurbaksh Singh. Defendants no. 1 ('D-1'), 2 and 3 are her siblings. Her father was the owner of property no. S-2/40, Old Mahavir Nagar, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi (hereinafter referred as 'suit property'). Her mother namely Smt. Joginder Kaur expired on 08.07.2011, during the lifetime of her father, who expired intestate on 19.12.2014. Her father was survived by one son and three daughters i.e. defendants no. 1, 2, 3 and plaintiff. Thus, all his legal heirs had inherited the suit property in equal shares i.e. 1/4 th share each. The plaintiff had been regularly asking D-1 to partition the suit property and CS DJ 688/2017 Page no. 2/34 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2026.03.06 16:41:03 +0530 give her due share in the same. It came to the knowledge of plaintiff in the month of May, 2017 that D-1 had started negotiating with local property dealers of the area for selling the suit property, without her consent. Thereafter, the plaintiff sent a legal notice dated 15.05.2017 to all the defendants calling upon them to partition the suit property by metes and bounds and asking D-1 to render accounts of the property used by him after the death of their father. Despite service of legal notice upon him, D-1 demolished the entire suit property and started raising construction over the same. Thus, the plaintiff filed the present suit praying for decree of partition of the suit property, decree of permanent injunction restraining the defendants from creating third party interest over it and decree of possession of 1/4 th share in the suit property.
2. The defendant no. 1 filed his written statement, wherein he submitted that his father, during his lifetime, executed a registered Will on 17.11.2009 in his favour. Accordingly, after his death on 18.12.2014, the suit property devolved in favour of D-1. He (D-1) gifted the suit property to Parvinder Kaur [defendant no. 4] vide registered deed dated 10.06.2016. Hence, the plaintiff and defendants no. 1, 2 and 3 had no right, title and interest in the suit property. Thus, the present suit shall be dismissed.
3. The defendants no. 3 and 2 were proceeded ex-parte vide orders dated 05.12.2017 and 18.10.2018, respectively.
4. Thereafter, the plaintiff moved an application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC read with Section 151 CPC with prayer to amend the CS DJ 688/2017 Page no. 3/34 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2026.03.06 16:41:09 +0530 plaint. The said application was allowed by the Court vide order dated 11.03.2020. As per amended plaint, the plaintiff has further averred that D-1 has produced a fabricated Will of late Sh. Gurbaksh Singh obtained under undue influence, pressure and coercion and without his free will and consent. In the Will dated 17.11.2009, it was mentioned that all his daughters were married and living happily in their families, whereas the plaintiff was having a dispute with her husband. She had even sent a legal notice dated 31.12.2007 to her husband and in-laws through her advocate and claimed maintenance from her husband. The dispute between the plaintiff and her in-laws continued for more than three years. These facts were in the knowledge of her father, hence, he would never write a Will stating that all her daughters were married and living happily in their families. The plaintiff had a love marriage with her husband in Arya Samaj Mandir. A total of about Rs.25,000-30,000/-
was spent on the marriage. The sisters of plaintiff i.e. defendants no. 2 and 3 too had dispute with their in-laws and were not living happily in their married life.
5. It has been further averred that from the start of the year 2009, D-1 started fighting with plaintiff without any reason. He used to fight with late Sh. Gurbaksh Singh too on every small occasion and did not give him proper care. The wife of D-1 used to constantly fight with her parents-in-law without any reason. Since D-1 and his wife were constantly pressurizing late Sh. Gurbaksh Singh to give the suit property to them, hence, D-1 might have succeeded in obtaining a fabricated Will from him. As per the knowledge of plaintiff, her father never visited any office of Sub-Registrar for execution of the said Will CS DJ 688/2017 Page no. 4/34 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2026.03.06 16:41:14 +0530 dated 17.11.2009. The Will did not even bear the signatures of late Sh. Gurbaksh Singh. The witnesses of the Will were not known to her father. The mental condition of her father also did not remain good in his end years and due to the constant fights of D-1 and his wife, her father used to remain extremely depressed.
6. The plaintiff has further averred that even the sale deed of Rs.19,00,000/- executed by her mother in favour of her father was purportedly a sham transaction at the instance of D-1 and his wife, as her father never transferred any amount of Rs.19,00,000/- to her mother. Moreover, her father would never have executed a Will in favour of her mother, only after about five months of purchase of the property from her. Accordingly, the plaintiff made an additional prayer seeking declaration of the Will dated 17.11.2009 of late Sh. Gurbaksh Singh as null and void and as a consequence, declaration of the gift deed dated 10.06.2016 executed by D-1 in favour of his wife as null and void.
7. The plaintiff moved other applications under Order I Rule 10 CPC and under Order VI Rule 17 CPC read with Section 151 CPC, for impleading wife of D-1 (defendant no. 4/'D-4') and defendant no. 5 ('D-5') in the array of parties and for amending the suit. The said applications were allowed by the Court vide order dated 27.11.2021.
8. As per amended plaint, the plaintiff has further averred that any document of transfer of any title or creation of any interest, lien or document in favour of D-5 making the said Will as its basis is null and CS DJ 688/2017 Page no. 5/34 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2026.03.06 16:41:20 +0530 void, including the alleged documents of mortgage made by D-4 in favour of D-5. The plaintiff added a prayer to this effect too.
9. In their subsequent written statement, D-1 and D-4 have further submitted that after the death of mother of plaintiff and D-1 to D-3, the Will in question was read over in front of plaintiff, D-1 to D-4 and Sh. Gurbaksh Singh by the daughter of D-2 namely Ms. Surpreet Kaur. They further submitted that the Will was validly executed and registered in the office of Sub-Registrar, where Sh. Gurbaksh Singh and his two witnesses presented themselves. Further, father of D-1 was not in the habit of creating interference in the married life of his daughters. He remained concerned about their welfare after marriage and had drawn a line so that they were settled happily at the place of their husband.
10. It has been further averred by D-1 and D-4 that the conduct of plaintiff with her father and other family members remained fraudulent. She got married against the wishes of her family. Thereafter, on 24.08.1997, her marriage was solemnized in Gurudwara by her father and D-1. After marriage, the plaintiff used to fetch money from her parents and D-1 on one pretext or another. On 21.08.2002, with the intent to help the plaintiff and her husband, her father purchased a shop at Fateh Nagar Jail Road, for a sale consideration of Rs.50,000/-. The plaintiff secretly mortgaged the said shop to someone against loan of Rs.54,000/-. When her father came to know about the same, he got the said shop redeemed by paying Rs.54,000/- and got the shop transferred in his name from the plaintiff and her husband vide documents dated CS DJ 688/2017 Page no. 6/34 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2026.03.06 16:41:25 +0530 21.02.2005. After the death of her father, the plaintiff and her husband sold the said shop again to third party against consideration, whereas they did not have any title, right or interest in the said property.
