Delhi District Court
Sh. Mohan Lal vs Smt. Kamlesh on 13 January, 2017
IN THE COURT OF SH. SANJAY KUMAR: ADDL.
DISTRICT JUDGE, (WEST)-02, TIS HAZARI COURTS:DELHI.
Old P.C No. 33/14/02
New P.C. No. 16113/16
Sh. Mohan lal
S/o Sh. Pira Ram
R/o G-31-32, Dakshin Puri,
New Delhi-62
... Petitioner
Versus
1 Smt. Kamlesh
Wife of Shri Banwari Lal
Resident o G-97, Dakshinpuri,
New Delhi- 110062
2 Sunil Kumar
S/o Sh. Om Prakash
A-43, Nanda Extention
New Delhi-43
... Respondents
Date of original institution of the case : 14.11.2002
Date of reservation of order : 09.01.2017
Date of pronouncement of judgment : 13.01.2017
JUDGMENT:
1 A combined petition under Section 263 of Indian Succession Act for Revocation of Letter of Administration allowed on 5.5.1994 and given on 20.02.1999 in Probate Case No. 137/93 titled as Smt. Kamlesh Vs State and 272 of Indian Succession Act for grant of letter administration in favour of petitioner and against the respondent on the basis of Will dated 02.03.1993 has been filed.
P.C. 33/14/02 Mohan Lal Vs Smt. Kamlesh 1/19
2 The brief facts as stated in the petitioner is the
owner/beneficiary of Will dated 2.3.1993 regarding property No. G-31-32, Dakshinpuri, New Delhi- 110062 by virtue of Will executed by late Sh. Nanka ( hereinafter referred to as 'deceased') in favour of the petitioner.
3 It is stated that defendant/respondent is a greedy lady who has played fraud and misused the proceedings of the court and got the letter of administration from the predecessor of this Hon'ble Court in Probate case No. 137/93 order dated 5.5.1994 and 20.02.1999.It is stated that petitioner was very near to deceased and petitioner served deceased upto his death. Late Sh. Nanka expressed a desire of execution a Will in favour of Sh. Mohan Lal the petitioner as he was serving deceased as his own father.
4 It is stated that petitioner engaged an Advocate for drafting a Will of late Sh. Nanka in favour of Sh. Mohan Lal. The advocate drafted the Will and it was signed by late Sh. Nanka in presence of two witnesses namely, ( 1) Kanhaiya Lal, R/o A-211 &212, J.J. Colony, Khan Pur, New Delhi, (2) Smt. Ajay Kamal S/o Sh. Ratan R/o 324-325, Madan Gir, New Delhi. The witness also signed on the Will in presence of late Sh. Nanka 5 It is stated that deceased died on 10.04.1993 the petitioner performed the last rites of deceased as a son. After the death of deceased, neighbour, friends, well-wisher and member of the local Panchyat of Late Sh. Naka meet together and gone through the Will dated 2.3.1993 which was executed by the deceased in favour of Sh. Mohan Lal i.e petitioner.
P.C. 33/14/02 Mohan Lal Vs Smt. Kamlesh 2/19
6 It is stated that respondent no. 1 Smt. Kamlesh and
respondent no. 2 Sh. Sunil in a collusive filed suit and get the letter of administration and also presented their Will before the Area Panchayat. Area/Local Panchayat unanimously decided that Sh. Mohan Lal was serving as a real son to deceased and his wife. The deceased and his wife were also regarded the petitioner as their son. The Area Panchayat also decided against the Will of Sh. Sunil and Smt. Kamlesh that the Will of Sh. Mohan Lal is the last. The desire of deceased was to give the two flats No. G-31-32, Dakshinpuri, New Delhi to petitioner. The deceased during his life time and the petitioner was residing in G-31, Dakshinpuri, New Delhi which was the property of deceased.
7 It is stated that on seeing all the facts and circumstances at that time the area Panchayat decided unanimously that both these flats of deceased is belong to petitioner as the last Will holder. The petitioner is enjoying these two flats/property in dispute since the day of death of deceased without any obstruction and hindrance but some close relatives and friends of the petitioner asked to the petitioner that Smt. Kamlesh and Sh. Sunil are preparing to file a collusive suit to disposes the petitioner from the suit property I.e G-31-32, Dakshinpuri, New Delhi.
