Delhi District Court
Sumit Arora Ors vs State Ors on 20 September, 2025
IN THE COURT OF MS. SHIVALI SHARMA, DISTRICT
JUDGE -06: CENTRAL DISTRICT, TIS HAZARI COURTS,
DELHI
PC No.42267/2016
SHIVALI
IN THE MATTER OF:-
SHARMA
1. Sumit Arora (Since Deceased Through LRs)
Digitally signed
a. Ms. Shalini Arora by SHIVALI
W/o Shri Navin Gambhir SHARMA
D/o Late Sh. Satish Kumar Date: 2025.09.20
D-81, Second Floor, Kriti Nagar, 13:04:01 +0530
New Delhi.
b. Smt. Silki Arora
W/o Sh. Sanjay Sharma
D/o Late Sh. Satish Kumar
R/o 26/408, Mahagun Apartment,
Estate V. Extension I, Shalimar Garden,
Shahibabad, Ghaziabad, U. P.
2. Ms. Shalini Arora
W/o Sh. Navin Gambhir
D/o Late Sh. Satish Kumar
R/o D-81, Second Floor,
Kirti Nagar, New Delhi.
3. Smt. Silki Arora
W/o Sh. Sanjay Sharma
D/o Late Sh. Satish Kumar
R/o 26/408, Mahagun Apartment,
Estate V. Extension I, Shalimar Garden,
Shahibabad, Ghaziabad, U. P.
PC No.42267/16 Sumit Arora & Ors. Vs Stated & Ors. Page no.1/27
4. Smt. Nargis Kumari
W/o Late Harjit Singh
R/o H. No.304, Pocket G-30,
Delhi-110085. ..........PETITIONERS
VERSUS
1. State of NCT of Delhi
Through its Chief Secretary
Delhi Secretariat, IP Estate,
New Delhi-110002.
2. Smt. Meena Wadhwa
W/o Sh. G. L. Wadhwa
R/o Flat No.296, Sarvahit Apartment,
Sector-17-A, Dwarka Phase-I,
New Delhi.
3. Smt. Saroj Khurana
W/o Sh. Darshan Khurana
R/o BB-49-B, Shalimar Bagh, Delhi.
4. Smt. Naresh Budhiraja
W/o Sh. Yashpal
R/o H. No.1878, 2nd Floor,
Kucha Pati Ram, Sita Ram Bazar, Delhi-06.
5. Smt. Parveen
W/o Sh. Surinder
R/o K-46, Old Double Storey,
Lajpat Nagar-IV, New Delhi-24.
6. Mr. Prince Arora
7. Mr. Rahul Arora
PC No.42267/16 Sumit Arora & Ors. Vs Stated & Ors. Page no.2/27
Both S/o Late Kailash Chander
8. Ms. Sona Arora
D/o Late Kailash Chander
9. Smt. Rita Arora
W/o Late Kailash Chander
All R/o 3496-97, First Floor,
Dariba Pan, Pahar Ganj,
New Delhi-55. ........RESPONDENTS
Other Details :
Date of Institution : 26.09.2011
Date of Reserving Judgment : 06.09.2025
Date of Judgment : 20.09.2025.
PETITION UNDER SECTION 276 OF THE INDIAN
SUCCESSION ACT , 1925
JUDGMENT
1. The present petition has been filed seeking Probate/Letter of Administration in respect of the will dated 31.07.1992 of testatrix Smt. Man Kaur being the mother/grandmother of the parties to the suit.
2. The will dated 31.07.1992 was executed by the deceased testatrix Smt. Man Kaur, whereby she bequeathed her immovable property bearing no.3496-3497, situated at Dariba Khan, Paharganj, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "property in question") in PC No.42267/16 Sumit Arora & Ors. Vs Stated & Ors. Page no.3/27 favour of her two sons namely Sh. Satish Kumar and Sh. Kailash Chander as well as one of her daughters namely Smt. Nargis Kumari. The Will was duly registered in the office of Sub-Registrar, Delhi as document no.4642, Additional Book No.3, Volume 684, Page no.92 to 94 on 11.08.1992.
BREIF FACTS AS PER THE PETITION
3. Present petition was filed by LRs of Late Sh. Satish Kumar, one of the beneficiary in the Will dated 31.07.1992 and Smt. Nargis Kumari, one of the other beneficiary in the Will dated 31.07.1992.