11. It has been further averred by D-1 and D-4 that the plaintiff was in the habit of taking money from her mother by emotionally blackmailing her. On one occasion, she succeeded in obtaining the original title documents of suit property from her mother and got loan of Rs.2,50,000/- by mortgaging the same to someone. D-4 came to know about this fact from one of her neighbors namely Smt. Doly Chopra. When father of plaintiff and D-1 came to know about the same, he paid the loan amount and took back the possession of sale documents, which were in the shape of GPA, agreement to sell etc. The GPA was in the name of their mother and the agreement to sell was in the name of their father. To take precaution in future and secure the suit property, their father got executed a sale deed in his favour from their mother on 06.11.2009 and thereafter, executed a Will on 17.11.2009 in favour of their mother and in case, their mother died before their father, the suit property shall devolve in favour of D-1. Further, late Sh.
Gurbaksh Singh was a retired military officer and died in the age of 79 years.
12. D-1 and D-4 have further averred that D-1 acquired the suit property through a genuine Will and on the basis of the same, he executed a gift deed in favour of his wife/D-4, who mortgaged the same to Punjab and Sind Bank/D-5 against loan.
CS DJ 688/2017 Page no. 7/34
Digitally
signed by
NAVEEN
NAVEEN GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2026.03.06
16:41:30
+0530
13. In its written statement, it has been submitted on behalf of D-5 that D-4 had availed loan from it against equitable mortgage of the suit property. The original title documents of the property were in its custody and possession as security for loan advanced to D-1 and D-4.
14. From the pleadings of the parties, following issues were framed on 13.03.2023:-
1. Whether D-4 Smt. Parvinder Kaur availed of loan from D-5 Bank against equitable mortgage of entire suit property no. S-2/40, bearing Municipal No. WZ-104/C, on Plot No.5, Area measuring 100 sq. yards, part of Khasra No.18, Village Nangli Jalib, known as Old Mahavir Nagar, Delhi-18 and deposited original title documents of suit property with D-5 as security for loan, if so, to what effect? OPD
2. Whether late Sh. Gurbaksh Singh executed a registered Will dated 17/11/2009 in respect of suit property, if so, to what effect? OPD
3. Whether D-1 Ravinder Singh executed a registered Gift Deed dated 10/06/2016 in respect of suit property in favour of D-4 Smt. Parvinder Kaur, if so, to what effect?
OPD
4. Whether plaintiff is entitled to decree of partition of suit property, if so, what is the share of plaintiff and other co- sharers? OPP
5. Whether plaintiff is entitled to decree of permanent injunction, as prayed for? OPP
6. Relief CS DJ 688/2017 Page no. 8/34 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2026.03.06 16:41:36 +0530
15. Vide order dated 22.08.2023, following additional issues were framed:-
4A. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of possession in respect of portion of the suit property to which she may be found entitled? OPP 4B. Whether the registered Will dated 17.11.2009, purportedly executed by late Sh. Gurbaksh Singh in favour of D-1 Sh. Ravinder Singh, is liable to be declared as null and void being executed due to undue influence, coercion, pressure, fraud, etc. and consequently, the gift deed dated 10.06.2016 executed by D-1 in favour of his wife/D-4 Smt. Parvinder Kaur, and the suit property mortgaged by D-4 in favour of D-5 Punjab and Sind Bank, as non est? OPP
16. To prove her case, the plaintiff examined one witness. PW-1 is the plaintiff herself. She tendered her evidence affidavit as PW-1/A. She submitted on the similar lines as stated by her in the plaint. She relied upon the following documents:-
1. Ex.PW-1/1: Site plan.
2. Ex.PW-1/2: Legal notice dated 31.12.2007.
3. Ex.PW-1/3: Postal cover with speed post receipt.
4. Ex.PW-1/4: Copy of passbook of Indian Overseas Bank for the period from 12.04.2008 till 06.05.2010.
5. Ex.PW-1/5: Copy of passbook of Punjab National Bank for the period from 29.03.2010 till 19.07.2011.
6. Ex.PW-1/6: Computer print of statement of Sharp Installment Group.
7. Ex.PW-1/7: Six photographs of suit property.
8. Ex.PW-1/8: Legal notice dated 15.05.2017.CS DJ 688/2017 Page no. 9/34
Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2026.03.06 16:41:41 +0530
9. Ex.PW-1/9: Four speed post receipts.
10.Ex.PW-1/10: Returned AD Card.
11.Ex.PW-1/11: Returned AD Card.
12.Ex.PW-1/12: Returned speed post envelope sent to D-1.
13.Ex.PW-1/13: Returned speed post envelope sent to D-2.
PW-1 was cross-examined on behalf of the defendants no. 1 and 4. Thereafter, plaintiff's evidence was closed vide order dated 24.07.2025.
17. To prove their defence, the defendants no. 1 and 4 examined five witnesses. DW-1 is the defendant no. 1. He tendered his evidence affidavit as DW-1/A. In his evidence affidavit, he submitted about sale of suit property to late Sh. Gurbaksh Singh vide registered deed dated 06.11.2009, Ex.DW-1/1, execution of registered Will dated 17.11.2009, Ex.DW-1/2, by late Sh. Gurbaksh Singh and gift deed dated 10.06.2016, Ex.DW-1/3, executed by D-1 in favour of D-4. DW-1 was cross-examined on behalf of the plaintiff.
18. DW-2 is defendant no. 4. She tendered her evidence affidavit as DW-2/A. In her evidence affidavit, she submitted about the gift deed dated 10.06.2016 executed in her favour and mortgage of the suit property with D-5 as collateral security against loan/limit. She was cross-examined on behalf of the plaintiff.
19. DW-3 is summoned witness/Sh. Rahul, MTS from the office of Sub-Registrar-II B, Basai Darapur, Delhi. He tendered the Will dated 17.11.2009 executed by Sh. Gurbaksh Singh as DW-3/1 and sale deed dated 06.11.2009 executed by Smt. Joginder Kaur in favour of Sh.