8 It is stated that on 8.10.2002 the bailiff alongwith the respondent no. 1 came to his house and informed him that they came with a warrant of possession of this suit property. They asked to vacate the said premises but due to intervention of the local Panchayat and witnesses at the time of death of deceased, the bailiff returned back. It is stated that Ld. Court of Sh.
P.C. 33/14/02 Mohan Lal Vs Smt. Kamlesh 3/19 Gurdeep Kkumar, ADJ, Delhi issued a warrant of possession on the basis of letter of administration issued by this Hon'ble court.
9 It is stated that after the episode of bailiff the petitioner immediately contact his counsel and after inspection of file it comes that Smt. Kamesh, respondent no. 1 filed a collusive suit with Sh. Sunil of Probate Case No. 137/93 in which she was allowed for letter of administration by this Hon'ble Court on 5.5.1994. Since the petitioner is living in the suit property I.e G- 31-32, Dakshinpuri, New Delhi since last 8 years and the respondent who is living just besides two gali in the same locality but did not informed the petitioner regarding the suit in this Hon'ble court or in the court of Sh. Gurdeep Kumar, ADJ, Delhi. The petitioner neither received any summon from this court nor from any other court.
10 It is stated that petitioner is the real owner of the suit property and last Will holder/Successor of late Sh. Nanka. The petitioner seeks revocation of letter of administration and the order dated 5.5.1994 and 20.02.1999 in Probate Case No. 137/93 and further seeks a latter of administration on the basis of Will annexed dated 02.03.1993 being the last Will of the deceased testator.
11 Respondent No. 1 Smt. Kamlesh filed written statement/objections to the petition under Section 263 of Indian Succession Act and taken preliminary objection that petitioner has no locus standi to file the present petition. The petitioner is tress-passer in possession of deceased's property and has no interest in it. The petitioner cannot apply for revocation. The P.C. 33/14/02 Mohan Lal Vs Smt. Kamlesh 4/19 deceased Late Nanka was illiterate person and never signed in Hindi or any other language. The Will dated 2.3.1993 has been forged by the petitioner to grab the disputed property. The signatures in Hindi on the Will dated 2.3.1993 has been forged by the petitioner. Late Nanka marked his thumb impression throughout his life.
12 It is stated that deceased belongs to Balmiki caste. The petitioner is neither related to Nanka nor belongs to caste of Balmiki. The petitioner belongs to Jatav Caste. The petitioner in collusion with respondent no. 2 Shri Sunil came in the illegal possession of the disputed property to delay the execution proceedings.
13 It is stated that petition is not maintainable. Deceased filed a suit for declaration and perpetual injunction in March 1990 against Sh. Sunil @ D.C. title of suit was Nanka Vs Sh. Sunil @ D.C Suit No. 277/90. Late Nanka marked his thumb impression on the plaint of the suit and on the Vakalatnama of the suit and on the affidavit of the suit etc. because he was illiterate and he was unable to sign in Hindi or in any other language. Deceased died on 10.4.1993 pending the suit.
14 It is submitted that respondent Kamlesh brought on record as legal heir of late Nanka in the above said suit. Smt. Kamlesh withdrew the above said suit on 10.09.2001 after making her statement that she has got letter of Administration from the court and therefore, she wants to file suit for possession and declaration against the defendant Sh. Sunil. The statement of Sh. Sunil was recorded on 10.09.2001, in which he stated that P.C. 33/14/02 Mohan Lal Vs Smt. Kamlesh 5/19 he is residing in the suit premises and he has no objection to withdraw the suit. The suit was withdrawn on 10.09.2001 with the permission of Smt. S.S. Maan, Civil Judge, to file a fresh suit of possession and declaration.
15 It is stated that respondent no. 1 filed a suit for possession and declaration on 16.10.2001, in the court of Distt. Judge, Delhi. The suit of possession and declaration titled as "
Smt. Kamlesh Vs Sh. Sunil @ D.C." suit No. 311/2002 was decreed by the court of Shri Gurdeep Kumar, Addl. Distt. Judge, Delhi on 21.08.2002.