4. The petitioners filed the present petition alleging testatrix Smt. Man Kaur to be owner of the property in question. Smt. Man Kaur expired on 02.03.2003 leaving behind one son namely Sh. Kailash Chander (father of the respondents no.6 to 8), five daughters (respondents no.2 to 5 and petitioner no.4) and LRs of her pre- deceased son Late Sh. Satish Kumar (predecessor in interest of petitioners no.1 to 3). Husband of Smt. Man Kaur had already expired on 01.07.1971. Her son Sh. Satish Kumar expired on 12.03.2001 and Sh. Kailash Chander expired on 08.02.2005. During her life time testatrix Smt. Man Kaur had executed her last and final Will dated 31.07.1992 which was duly registered. No other subsequent Will was left by the testatrix. Hence, the petition has been filed seeking probate of the Will/letter of administration with Will annexed in respect of the property in question.
PC No.42267/16 Sumit Arora & Ors. Vs Stated & Ors. Page no.4/27 PUBLICATION OF CITATION
5. After filing of the petition, the citation was directed to be published in approved newspapers vide order dated 26.09.2011. The publication was duly effected. However, no other independent person other than the parties to the suit came forward to file any objections to the petition as recorded in order sheet dated 14.10.2011.
PARTIES TO THE PRESENT PETITION AND THEIR RESPECTIVE STANDS
6. All the class one legal heirs of deceased testatrix Smt. Man Kaur have been impleaded as parties in the present petition. Smt. Man Kaur was succeeded by her five daughters who have been impleaded as petitioner no.4 namely Smt. Nargis Kumari and respondents no.2 to 5 namely Smt. Meena Wadhwa, Smt. Saroj Khurana, Smt. Naresh Buddhiraja and Smt. Parveen ; one son namely Sh. Kailash Chander who had also expired prior to filing of the present petition and his LRs are impleaded as respondents no.6 to 8 namely Sh. Prince Arora, Sh. Rahul Arora and Ms. Sonam Arora ; LRs of her pre-deceased son namely Sh. Satish Kumar who have been impleaded as petitioners no.1 to 3 namely Sh. Sumit Arora, Ms. Shalini Arora and Smt. Silky Arora. None of the parties to the petition have disputed the details of the LRs of Late Smt. Man Kaur filed by the petitioner along with the petition.
PC No.42267/16 Sumit Arora & Ors. Vs Stated & Ors. Page no.5/27 STAND OF RESPONDENT NO.2 SMT. MEENA WADHWA
7. Smt. Meena Wadhwa had given her no objection to grant of probate of Will in question vide her statement dated 16.12.2011. Accordingly, she is a non-contesting respondent.
STAND OF RESPONDENT NO.3 SMT. SAROJ KHURANA .
8. Despite service, respondent no.3 neither filed any objections to the present petition nor gave her NOC in favour of the petitoner. She also stopped appearing in the matter and was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 05.07.2025.
STAND OF RESPONDENT NO.4 SMT. NARESH BUDDHIRAJA.
9. Respondent no.4 continuously appeared before the Court after service but did not file any objections nor gave any NOC in favour of the petitioner for a long time. Finally, she filed her objections along with an application seeking condonation of delay in filing of objections on 20.03.2023. Her application seeking condonation of delay in filing the objections was dismissed vide detailed order dated 17.11.2023 passed by my Ld. Predecessor and accordingly, her objections have not been taken on record. The said order has attained finality.
STAND OF RESPONDENT NO.5 SMT. PARVEEN.
10. Despite service, respondent no.5 neither filed any objections to the present petition nor gave her NOC in favour of the petitoner.
PC No.42267/16 Sumit Arora & Ors. Vs Stated & Ors. Page no.6/27 She also stopped appearing in the matter and was proceeded ex-parte vide order dated 05.07.2025.
STAND OF RESPONDENTS NO.6 TO 9, LRS OF LATE Sh.
KAILASH CHANDER, SON OF TESTATRIX SMT. MAN KAUR.
11. Respondents no.6 to 8 and respondent no.9 filed their detailed objections disputing the Will dated 31.07.1992 and relying upon a previous Will dated 23.12.1983 executed by testatrix Smt. Man Kaur. However, during the course of proceedings, they filed an application under Section 151 CPC on 14.02.2023, admitting the Will in question i.e. Will dated 31.07.1992 and withdrawing their objections to the said Will. Thereafter, respondents no.6 to 9 neither cross-examined the witnesses examined by the petitioners nor addressed any final arguments and simply stated that they were supporting the case of the petitioners.