CS DJ 688/2017 Page no. 10/34
Digitally
signed by
NAVEEN
NAVEEN GUPTA
GUPTA Date:
2026.03.06
16:41:47
+0530
Gurbaksh Singh as Ex.DW-3/2. He was cross-examined on behalf of the plaintiff.
20. DW-4 is Sh. H. S. Oberoi/one of the attesting witnesses to the Will dated 17.11.2009. He deposed that the testator signed the Will in his presence. He (DW-4) identified his (testator) signature. He further stated that the photographs were taken in front of him by the official of Sub-Registrar. To the question put to him that how was the health condition of the testator on the day of execution of the Will, he (DW-4) replied that he (testator) was in good health. He was cross-examined on behalf of the plaintiff.
21. DW-5 is summoned witness/Sh. Sengotta Velu, MTS from the office of Sub Registrar-II B, Janakpuri, Delhi. He tendered the gift deed dated 10.06.2016 executed by D-1 in favour of D-4, which was already Ex.DW-1/3. He was cross-examined on behalf of the plaintiff.
22. Final arguments were heard from Ld. Counsels for the parties. Record has been perused. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has argued that the plaintiff has sought partition of the suit property, which was earlier in the ownership of her mother. It has been claimed by D-1 that mother of plaintiff and defendants no. 1 to 3 had sold the suit property to her husband/their father vide sale deed dated 06.11.2009. But, DW-1/D-1 has categorically stated in his testimony that no amount was paid to his mother at the time of execution of the said sale deed. It is trite law that sale without consideration is void. Further, the Will dated 17.11.2009 of late Sh. Gurbaksh Singh, propounded by D-1, is surrounded by several CS DJ 688/2017 Page no. 11/34 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2026.03.06 16:41:53 +0530 suspicious circumstances. On one hand, it is the case of D-1 that to save the suit property, his father got the sale deed executed in his favour. On other hand, just after 11 days of the said sale deed, he executed a Will dated 17.11.2009, whereby he bequeathed the suit property to his wife. Further, in the Will, the testator had mentioned that all his daughters were married and living happily in their families. But, the plaintiff had initiated legal steps against her husband and his family members claiming maintenance and alleging cruelties committed upon her by them. Moreover, D-1 himself has admitted that the plaintiff had disputes in her matrimonial life. Further, D-1 and his wife used to pressurize late Sh. Gurbaksh Singh to execute a Will in favour of D-1. Furthermore, D-1 was instrumental in the execution of the impugned Will. The said aspect can be inferred from the fact that he was one of the witnesses to the execution of sale deed of the suit property by his mother in favour of his father. Another witness to the said execution of sale deed, namely Sh. Ashok Kumar, was also one of the attesting witnesses of the impugned Will.
23. Ld. Counsel has further argued that even the testimony of one of the attesting witnesses to the Will i.e. DW-5 has also not proved its validity. He was not even able to identify the photo of the testator put to him during his cross-examination. It is trite law that a Will can not be presumed to be valid merely because it is registered. Ld. Counsel has argued that to frustrate the claim of plaintiff over the suit property, D-1 and D-4 mortgaged it with D-5 after service of legal notice sent by the plaintiff to D-1. It can be inferred from the loan document placed on record by D-5 that D-1 and D-4 had applied for the said loan on CS DJ 688/2017 Page no. 12/34 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2026.03.06 16:41:59 +0530 15.11.2017, while the legal notice, Ex.PW-1/8 was sent by the plaintiff on 15.05.2017. This itself shows malafide of D-1 and D-4. Ld. Counsel has relied upon the following precedents in support of his arguments:
Shanti Devi (since deceased) through LRs v. Jagan Devi, Civil Appeal No. 11795/2025, decided on 12.09.2025, Dhani Ram (died) through LRs v. Shiv Singh, 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 862 and Murthy v. C. Saradambal, Civil Appeal No. 4270/10, decided on 10.12.2021. Ld. Counsel has lastly argued that the present case shall be decreed.
24. Ld. Counsel for defendants no. 1 and 4 has argued that the suit property had been purchased in the year 1985 on the basis of transfer documents i.e. GPA, Agreement to Sell, Will etc. Wherein, GPA had been executed in favour of the mother of D-1 and plaintiff, while the agreement to sell was executed in favour of their father. Since the mother of parties was under influence of plaintiff and once, the plaintiff by mortgaging the suit property, got a loan of Rs.2,50,000/-, their father got a sale deed of the suit property executed in his favour from their mother to secure it. Further, their father, during his lifetime, used to look after the interest of plaintiff. The said aspect can be inferred from the fact that in her legal notice sent to her husband and his family members, Ex.PW-1/2, the plaintiff herself had claimed that her father had given a loan of Rs.10,00,000/- to her husband. Further, their father had also got a shop purchased in the name of plaintiff and her husband vide documents dated 21.08.2002 for a consideration amount of Rs.50,000/-. But, since the plaintiff had mortgaged the said property too, their father got the said shop transferred in his name vide documents dated 21.02.2005 after making payment of consideration CS DJ 688/2017 Page no. 13/34 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2026.03.06 16:42:05 +0530 amount of Rs.54,000/- to the plaintiff and her husband. Ld. Counsel has further argued that D-1 has duly proved the impugned Will dated 17.11.2009 of late Sh. Gurbaksh Singh. Had D-1 been instrumental in getting the Will executed, his father would not have bequeathed the suit property in favour of his mother giving her all rights of disposing of the same by way of sale, mortgage, gift and transfer etc. Thus, had his mother survived his father, D-1 would not have been the beneficiary of the impugned Will. Further, had the father of D-1 been under any influence, fraud, force, coercion and without free will, at the time of execution of the Will, he would have initiated action for cancellation of the said Will, as he was a retired military official and thereby, a well-
educated person. Further, the testimony of DW-4/one of the attesting witnesses to the Will has duly proved its execution and the plaintiff could not bring anything cogent to create doubt on his testimony. Ld. Counsel has lastly argued that the present suit shall be dismissed.