16 It is stated that Will dated 2.3.1993 has been forged by the petitioner. The signature of late Nanka on the Will dated 2.3.1993 has been forged by the petitioner. The judicial record from 1990 and after words clearly shows that deceased was illiterate and marked thumb impression on the documents. The petitioner applied for electricity connection in the office of Delhi Vidyut Board, Chitranjan Park, kali Beri, Kalka Mandir, I-Block, 19- 20, Nehru Place, New Delhi in 1999. The petitioner filed a G.P.A. executed by Pradeep Kumar in favour of Mohan Lal. The other G.P.A filed by Mohan Lal was executed by Nanak Chand in favour of Pradeep Kumar. Second G.P.A was forged by the petitioner which is shown to be signed by Nanak Chand.
17 It is stated that petitioner applied for mutation of water connection in his name in 2001 in the office of Delhi Jal Board, Sadik Nagar, Main Road, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi. The petitioner filed a G.P.A executed by Pradeep Kumar in his favour. The other G.P.A filed by Mohan Lal was executed by deceased in P.C. 33/14/02 Mohan Lal Vs Smt. Kamlesh 6/19 favour of Pradeep Kumar. The signature of Late Nanka on the G.P.A has been forged by the petitioner.
18 It is stated that deceased had an account NO. 12213 in Punjab National Bank, Khanpur, New Delhi and he was getting his pension through the Bank. The deceased had marked thumb impression because he was an illiterate. The certificate from Punjab National Bank regarding the thumb impression of deceased has been filed in this court. On merit all the averment of the petition has been denied respondent prayed that the petition may be dismissed.
19 Petitioner filed reply and denied all the preliminary objections taken by respondent no. 1 and reiterated the averment mentioned in the petition.
20 Respondent no. 2 Sh. Sunil also filed reply to the petition under Section 263 of Indian Succession Act and taken preliminary objections that answering respondent has no concern with the present case at present. He is staying separately from the property in question since 1997. It is stated that present petition is not maintainable against the answering respondent as there is no cause of action against the answering respondent.
21 It is stated that the facts which are in the knowledge of the answering respondent are as follows:-
i) That the petitioner was residing in the property in question alongwith the answering respondent since 1990, but the answering respondent left the property in question in the year 1997 due to threat given by respondent no. 1 as respondent no.
P.C. 33/14/02 Mohan Lal Vs Smt. Kamlesh 7/19 1 has already filed a petition against the respondent no. 2 which was decreed in her favour.
ii) The petitioner was very much close to deceased late Sh. Nanka and he served him in all respect.
Iii) That after the death of deceased on 10.04.1993 the answering respondent performed his last rites, at that time petitioner disclosed before the answering respondent that the deceased has executed a Will in respect of property in question in his favour, at request the said Will was shown by the petitioner to the answering respondent. Thereafter, the answering respondent left the property in question because of the threat of respondent no. 2.
iv) That in the last days of his life, deceased Nanka started to read and write from Sh. Omkar and his family members, one of the neighbour, but the answering respondent is not aware as to what extent he could be able to read and write, but during his whole lie, he put his thumb impression in his ordinary course of life.
22 It is stated that answering respondent is not interested in the present litigation, nor he claims any right over the property in question, therefore the petition of the petitioner may be dismissed or the respondent no. 2 may be discharged from the array of the party.
On merit all the contents of petition are denied and prayed that petition may be dismissed.