ISSUES
12. After completion of the pleadings, issues were framed vide order dated 23.04.2018. An additional issue was also framed vide order dated 22.10.2018. Consolidated issues framed in the present case are as under :
1. Whether the Will dated 31.07.1992 of testatrix Smt. Man Kaur is a forged and fabricated document? OPD
2. Whether the Will dated 23.12.1983 of testatrix Smt. Man Kaur is her last and final Will and respondents no.6 to 8 are PC No.42267/16 Sumit Arora & Ors. Vs Stated & Ors. Page no.7/27 entitled to probate/letter of administration in respect of the said Will? OPD-6 to 8
3. Whether the petitioners are entitled to probate/letter of administration of Will dated 31.07.1992 of testatrix Smt. Man Kaur? OPP
4. Whether the petition is barred by limitation? OPD-6 to 8
5. Relief.
EVIDENCE
13. Petitioners examined four witnesses in all in support of the petition. Inadvertently, no witness was examined as PW-3.
14. PW-1 Smt. Nargis Kumari is petitioner no.4 who stated and reiterated on oath the contents of the petition by way of her affidavit in evidence Ex.PW1/A. She deposed that by way of her last Will dated 31.07.1992 testatrix Smt. Man Kaur had revoked all her previous Wills. She relied upon the following documents:
1. Ex.PW1/1 : Death certificate of Smt. Man Kaur Arora.
2. Ex.PW1/2 : Death certificate of Sh. Satish Kumar Arora son of the testatrix.
3. Ex.PW1/3 : Will dated 31.07.1992 executed by Smt. Man Kaur. She identified the signatures of her mother Late Smt. Man Kaur at point X at all the pages of the Will. She also identified the signatures of her sister Smt. Meena Wadhwa at point Y who was one of the attesting witness to the Will.
PC No.42267/16 Sumit Arora & Ors. Vs Stated & Ors. Page no.8/27
15. PW-2 Sh. S. C. Jain, is one of the attesting witness to the Will dated 31.07.1992. He deposed by way of his affidavit in evidence (Ex.PW2/A) that he was a practicing advocate since 1969. He had prepared, drafted and got registered the Will dated 31.07.1992 executed by Smt. Man Kaur W/o Late Sh. Jaganath. He identified his signatures on the Will Ex.PW1/3 as drafter as well as attesting witness at points Z. He also identified the signatures of the testatrix Smt. Man Kaur at point X on each page of the Will and deposed that she had signed the Will in his presence and also on the back side of the Will in the presence of the Sub-Registrar at the time of registration. He also identified thumb impressions of the testatrix at point XA on the back side of the page no.1 of the Will Ex.PW1/3. He also identified the signatures of Smt. Meena Wadhwa at point Y on the Will as well as at point YA on the back side of page no.1 of the Will and deposed that she had put the signatures in his presence and in the presence of Sub-Registrar at point YA. He also identified his own signatures on the back side of page no.1 of the Will at point ZA and stated that he had put the said signatures before the Sub- Registrar at the time of registration of the Will.
16. PW-2 also testified that other witness Smt. Meena Wadhwa was known to him as they were class mates in college. In the year 1983 Smt. Meena Wadhwa along with her mother were passing by his seat in Tis Hazari Bar Court Library when they again met. Smt. Meena Wadhwa told him that her mother Smt. Man Kaur wanted to PC No.42267/16 Sumit Arora & Ors. Vs Stated & Ors. Page no.9/27 executed a Will in respect of her property in favour of her two sons. He had prepared the said Will dated 23.12.1983 and got the same registered. Thereafter, in the first week of July 1992, Smt. Meena Wadhwa called him and informed that her mother wanted to change her Will. He spoke to Smt. Man Kaur who informed him that she also wanted to give a share of her property to her daughter Smt. Nargis as she had disputes with her husband and had come back with her child to her parental home. Thereafter, on 31.07.1992, Smt. Man Kaur along with Smt. Meena Wadhwa visited him with the previous original Will and on instructions of Smt. Man Kaur, he prepared the Will dated 31.07.1992 which was duly read over and explained to Smt. Man Kaur in the presence of Smt. Meena Wadhwa in Hindi language. She understood the Will and being satisfied with the contents of the Will, she signed the same in his presence and also in the presence of other witness Smt. Meena Wadhwa at point X. Thereafter, witness Smt. Meena Wadhwa signed the Will at point Y and thereafter, he also signed the Will in the presence of Smt. Man Kaur and Smt. Meena Wadhwa at points Z as witness as well as the drafter. The original Will dated 31.07.1992 was handed over to Smt. Man Kaur. Thereafter on 11.08.1992, as per the wish of Smt. Man Kaur, the Will dated 31.07.1992 was got registered at the office of Sub-Registrar, Asaf Ali Road, Delhi.