25. Issue-wise findings are as follows:-
Issue no. 2:
Whether late Sh. Gurbaksh Singh executed a registered Will dated 17/11/2009 in respect of suit property, if so, to what effect? OPD The onus to prove this issue was upon the defendant no. 1. D-1 and D-4 have refuted the claim of plaintiff regarding her share in the suit property on the ground that late Sh. Gurbaksh Singh, who was the owner of suit property, had bequeathed the same to D-1 through his Will dated 17.11.2009. Prior to deliberate upon the aspect of validity of the said Will, it is required to discuss another aspect raised by Ld. Counsels of the parties regarding his capability of bequeathing the suit CS DJ 688/2017 Page no. 14/34 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2026.03.06 16:42:12 +0530 property. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has argued that the sale deed dated 06.11.2009, by virtue of which late Sh. Gurbaksh Singh claimed himself to be owner of the suit property, was a sham document as no consideration amount was paid by him to his wife.
26. First of all, it is pertinent to note that in the original plaint itself, which had been filed by the plaintiff on 05.06.2017, she claimed that father of plaintiff and defendants no. 1 to 3 was the complete owner of the suit property. Thus, the ownership of late Sh. Gurbaksh Singh was never under challenge from the plaintiff. Even then, this aspect is further examined as it has been raised by Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff.
27. It is worth noting that firstly, the said sale deed dated 06.11.2009 is a registered document executed by Smt. Joginder Kaur in favour of Sh. Gurbaksh Singh. Smt. Joginder Kaur/seller is stated to have expired on 09.07.2011, but during her lifetime, she never challenged the execution of said sale deed. At the back of page 2 of sale deed, it has been certified by Registrar/Sub-Registrar that 'vendor admits prior receipt of entire consideration of Rs.19,00,000/-'. In para no. 1 of the sale deed too, it has been mentioned that consideration of Rs.19,00,000/- had already been paid by the vendee to the vendor, prior to the execution of this sale deed. The vendor acknowledged the receipt of entire consideration amount before the Sub-Registrar II, New Delhi. The plaintiff has merely pointed out version of DW-1/D-1 that no amount was paid to his mother as the GPA was already in her name. The case of plaintiff is silent on the aspect as to whether any legal action had ever been initiated by Smt. Joginder Kaur/vendor CS DJ 688/2017 Page no. 15/34 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2026.03.06 16:42:19 +0530 complaining that she did not receive the consideration amount and thereby, the sale deed was a sham document. D-1 was merely an attesting witness to the said sale deed and according to the recital of the sale deed, the consideration amount had already been received by the vendor. Thus, as per sale deed, D-1/DW-1 was not a witness to the payment of consideration amount. Accordingly, his version on this aspect cannot lead to infer non-payment of consideration amount and thereby, holding the sale deed a sham document.
28. This aspect can be analyzed from another angle too. In their written statement, D-1 and D-4 have stated that GPA was in the name of mother of plaintiff and D-1 and agreement to sell was in the name of their father. The sale deed dated 06.11.20009, Ex.DW-1/1 also depicts that Smt. Joginder Kaur/vendor is executing the sale deed as general attorney of Sh. Kartar Singh [previous owner of the suit property], vide GPA dated 11.12.1985 duly registered. No document other than GPA has been mentioned, by virtue of which Smt. Joginder Kaur might have attained the ownership rights over the suit property. The plaintiff has not placed on record any document to create doubt on the submission of D-1 and D-4 that agreement to sell was in the name of father of plaintiff and D-1. Thus, the plaintiff could not provide any cogent evidence challenging the impugned sale deed dated 06.11.2009 executed by her mother in favour of her father. In these circumstances, with utmost respect, the Court is of the view that the precedent relied upon by Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff i.e. the case of Shanti Devi (supra) does not provide any assistance to the plaintiff.
CS DJ 688/2017 Page no. 16/34Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2026.03.06 16:42:30 +0530
29. Now, the Court proceeds to deliberate upon the arguments advanced by Ld. Counsels for the parties in respect of validity of the Will dated 17.11.2009. First of all, the Court is conscious of the precedent laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kavita Kanwar v. Pamela Mehta, (2021) 11 SCC 209, wherein the Court has discussed the principles to be followed while deciding the authenticity of a Will. The excerpts of the observations of the Court are:
24. We may now take note of the relevant principles settled by the consistent decisions in regard to the process of examination of a will when propounded before a court of law. 24.1. In H. Venkatachala Iyengar, a three-Judge Bench of this Court traversed through the vistas of the issues related with execution and proof of will and enunciated a few fundamental guiding principles that have consistently been followed and applied in almost all the cases involving such issues. The synthesis and exposition by this Court in paras 18 to 22 of the said decision could be usefully reproduced as under: (AIR pp. 451-52) "18. What is the true legal position in the matter of proof of wills?
It is well known that the proof of wills presents a recurring topic for 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 the proof of documents. Sections 67 and 68, Evidence Act are relevant for this purpose. Under Section 67, if a document is alleged to be signed by any person, the signature of the said person must be proved to be in his handwriting, and for proving such a handwriting under Sections 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 CS DJ 688/2017 Page no. 17/34 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2026.03.06 16:42:42 +0530 a court of law. Similarly, Sections 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 expression "a person of sound mind" in the context. Section 63 requires that the testator shall sign or affix his mark to the will or it shall be signed by some other person in his presence and by his direction and that the signature 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 dispositions in the will? Did he put his signature to the will knowing what it contained? Stated 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 Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act. As in the case of proof of other documents so in the case of proof of wills it would be idle to expect proof with mathematical certainty. The test to be applied would be the usual test of the satisfaction of the prudent mind in such matters.
19. However, there is one important feature which distinguishes wills from other documents. Unlike other documents the will speaks from the death of the testator, and so, when it is propounded or produced before a Court, the testator who has already departed the world cannot say whether it is his will or not;
and this aspect naturally introduces an element of solemnity in the decision of the question as to whether the document propounded is proved to be the last will and testament of the departed testator. Even so, in dealing with the proof of wills the Court will start on the same enquiry as in the case of the proof of documents. The propounder would be called upon to show by satisfactory evidence that the will was signed by the testator, that the testator at the relevant time was in a sound and disposing state of mind, that he understood the nature and effect of the dispositions and put his signature to the document of his own free will. Ordinarily when the evidence adduced in support of the will is disinterested, satisfactory and sufficient to prove the sound and disposing state of the testator's mind and his signature as required by law, Courts CS DJ 688/2017 Page no. 18/34 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2026.03.06 16:42:47 +0530 would be justified in making a finding in favour of the propounder. In other words, the onus on the propounder can be taken to be discharged on proof of the essential facts just indicated.