23 On the pleadings of the parties the following issues were framed by my ld. Predecessor on 20.07.2005:-
P.C. 33/14/02 Mohan Lal Vs Smt. Kamlesh 8/19
1. Whether late Sh. Nanka executed a valid and enforceable Will dated 2.3.1993 as claimed by the petitioner ? OPP
2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of probate on the basis of aforesaid Will? OPP
3. Whether the petition is liable to be dismissed on the basis of objections raised by the objector/respondent No. 1? OPR
4. Relief 24 In the revocation petition, applicant/petitioner did not lead any evidence despite availing four opportunities for filing affidavit in evidence on 23.11.2004; 2.5.2006; 14.07.2006 and 22.09.2006 and having not filed any affidavit in evidence the applicant moved an application under order 14 rule 5 CPC on 22.11.2006 for framing of additional issues and the following issues were framed vide order dated 5.3.2007
1. Whether the non applicant/petitioner Smt. Kamlesh obtained letters of administration in PC No. 137/93 by fraud? OPA
2. Whether there are any just cause of revoke letter of administration granted to Smt. Kamlesh in PC No. 137/93? OPA 25 As the applicant even after framing of additional issues did not file any affidavit in evidence despite availing two opportunities for filing the same nor examined the applicant in the court despite opportunity given. There vide judgment dated 20th August, 2007 the revocation petition was dismissed.
P.C. 33/14/02 Mohan Lal Vs Smt. Kamlesh 9/19
26 The petitioner preferred appeal in the Hon'ble High
Court against the judgment dated 20 th August 2007 and vide order dated 24.02.2010 the order/judgment dated 20 th August 2007 was set aside with subject to cost of rs. 10,000/- and case was remanded back to the trial Judge who shall grant not more than two opportunities to the appellant to enable him to file affidavit of evidence and shall thereafter proceed with the matter as per law.
27 It is pertinent to mention here that initially in this petition respondent no. 2 did not appear and it was decided in the year 2007. Ld. Predecessor of this court vide order dated 10.11.2014 set aside the order 14.09.2011 whereby the suit qua respondent no. 2 restored and respondent no. 2 filed reply to the pending petition. Petitioner did not file rejoinder to the same and vide order dated 07.12.2015 issued framed on 20.07.2005 were again framed.
28 Petitioner Mohan Lal in order to prove his case examined himself as PW-1 and tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW-1/X. 29 Petitioner further examined Sh. Onkar Babu as PW-2, Sh. Ajay Kamal as PW-3 and vide separate statement of petitioner his evidence was closed on 29.08.2016.
30 Respondent no. 2 Smt. Kamlesh appeared as RW-1 and tendered her evidence by way of affidavit Ex. RW-1/A. Sh. Bal Krishan as RW-2 and vide separate statement of counsel for non-applicant, Smt. Kamlesh the evidence on behalf of respondent no. 2 was closed on 25.11.2016.
P.C. 33/14/02 Mohan Lal Vs Smt. Kamlesh 10/19 31 I have heard and gone through the written arguments filed on behalf of applicant and non-applicant and perused the record. My findings on issues framed on 20.07.2005 and additional issues framed on 05.03.2007 is as follows :-
32 All the issues are taken simultaneously because interconnected. In order to appreciate let us examine the evidence lead by the parties. Applicant Mohan Lal examined himself as PW-1 and proved his affidavit Ex. PW-1/X. He relied upon the will of the deceased dated 02.03.1993 Ex. PW-3/A. As per his testimony he had engaged an advocate for drafting of the said Will which was signed by deceased Nanka The Deceased Nanka on 10.04.1993 died and he is beneficiary of the Will in respect of the house no. G-31 & G-32, Dakshinpuri, New Delhi- 110062.
33 In the detailed cross-examination he deposed that he has been living in the property at G-31, 32, Dakshin Puri, New Delhi since 1991 and used to pay rent of Rs. 500/- to deceased Nanka. He denied that Kamlesh non-applicant used to take care of deceased Nanka and his wife and also performed their last rites. He admitted that one Sunil ( respondent no. 2) was also residing at G-31, 32, Dakshin Puri, in a separate portion. He admitted that a civil suit was pending between Sunil and deceased Nanka but he has no knowledge about the same. He deposed that no ration card got issued at the said address and only on 12.03.1998 the ration card was got issued. He denied that he had carried manipulation in the ration card. He denied the suggestion that deceased Nanka prior to his death got executed Will dated 28.12.1992 ( wrongly typed as 05.05.1994) P.C. 33/14/02 Mohan Lal Vs Smt. Kamlesh 11/19 in favour of Kamlesh. He denied the knowledge of Probate Case No. 137/93 Kamlesh Vs State wherein a letter of administration granted to Kamlesh vide order dated 05.05.1994 and letter of administration issued on 05.09.1997.