17. He deposed that Will dated 31.07.1992 was signed, executed and registered by Smt. Man Kaur out of her own free will, without PC No.42267/16 Sumit Arora & Ors. Vs Stated & Ors. Page no.10/27 any pressure, instigation, force or undue influence and it was a genuine Will.
18. PW-4 is a summoned witness Sh. Krishan Kumar, from the Office of Sub-Registrar-III, Asaf Ali Road, Delhi. He was summoned along with the record of registration of Will in question but he could not produce the same and stated that the said record has been misplaced. A true copy of information report dated 01.05.2019 regarding loss of record along with attested copy of reply of the Sub- Registrar was proved as Ex.PW4/1 (colly).
19. PW-5 Sh. Sevajit is again summoned witness from the Department of Delhi Archives. He was also summoned with the original peshi register containing entry of registration of Will vide document no.4642, additional book no.3, volume no.684, pages no.92 to 94, dated 11.08.1992. However, he could not produce the record and stated that the said record was not transferred to their department by the concerned Registrar. He proved the attested copy of the entry related to volume no.684 which is Ex.PW5/A.
20. All the witnesses examined by the petitioner were duly cross- examined on behalf of the respondent no.4. The other respondents did not come forward to cross-examine or contradict the petitioner's witnesses.
PC No.42267/16 Sumit Arora & Ors. Vs Stated & Ors. Page no.11/27 RESPONDENT'S EVIDENCE
21. No evidence was led by any of the respondents as none of the respondents except respondent no.4 was contesting the matter and the objections of respondent no.4 were not taken on record vide order dated 17.11.2023.
22. I have heard the final argument and carefully perused the record as well as the written submissions and citations relied upon by the parties.
23. Now I shall proceed to give my issue wise findings.
ISSUE NO.2 : Whether the Will dated 23.12.1983 of testatrix Smt. Man Kaur is her last and final Will and respondents no.6 to 8 are entitled to probate/letter of administration in respect of the said Will? OPD-6 to 8.
24. This issue was framed on the objections of respondents no.6 to 8 who had disputed the due execution of Will dated 31.07.1992 and had alleged Will dated 23.12.1983 to be the last and final Will of Smt. Man Kaur. However, respondents no.6 to 8 had withdrawn their objections vide their application under Section 151 CPC dated 14.02.2023 and did not contest the matter or lead any evidence. In view of the withdrawal of the objections by the respondents no.6 to 8 and their reliance upon Will dated 31.07.1992 (Ex.PW1/3), this issue has become infructuous. Moreover, no evidence has been led by the respondents no.6 to 8 to prove the Will dated 23.12.1983.
PC No.42267/16 Sumit Arora & Ors. Vs Stated & Ors. Page no.12/27
25. In view of the reasons given above, this issue is decided in favour of the petitioners and against the respondents.
ISSUE NO.4 : Whether the petition is barred by limitation? OPD-6 to 8
26. This issue was also framed on the basis of objections of respondents no.6 to 8 who had later on withdrawn the said objections vide their application under Section 151 CPC dated 14.02.2023. However, since it is legal question, I deem it appropriate to give my findings on the issue on merits.
27. It is a well known fact that to get probate or letter of administration in respect of a Will is not Mandatory in Delhi and the question of filing such petition under Indian Succession Act arises only if a formal probate or letter of administration is required for any purpose or if the execution of the Will is disputed or controverted by anyone or the right of any beneficiary arising out of the Will in question are in any manner challenged by anyone. The Limitation Act does not provide any statutory period of limitation for filing a petition for grant of probate/letter of administration in respect of any Will.