20. There may, however, be cases in which the execution of the will may be surrounded by suspicious circumstances. The alleged signature of the testator may be very shaky and doubtful and evidence in support of the propounder's case that the signature in question is the signature of the testator may not remove the doubt created by the appearance of the signature; the condition of the testator's mind may appear to be very feeble and debilitated; and evidence adduced may not succeed in removing the legitimate doubt as to the mental capacity of the testator; the dispositions made in the will may appear to be unnatural, improbable or unfair in the light of relevant circumstances; or, the will may otherwise indicate that the said dispositions may not be the result of the testator's free will and mind. In such cases the Court would naturally expect that all legitimate suspicions should be completely removed before the document is accepted as the last will of the testator. The presence of such suspicious circumstances naturally tends to make the initial onus very heavy; and, unless it is satisfactorily discharged, Courts would be reluctant to treat the document as the last will of the testator. It is true that, if a caveat is filed alleging the exercise of undue influence, fraud or coercion in respect of the execution of the will propounded, such pleas may have to be proved by the caveators; but, even without such pleas circumstances may raise a doubt as to whether the testator was acting of his own free will in executing the will, and in such circumstances, it would be a part of the initial onus to remove any such legitimate doubts in the matter.
21. Apart from the suspicious circumstances to which we have just referred in some cases the wills propounded disclose another infirmity. Propounders themselves take a prominent part in the execution of the wills which confer on them substantial benefits.
If it is shown that the propounder has taken a prominent part in the execution of the will and has received substantial benefit under it, that itself is generally treated as a suspicious circumstance attending the execution of the will and the propounder is required to remove the said suspicion by clear and satisfactory evidence. It is in connection with wills that present such suspicious circumstances that decisions of English Courts often mention the test of the satisfaction of judicial conscience. It CS DJ 688/2017 Page no. 19/34 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2026.03.06 16:42:52 +0530 may be that the reference to judicial conscience in this connection is a heritage from similar observations made by ecclesiastical Courts in England when they exercised jurisdiction with reference to wills; but any objection to the use of the word "conscience" in this context would, in our opinion, be purely technical and academic, if not pedantic. The test merely emphasises that, in determining the question as to whether an instrument produced before the Court is the last will of the testator, the Court is deciding a solemn question and it must be fully satisfied that it had been validly executed by the testator who is no longer alive.
22. It is obvious that for deciding material questions of fact which arise in applications for probate or in actions on wills, no hard-
and-fast or inflexible rules can be laid down for the appreciation of the evidence. It may, however, be stated generally that a propounder of the will has to prove the due and valid execution of the will and that if there are any suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the will the propounder must remove the said suspicions from the mind of the Court by cogent and satisfactory evidence. It is hardly necessary to add that the result of the application of these two general and broad principles would always depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case and on the nature and quality of the evidence adduced by the parties. It is quite true that, as observed by Lord Du Parcq in Harmes v. Hinkson, "where a will is charged with suspicion, the rules enjoin a reasonable scepticism, not an obdurate persistence in disbelief. They do not demand from the Judge, even in circumstances of grave suspicion, a resolute and impenetrable incredulity. He is never required to close his mind to the truth". It would sound platitudinous to say so, but it is nevertheless true that in discovering truth even in such cases the judicial mind must always be open though vigilant, cautious and circumspect."
(emphasis supplied) xxx 24.8. We need not multiply the references to all and other decisions cited at the Bar, which essentially proceed on the aforesaid principles while applying the same in the given set of facts and circumstances. Suffice would be to point out that in a recent decision in Shivakumar v. Sharanabasappa, this Court, after traversing through the relevant decisions, has summarised the principles governing the adjudicatory process concerning proof of a will as follows : (SCC pp. 309-10, para 12) CS DJ 688/2017 Page no. 20/34 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2026.03.06 16:42:58 +0530 "12. ... 12.1. Ordinarily, a will has to be proved like any other document; the test to be applied being the usual test of the satisfaction of the prudent mind. Alike the principles governing the proof of other documents, in the case of will too, the proof with mathematical accuracy is not to be insisted upon. 12.2. Since as per Section 63 of the Succession Act, a will is required to be attested, it cannot be used as evidence until at least one attesting witness has been called for the purpose of proving its execution, if there be an attesting witness alive and capable of giving evidence.
12.3. The unique feature of a will is that it speaks from the death of the testator and, therefore, the maker thereof is not available for deposing about the circumstances in which the same was executed. This introduces an element of solemnity in the decision of the question as to whether the document propounded is the last will of the testator. The initial onus, naturally, lies on the propounder but the same can be taken to have been primarily discharged on proof of the essential facts which go into the making of a will.
12.4. The case in which the execution of the will is surrounded by suspicious circumstances stands on a different footing. The presence of suspicious circumstances makes the onus heavier on the propounder and, therefore, in cases where the circumstances attendant upon the execution of the document give rise to suspicion, the propounder must remove all legitimate suspicions before the document can be accepted as the last will of the testator.
12.5. If a person challenging the will alleges fabrication or alleges fraud, undue influence, coercion et cetera in regard to the execution of the will, such pleas have to be proved by him, but even in the absence of such pleas, the very circumstances surrounding the execution of the will may give rise to the doubt or as to whether the will had indeed been executed by the testator and/or as to whether the testator was acting of his own free will.
In such eventuality, it is again a part of the initial onus of the propounder to remove all reasonable doubts in the matter. 12.6. A circumstance is "suspicious" when it is not normal or is 'not normally expected in a normal situation or is not expected of a normal person'. As put by this Court, the suspicious features CS DJ 688/2017 Page no. 21/34 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2026.03.06 16:43:05 +0530 must be "real, germane and valid" and not merely the "fantasy of the doubting mind".
12.7. As to whether any particular feature or a set of features qualify as "suspicious" would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. A shaky or doubtful signature; a feeble or uncertain mind of the testator; an unfair disposition of property; an unjust exclusion of the legal heirs and particularly the dependants; an active or leading part in making of the will by the beneficiary thereunder et cetera are some of the circumstances which may give rise to suspicion. The circumstances abovenoted are only illustrative and by no means exhaustive because there could be any circumstance or set of circumstances which may give rise to legitimate suspicion about the execution of the will.