34 He further deposed that he has no knowledge about the fact that Sunil was also a party in that case. He denied the suggestion that Sunil, thereafter sold the property in question to him and ran away. He denied that deceased Nanka never executed any will in his favour and will dated 2.3.1993 which is false and fabricated. He deposed that it is correct that copy of bill filed on record pertaining to year 2001. He denied that electricity bill, water bill and driving licence whose copies filed on record are manipulated. He denied that he got intentionally manipulated PP Act notice dated 14.09.2000.
35 PW-2 Sh. Onkar Babu appeared in witness box and deposed that he knew petitioner Mohan Lal and deceased Nanku. Petitioner was staying in the house of deceased and having cordial relations. He deposed that he left the G-Block, Dakshin puri about 12 years back. He further deposed that deceased had told him that he has executed documents in the name of the petitioner. He further deposed that deceased Nanku used to put his thumb impression but in the later stage he learn to sign with his children.
36 In the detailed cross-examination he deposed that he does not know exact year when he left the said place at G Block. He deposed that deceased Nanku told him regarding adoption of petitioner but he do not know whether any adoption deed was P.C. 33/14/02 Mohan Lal Vs Smt. Kamlesh 12/19 prepared or not. He denied that no adoption deed was prepared. He denied that there were no cordial relations of the petitioner with the deceased. He denied the suggestion that petitioner came to the said house after the death of deceased. He denied that deceased Nanku only used to put thumb impression and never learn signing from his children.
37 PW-3 Sh. Ajay Kamal deposed that he knew the petitioner as a neighbour. On 2.3.1993 when petitioner called him at his house. He saw one advocate alongwith petitioner, Kanhiya Lal were present there . The advocate was having a will which was read to him. He further deposed that deceased Nanka told him that he has executed a will in favour of the petitioner and asked him to sign as a witness. He identified his signatures at point X on will Ex. PW-3/A. He further deposed that deceased, Sh. Kanhiya put their signatures on the will in his presence.
38 In the detailed cross-examination he deposed that he knew petitioner for the last 30 years and having visiting terms and residing at half kilometer of the petitioner. He denied that he does not know deceased Nanka. He deposed that no neighbour was present at the time of execution of the will and no neighbour was asked by the deceased Nanka. He further deposed that advocate read over the contents of the will and thereafter he put his signatures and Nanku put his signatures in Hindi. He deposed that he has no knowledge whether deceased was literate or illiterate. He denied the suggestion that deceased Nanka was illiterate and used to put his thumb impression. He denied that signature at point A of deceased Nanka on the Will Ex. PW-3/A are forged and fabricated. He admitted that first page of the will P.C. 33/14/02 Mohan Lal Vs Smt. Kamlesh 13/19 does not bear the signature of the deceased. He denied the suggestion that Will Ex. PW-3/A is forged and fabricated. He denied that witness did sign in the presence of each other. He denied that Kanhiya, another attesting witness alive. He denied that his signatures obtained from his house. He admitted that Will Ex. PW-3/A does not mention the name of the advocate who drafted it. He denied the suggestion that Will Ex. PW-3/A does not appear the photo of the deceased Nanku because it is forged and fabricated.
39 He further deposed that he does not know when wife of the deceased Nanku and when deceased Nanku died. He did not attend the last rites or ceremonies of deceased Nanku. He admitted that Will Ex. PW-3/A does not mention any other will executed prior to this will. He denied the knowledge of dispute and litigation between Sunil and deceased Nanku. He denied the suggestion that he has become witness to the alleged will Ex. PW-3/A to get the half share if the petitioner become successful. He denied that he and other attesting witness are indulge in grabing the properties in collusion with DDA officials. He denied that he and petitioner in collusion of DDA forged the letter alleged to issue by DDA.
40 Respondent no. 1 Smt. Kamlesh appeared as RW-1 and tendered her evidence by way of affidavit Ex. RW-1/A and she proved the Will dated 28.12.1992 executed by deceased Nanka as Ex. RW-1/1 and copy of Succession Certificate in Probate Case No. 137/97 as Ex. RW-1/2, copy of judgment dated 21.08.2002 passed in suit No. 311/02 as Ex. RW-1/3, Copy of judgment dated 20.08.2007 passed in MPC No. 24/06/02 as Ex. RW-1/4 and photographs Ex. RW-1/5.