On the other hand, any of the circumstances qualifying as being suspicious could be legitimately explained by the propounder. However, such suspicion or suspicions cannot be removed by mere proof of sound and disposing state of mind of the testator and his signature coupled with the proof of attestation. 12.8. The test of satisfaction of the judicial conscience comes into operation when a document propounded as the will of the testator is surrounded by suspicious circumstance(s). While applying such test, the court would address itself to the solemn questions as to whether the testator had signed the will while being aware of its contents and after understanding the nature and effect of the dispositions in the will?
12.9. In the ultimate analysis, where the execution of a will is shrouded in suspicion, it is a matter essentially of the judicial conscience of the court and the party which sets up the will has to offer cogent and convincing explanation of the suspicious circumstances surrounding the will."
xxx
27. As noticed, there has not been any question on the testamentary capacity and soundness of mind of the testatrix; and her handwriting as also signatures on the will in question are also beyond controversy. However, the trial court and the High Court have concurrently found some such suspicious circumstances which are of material bearing and which have remained unexplained. Put in a nutshell, the unexplained suspicious circumstances so found are:
CS DJ 688/2017 Page no. 22/34Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2026.03.06 16:43:11 +0530
(a) that appellant, the major beneficiary, played an active role in execution of the will in question and attempted to conceal this fact before the court;
(b) that there had not been any plausible reason for non-inclusion of the only son and other daughter of the testatrix in the process of execution of the will and for excluding them from the major part of the estate in question;
(c) that there was no clarity about the construction supposed to be carried out by the appellant;
(d) that the manner of writing and execution of the will with technical and legal words was highly doubtful; and
(e) that the attesting witnesses were unreliable and there were contradictions in the statements of the witnesses.
Because of these major circumstances coupled with various supplemental factors, the trial court and the High Court felt dissatisfied on the root question as to whether the testatrix duly executed the will in question after understanding its contents.
28. There is no doubt that any of the factors taken into account by the trial court and the High Court, by itself and standing alone, cannot operate against the validity of the propounded will. That is to say that, the will in question cannot be viewed with suspicion only because the appellant had played an active role in execution thereof though she is the major beneficiary; or only because the respondents were not included in the process of execution of the will; or only because of unequal distribution of assets; or only because there is want of clarity about the construction to be carried out by the appellant; or only because one of the attesting witnesses being acquaintance of the appellant; or only because there is no evidence as to who drafted the printed part of the will and the note for writing the opening and concluding passages by the testatrix in her own hand; or only because there is some discrepancy in the oral evidence led by the appellant; or only because of any other factor taken into account by the courts or relied upon by the respondents. The relevant consideration would be about the quality and nature of each of these factors and then, the cumulative effect and impact of all of them upon making of the will with free agency of the testatrix. In other words, an individual factor may not be decisive but, if after taking all the factors together, conscience of the court is not satisfied that the CS DJ 688/2017 Page no. 23/34 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2026.03.06 16:43:17 +0530 will in question truly represents the last wish and propositions of the testator, the will cannot get the approval of the court; and, other way round, if on a holistic view of the matter, the court feels satisfied that the document propounded as will indeed signifies the last free wish and desire of the testator and is duly executed in accordance with law, the will shall not be disapproved merely for one doubtful circumstance here or another factor there. xxx
29.5.2. Thus, practically, it was a case of the testatrix merely copying, on the dotted lines, the text already given to her. The sanctity attached to a bequeath in the handwriting of the testator presupposes a co-ordinated work of a free hand and a free mind, that is, the hand writes what comes out of and given by the mind. In the present case, it is difficult to be satisfied that what is found written in hand by the testatrix had been dictated by her own mind so as to make it an expression of her own free will. 29.5.3. Moreover, the handwritten portions carry such formal and legal expressions like "testament" and "set and subscribed my hand", which are the tools of the language employed by a person who is conversant with legal format and requirements for execution of such a document; and, ordinarily, a layperson like the testatrix is not expected to be conversant with them. The printed portion also carries the expressions like "codicil", "give, devise and bequeath", which are not the expressions of a layperson. In the given circumstances, the want of evidence as to who drafted the printed portion and the said note (for copying on the dotted lines) becomes an added factor towards suspicion as to whether the contents of the document in question are, in fact, expressive of the actual desire of the testatrix towards succession of her property.
30. The principles laid down in the precedents relied upon by Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff have also been taken into consideration in this regard. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has stated that the Will is surrounded by several suspicious circumstances. It has been argued that the Will was executed by late Sh. Gurbaksh Singh just after 11 days of CS DJ 688/2017 Page no. 24/34 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2026.03.06 16:43:22 +0530 execution of sale deed in his favour and he bequeathed the suit property in favour of his wife only.
31. It is pertinent to note that D-1 has given an explanation on this point that to secure the suit property, his father had got the sale deed executed in his favour. If his father had bequeathed the suit property in favour of his wife/mother of parties, the same leads to infer that he was concerned about the financial security of his wife after his death. The aspects of securing the suit property and financial security of his wife are not repugnant to each other. Thus, the Court does not find this aspect as a suspicious circumstance. Rather, bequeathing of suit property in favour of his wife is a circumstance favouring D-1. Had D-1 been instrumental in getting the impugned Will executed from his father, he would not have allowed him to bequeath the rights, title and interest over the suit property in favour of his mother and that too, with right to sell, mortgage, gift and transfer the same in any manner she liked. From the recital to this effect in the impugned Will, it is made out that had Smt. Joginder Kaur not pre-deceased Sh. Gurbaksh Singh, she would have got absolute ownership over the suit property.
32. Another argument advanced by Ld. Counsel for plaintiff is that the testator has mentioned in the Will that all his daughters were married and living happily in their families. But, it was not so.
33. In this regard, during her cross-examination, PW-1/plaintiff has deposed that she was given dowry in the shape of jewelery, clothes, TV and fridge. She denied the suggestion that her father had given Rs.10,00,000/- to her husband in his business. The demand of CS DJ 688/2017 Page no. 25/34 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2026.03.06 16:43:29 +0530 Rs.10,00,000/- from her husband by notice Ex.PW-1/2, was wrong. It is pertinent to note that the plaintiff tendered a legal notice dated 31.12.2007, Ex.PW-1/2 sent to her husband and parents-in-law, wherein they had been inter-alia called upon to return the amount of loan taken by them from father of the plaintiff to the tune of Rs.10,00,000/-. The Court is of the view that the plea of plaintiff that notice was sent just to threaten her husband, is not tenable. Had there not been any grant of loan of Rs.10,00,000/- by father of plaintiff to her husband, she must not have asked for return of the said amount through the above notice, Ex.PW-1/2, as such falsity would have further affected their relations adversely. The fact of providing financial assistance to the husband of plaintiff by late Sh. Gurbaksh Singh leads to infer that he (late Sh.
Gurbaksh Singh) used to take care of interests of the plaintiff.
34. During the cross-examination of plaintiff, D-1 and D-4 had put documents Ex.PW-1/DA to Ex.PW-1/DD pertaining to the property at Fateh Nagar, to her. PW-1 stated that those documents pertained to the property purchased by her and her husband. She denied the suggestion that the said shop was financed by her father. However, she deposed that thereafter, she and her husband sold the said shop to her father through documents dated 21.02.2005, Ex.PW-1/DE to Ex.PW-1/DI. She admitted that the said shop was sold to her father in lieu of the loan of Rs.54,000/- taken from her father. This circumstance too leads to infer that Sh. Gurbkash Singh used to provide financial help to the plaintiff during his lifetime. But, the fact of providing financial help to the plaintiff does not mean that the version of testator in his impugned Will to the effect 'all his daughters are married and living happily in their CS DJ 688/2017 Page no. 26/34 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2026.03.06 16:43:35 +0530 families', becomes a suspicious circumstance. Rather, the testator by the said version has provided a reason as to why he has excluded his three daughters from the fruits of the suit property. Had there been a circumstance that the testator did not mention anything about his other legal heirs/his daughters, then the same would have created a doubt upon the impugned Will. There might have been some turbulence in the married life of plaintiff in the initial years, but the said aspect does not take away right of the testator from bequeathing his self-acquired property in favour of the person of his choice, moreover when he was already providing financial help to the plaintiff. Furthermore, it is not the case of plaintiff that she is still having any dispute with her husband. In the legal notice dated 31.12.2007, Ex.PW-1/2, the plaintiff had mentioned the address of her matrimonial house as 152, Avtar Enclave, New Delhi and she has mentioned the same address as her present address, while her testimony was recorded as PW-1 on 26.07.2024. Further, the plaintiff did not lead any evidence to prove her claim of disputes of D-2 and D-3 with their husbands and/or in-laws.
35. The plaintiff has alleged that D-1 and his wife used to pressurize Sh. Gurbaksh Singh to execute a Will in favour of D-1. It has already been observed that firstly, the impugned Will was not executed in favour of D-1 directly, rather it had been in favour of mother of D-1 and it is only in an eventuality that his mother died before the testator, the suit property would devolve upon D-1. Further, the plaintiff did not place any complaint on record showing that her father had ever initiated a legal action against D-1 and his wife for mistreating him. Further, as per written statement of D-1 and D-4, Sh. Gurbaksh Singh was a retired CS DJ 688/2017 Page no. 27/34 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2026.03.06 16:43:42 +0530 military officer. Had there been any force, coercion, undue influence or misrepresentation committed by D-1 upon the testator for the purpose of execution of the impugned Will, he (Sh. Gurbaksh Singh) must have initiated steps for cancellation of the impugned Will. But, he did not take any steps for more than five years i.e. from date of execution of the Will dated 17.11.2009 till date of his death i.e. 19.12.2014. Accordingly, the plaintiff has not been able to create any doubt upon the impugned Will in this regard.
36. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has argued that D-1 was instrumental in the execution of the impugned Will. He has pointed out that there is a common witness namely Sh. Ashok Kumar in the sale deed dated 06.11.2009 as well as in the Will dated 17.11.2009. Though this aspect will be deliberated upon again while examining the testimony of attesting witness of the Will i.e. DW-4. However, it is worth noting that DW-1, during his cross-examination, has categorically deposed that he did not know the witness Sh. Ashok Kumar. Further, DW-4 has deposed that Sh. Ashok Kumar used to work in his office. He put his signature as witness [upon the impugned Will] at his instance as he used to work in his office. He admitted that in routine manner, where there were no witnesses available with the testators, he and Sh. Ashok Kumar usually put their witness in the documents. It is further pertinent to note that DW-4 has deposed that he gave legal advice on property matters. He got the Wills/sale deeds/gift deeds registered for his clients in routine manner. Further, Sh. Gurbaksh Singh came to him for the drafting as well as attestation of the said Will, he only had this much professional relation with him. It is worth noting that when DW-4 has claimed that CS DJ 688/2017 Page no. 28/34 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2026.03.06 16:43:51 +0530 Sh. Ashok Kumar used to work in his office and also that he used to get sale deed registered for his clients, no explanation/clarification was sought by the plaintiff from him as to whether the sale deed dated 06.11.2009 was also got registered by Sh. Gurbaksh Singh after having taken assistance from DW-4. Both the documents i.e. sale deed and the Will had been got registered within a gap of 11 days, thus it is highly probable that Sh. Gurbaksh Singh had taken the services of DW-4 in getting the sale deed registered too. Thus, the Court does not find this circumstance too as suspicious.
37. Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff has argued that even the testimony of attesting witness i.e. DW-4 is not reliable. In his examination-in-
chief, DW-4 has categorically deposed that the testator had put his signatures on the impugned Will in his presence. Further, the photographs were taken by Sub-Registrar official. He has further deposed that after due verification by the Sub-Registrar, photographs were taken. He deposed that the testator was in good health on the day of execution of Will. During his cross-examination, DW-4 deposed that the said Will was drafted by him. He had taken charges for drafting the said Will. The said Will was typed by a personal typist in his office. He did not remember the name of the said typist. He had taken approximately Rs.2,000/- for drafting the said Will and attesting the same. He could not say whether Sh. Gurbaksh Singh came alongwith Sh. Ravinder Singh or any other person as he was only concerned with the signatures on the Will. He did not do any reasoning with the person who came to his office for getting the Wills registered as he was only concerned with the registrations. Later Sh. Gurbaksh Singh already had CS DJ 688/2017 Page no. 29/34 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2026.03.06 16:43:56 +0530 knowledge about that there would be requirement of two witnesses of Will.