P.C. 33/14/02 Mohan Lal Vs Smt. Kamlesh 14/19 41 In the detailed cross-examination she deposed that deceased late Sh. Nanka was the younger brother of her father- in-law. He stated that except the deceased and his wife Omi son of brother of deceased used to live with them at house no. G-31- 32 who was shunted out by the deceased because of his unlawful activities. Thereafter Sunil was kept by the deceased who used to beat the deceased and thereafter deceased shunted out Sunil also. The deceased also executed a Will in favour of Sunil and thereafter the same was revoked and thereafter deceased executed a Will in her favour on 28.12.1992 because she taking care the deceased. Two witnesses, namely, Bal Kishan and Birdha Ram were present at the time of execution of the Will on 28.12.1992 at Asaf Ali Road. The said Will was prepared by Sh. Rajan Advocate at Registrar office at Asaf Ali Road. She further deposed that signatures of the witnesses were obtained on the Will at the same place where it was typed. The photographs of the deceased was also pasted at the same place. They had appeared before the Sub-Registrar alongwith deceased. She denied the suggestion they did not appear before the Sub- Registrar alongwith the deceased at the time of execution of the will. She further denied the suggestion that she obtained the thumb impression of deceased Nanka on blank papers and thereafter got prepared the said Will fraudulently. She denied the suggestion that she filed a collusive suit with respondent no. 2 Sh. Sunil to grab the property of the petitioner.
42 She further deposed that she had seen the petitioner in the property when she went for taking the possession. She denied the suggestion that petitioner was residing in the property in question since 1991. She also denied the suggestion that P.C. 33/14/02 Mohan Lal Vs Smt. Kamlesh 15/19 deceased Nanka executed a Will dated 02.03.1993 in favour of Sh. Mohan Lal, petitioner. She further denied the suggestion that she prepared a forged will in connivance with respondent no. 2 after obtaining the signatures of the deceased on blank papers. She further denied the suggestion that she has no relation with the deceased Nanka and she is deposing falsely.
43 According to Section 263 of Indian Succession Act, a probate or a letter of administration may be revoked or annulled for just cause. The explanation defines just cause deem to be exist. Further the illustration given to the Section further elucidate the just cause for revocation or annulment of letter of administration or probate. I have already discussed hereinabove the detailed testimony and pleadings of the parties. The main plea taken by the applicant Mohan Lal for revocation of letter of administration issued in favour of non-applicant Kamlesh in PC No. 137/93 titled as "Kamlesh vs. State" by the then Ld. District Judge and letter of administration granted on 25.09.1994 in pursuance to judgment dated 05.05.1994 on the basis of Will of deceased Nanka dated 24.12.1992 in favour of Kamlesh. In the witness box, Mohan Lal deposed that Kamlesh had played the fraud and misused the proceedings. Deceased Nanka who died on 10.04.1993 left last Will Ex. PW3/A dated 02.03.1993 in his favour. In the cross-examination, he admitted the fact that he has filed the present revocation petition on the basis of Will Ex. PW3/A. 44 Applicant Mohan Lal relied on the testimony of PW2 Onkar Babu, a neighbourer of deceased Nanka. Interestingly he has categorically deposed that deceased Nanka used to put P.C. 33/14/02 Mohan Lal Vs Smt. Kamlesh 16/19 thumb impression but later stage, his children taught him to sign. This is completely unbelievable because the Will relied by Mohan Lal is dated 02.03.1993 but after about one month, he died. There is no specification how and when suddenly deceased Nanka learnt signing when throughout life he used to put thumb impression being illiterate as come on record. Interestingly Will dated 24.12.1992 Ex. RW1/1 bear the thumb impression of the deceased Nanka but the Will in favour of Mohan Lal Ex. PW3/A bears the signature. In order to cover up, PW2 Onkar Babu was examined. This witness is also not reliable because he has not proved any document to show that at any point of time he has remained