38. From the above version of DW-4, it is made out that the plaintiff could not create any doubt on his testimony during his cross-
examination. Merely for charging any amount for drafting the Will, DW-4 cannot be labeled as an interested witness of D-1. DW-4 has remained consistent and firm during his cross-examination. Following the mandate of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, the attesting witness is to testify that he 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 he has signed the Will in the presence of the testator. The said aspect has been categorically reiterated by DW-4 during his cross-examination. Further, DW-1/D-1, during his cross- examination, has deposed that he did not visit alongwith his father for preparation or execution of the Will. He was not aware where the said Will was got typed. Thus, the plaintiff could not bring anything on record to show that DW-4 is a tutored witness and has deposed at the instance of D-1 only. Merely because DW-1 has deposed that he knew Sh. H. S. Oberoi/DW-4, this does not infer that DW-4 has deposed at his instance.
39. Ld. Counsel for plaintiff has argued that DW-4, who is one of the attesting witnesses, could not identify the photograph of late Sh. Gurbaksh Singh. It is worth noting that during his cross-examination, CS DJ 688/2017 Page no. 30/34 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2026.03.06 16:44:02 +0530 DW-4 was shown nine photographs and asked to identify the photograph of testator. To which, DW-4 stated that he could not identify the photograph. It is pertinent to note that DW-4, admittedly, was doing the work of documentation for last 30-32 years. He got the Wills/sale deeds/gift deeds registered for his clients in routine manner. It is highly probable that a person/document writer would not be able to recall the face of all the persons who had taken his assistance for getting the documents registered. Moreover, the Will was executed in the year 2009 and the cross-examination of DW-4 was conducted on 28.01.2026 i.e. after more than sixteen years. Thus, it is highly probable that DW-4, who was aged 79 years on the day of recording of his testimony, was unable to recall the face of testator Sh. Gurbaksh Singh through his photograph put to him.
40. The validity of the Will can be analyzed from another angle too. At the back of page 1 of the Will, Registrar/Sub-Registrar has certified that the Will was executed and presented by Sh. Gurbaksh Singh. Further, contents of the document were explained to the parties who understood the conditions and admitted them as correct. The thumb impressions of the executant had been affixed in his presence. Thus, the plaintiff could not bring any cogent evidence on record too show that the impugned Will did not bear the signatures of her father Sh. Gurbaksh Singh.
41. Thus, by applying the principles laid down in the above precedents, the Court is of the view that the plaintiff has not brought forward any suspicious circumstance which has not been appropriately CS DJ 688/2017 Page no. 31/34 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2026.03.06 16:44:06 +0530 explained by D-1 or which could lead to declare the Will invalid. Thus, it is held that the Will dated 17.11.2009 executed by late Sh. Gurbaksh Singh is a valid Will. By virtue of the said Will, the suit property has devolved upon D-1. The issue no. 2 is decided in favour of D-1 and D-4.
42. Issues no. 1 and 3:
1. Whether D-4 Smt. Parvinder Kaur availed of loan from D-5 Bank against equitable mortgage of entire suit property no. S-2/40, bearing Municipal No. WZ-104/C, on Plot No.5, Area measuring 100 sq. yards, part of Khasra No.18, Village Nangli Jalib, known as Old Mahavir Nagar, Delhi-18 and deposited original title documents of suit property with D-5 as security for loan, if so, to what effect? OPD
3. Whether D-1 Ravinder Singh executed a registered Gift Deed dated 10/06/2016 in respect of suit property in favour of D-4 Smt. Parvinder Kaur, if so, to what effect? OPD So far as the argument of Ld. Counsel for plaintiff is concerned that D-1 and D-4 had applied for the loan after service of legal notice Ex.PW-1/8 to D-1. This circumstance does not create any doubt upon the case of D-1 and D-4 at all. The said loan taken by D-1 and D-4 from D-5 would not have created any hindrance in declaring the extent of share of plaintiff in the suit property, if she was held entitled to have share in it. But, since by virtue of the impugned Will, the suit property has devolved upon D-1 and he has already transfered the same to D-4 vide registered gift deed, D-4 had right to take loan from D-5 by way of mortgaging the suit property. Accordingly, issues no. 1 and 3 are decided in favour of D-1 and D-4.CS DJ 688/2017 Page no. 32/34
Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2026.03.06 16:44:12 +0530
43. Issue no. 4, 4A and 5:
4. Whether plaintiff is entitled to decree of partition of suit property, if so, what is the share of plaintiff and other co-sharers? OPP 4A. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to a decree of possession in respect of portion of the suit property to which she may be found entitled? OPP
5. Whether plaintiff is entitled to decree of permanent injunction, as prayed for? OPP Since the issue no. 1 has been decided in favour of D-1 and D-4, the plaintiff is not entitled to decree of partition of the suit property, of possession and of permanent injunction. Accordingly, issues no. 4, 4A and 5 are decided against the plaintiff.
44. Issue no. 4B:
4B. Whether the registered Will dated 17.11.2009, purportedly executed by late Sh. Gurbaksh Singh in favour of D-1 Sh. Ravinder Singh, is liable to be declared as null and void being executed due to undue influence, coercion, pressure, fraud, etc. and consequently, the gift deed dated 10.06.2016 executed by D-1 in favour of his wife/D-4 Smt. Parvinder Kaur, and the suit property mortgaged by D-4 in favour of D-5 Punjab and Sind Bank, as non est? OPP The cumulative effect of observations made by the Court while deciding issues no. 1, 2 and 3 is that the impugned Will dated 17.11.2009 of late Sh. Gurbaksh Singh is a valid Will. After death of late Sh. Gurbaksh Singh and when Smt. Joginder Kaur had pre-
deceased him, D-1 became absolute owner of the suit property. He was entitled to transfer the suit property by way of gift deed dated 10.06.2016 in favour of his wife/D-4. Further, D-4 had right to CS DJ 688/2017 Page no. 33/34 Digitally signed by NAVEEN NAVEEN GUPTA GUPTA Date:
2026.03.06 16:44:19 +0530 mortgage the same in favour of D-5. Thus, this issue is also decided against the plaintiff.
Relief
45. In view of the findings on above issues, the plaintiff is not entitled to the reliefs claimed in the plaint. This suit is dismissed.
Decree-sheet be prepared accordingly. The parties shall bear their own costs.
File be consigned to record room after due compliance.
Digitally
signed by
NAVEEN
NAVEEN GUPTA
Announced in the open Court GUPTA Date:
on the 06th day of March, 2026 2026.03.06
16:44:24
+0530
(Naveen Gupta)
District Judge-09, West District,
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
CS DJ 688/2017 Page no. 34/34