neighbourer of deceased Nanka. Therefore, testimony of PW2 Onkar Babu is unbelievable and does not inspire confidence to establish that deceased Nanka also knows signing prior to his death especially at the time of execution of Will in favour of Mohan Lal Ex. PW3/A. 45 The vital witness of Mohan Lal is PW3 Ajay Kamal who is attesting witness to the Will Ex. PW3/A. According to him, one Advocate was present with the petitioner alongwith one attesting witness Kanhiya Lal was present when he was called by the petitioner. Deceased signed in his presence the Will Ex. PW3/A but in the cross-examination, it is established that the Advocate was present but his name was not brought on record, by the petitioner. The petitioner was also present with the deceased and two attesting witnesses. PW3 Ajay Kamal does not know whether deceased was literate or illiterate although he was knowing him being neighbourer. On the contrary he knew the petitioner for the last 30 years establish that he was known to the petitioner Mohan Lal and not to the deceased Nanka. PW P.C. 33/14/02 Mohan Lal Vs Smt. Kamlesh 17/19 Ajay Kamal also does not know the wife of deceased although he was neighbourer of deceased. He also does not know when the deceased Nanka died who died on 10.04.1993 just after a month of execution of Will Ex. PW3/A. The testimony of PW3 Ajay Kamal does not inspire confidence and it is totally unbelievable that how deceased Nanka who was an illiterate would sign the Will Ex. PW3/A on 02.03.1993. The applicant also failed to establish any iota of evidence to prove the fraud against Kamlesh. I have gone through the Will of deceased Nanka dated 24.12.1992, on which letter of administration granted clearly mention the reasons and causes for execution of the Will in favour of Kamlesh. The Will also spelled out about one adopted Sunil @ D.C., who did not care and later on disowned by deceased Nanka. Hence, the petitioner failed to establish just cause for revocation of letter of administration granted in favour of non-applicant Kamlesh.
46 Now coming to the other prayer of the applicant Mohan Lal for grant of letter of administration on the basis of Will dated 02.03.1993 of the deceased Nanka. As per Section 63 of Indian Succession Act read with Section 68 of Indian evidence Act, the petitioner has to fulfill the ingredients to establish evidence for grant of letter of administration. I have hereinabove in detail discussed the testimony of vital witness i.e. PW3 Ajay Kamal. The whole testimony of PW2 is silent in respect to deceased having signed any document during his life time as no other document proved on record which is signed by deceased and it is doubtful that how deceased Nanka had signed the Will when he was an illiterate person and always used thumb impression. There is no iota of evidence on record with regard to the sound mind of the deceased on the date of execution of the P.C. 33/14/02 Mohan Lal Vs Smt. Kamlesh 18/19 Will in question. Furthermore, the Advocate was brought by the petitioner, the witnesses of the Will are known to the deceased. These are the highly suspicious circumstances which are not dispelled by the testimony of PW3 Ajay Kamal and by petitioner PW1 Mohan Lal. The circumstances also establish that the Will Ex. PW3/A has been executed under grave suspicious circumstances and influence of the petitioner. Furthermore the Will Ex. PW3/A is silent about execution of earlier Will in favour of Kamlesh dated 24.12.1992. In my considered opinion, the Will Ex. PW3/A is suffered from suspicious circumstances and not a legal and genuine document.
47 On the basis of above observation and discussion, issues no. 1, 2 and 3 framed on 20.07.2005 and additional issues no. 1 and 2 framed on 05.03.2007 are decided against applicant Mohan Lal and in favour of non-applicant Kamlesh.
RELIEF 48 On the basis of findings on the issues no. 1, 2 and 3 framed on 20.07.2005 and additional issues no. 1 and 2 framed on 05.03.2007, the petition of Mohan Lal is dismissed. No order as to cost.
File be consigned to Record Room.
(Announced in the open (SANJAY KUMAR) court on 13th January,2017 ADJ-02 (West) Tis Hazari Courts Delhi P.C. 33/14/02 Mohan Lal Vs Smt. Kamlesh 19/19 P.C. 33/14/02 Mohan Lal Vs Smt. Kamlesh 20/19