28. An application for grant of probate or letter of administration is for the Court's permission to perform a legal duty created by a Will or for recognition as a testamentary trustee and is a continuous right which can be exercised any time after the death of the PC No.42267/16 Sumit Arora & Ors. Vs Stated & Ors. Page no.13/27 deceased, as long as the right to do so survives and the object of the trust exists or any part of the trust, if created, remains to be executed. Reliance in this regard is placed upon the decision of the Apex Court in Kunvar Jeet Singh vs Kirandeep Kaur, (2008) 8 SCC 463.
29. Accordingly, the present petition cannot be said to be barred by limitation by any extension of law. Nothing contrary has been argued or pleaded by any of the parties to the petition. This issue is, accordingly, decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents.
ISSUE NO.1: Whether the Will dated 31.07.1992 of testatrix Smt. Man Kaur is a forged and fabricated document? OPD ISSUE NO.3 : Whether the petitioners are entitled to probate/letter of administration of Will dated 31.07.1992 of testatrix Smt. Man Kaur? OPP
30. Before giving my findings on this issue, it would be apposite to understand the law relating to proof of Will as well as the suspicious circumstances surrounding execution of a Will.
31. The execution of will has been provided under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act 1925. It is reproduced here as under:-
"63:- Execution of unprivileged wills- Every testator, not being a soldier employed in an expedition or engaged in actual warfare or an airman so employed or engaged or a mariner at sea, shall execute his will according to the following rules:-
a) The testator shall sign or shall affix his mark to the Will or it shall be signed by some other person in his presence and by his direction;
PC No.42267/16 Sumit Arora & Ors. Vs Stated & Ors. Page no.14/27
b) The signature or mark of the testator, or the signature of the person signing for him shall be so placed that it shall appear that it was intended thereby to give effect to the writing as a Will; and
c) The will shall be attested by two or more witnesses, each of whom has seen the testator sign or affix his mark to the Will or has been some other person sign the Will in the presence and by the direction of the testator or has received from the testator a personal acknowledgment of his signature or mark or of the signature of such other person and each of the witnesses shall sign the Will in the presence of the testator, but it shall not be necessary that more than one witness be present at the same time and no particular form of attestation shall be necessary."
32. As per Section 68 of Indian Evidence Act , one of the attesting of the witnesses needs to be examined to prove the Will.
33. The law relating to proof of Will and appreciation of suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the Will have been discussed by the Apex court in a recent judgment titled as Gurdial Singh (Dead) through LR v. Jagir Kaur (Dead) through LR Civil Appeal Nos 3509-3510/ 2010, order dated 17.07.2025. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment are reproduced hereinunder for the sake of clarity:
"A Will has to be proved like any other document subject to the requirements of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, that is examination of at least of one of the attesting witnesses. However, unlike other documents, when a Will is propounded, its maker is no longer in the land of living. This casts a solemn duty on the Court to ascertain whether the Will propounded had been duly proved. Onus lies on the propounder not only to prove due execution but dispel from the mind of the court, all suspicious circumstances which cast doubt on the free disposing mind of the testator. Only when the propounder dispels the suspicious circumstances and satisfies the conscience of the court that the testator had duly executed the Will out of his free volition without coercion or undue PC No.42267/16 Sumit Arora & Ors. Vs Stated & Ors. Page no.15/27 influence, would the Will be accepted as genuine. In Smt. Jaswant Kaur v. Smt. Amrit Kaur and others 2, this Court referring to H. Venkatachala Iyengar vs. B.N. Thimmajamma & Ors.3 enumerated the principles relating to proof of Will"
10. ***** **** **** **** 2 (1977) 1 SCC 369.
1. 1959 Supp (1) SCR 426. "1. Stated generally, 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 in such matters. As in the case of proof of other documents, so in the case of proof of wills, one cannot insist on proof with mathematical certainty.
2. Since Section 63 of the Succession Act requires a will to be attested, it cannot be used as evidence until, as required by Section 68 of the Evidence Act, one attesting witness at least has been called for the purpose of proving its execution, if there be an attesting witness alive, and subject to the process of the court and capable of giving evidence.
3. Unlike other documents, the will speaks from the death of the testator and therefore the maker of the will is never available for deposing as to the circumstances in which the will came to be executed. This aspect introduces an element of solemnity in the decision of the question whether the document propounded is proved to be the last will and testament of the testator. Normally, the onus which lies on the propounder can be taken to be discharged on proof of the essential facts which go into the making of the will.
4. Cases in which the execution of the will is surrounded by suspicious circumstances stand on a different footing. A shaky signature, a feeble mind, an unfair and unjust disposition of property, the propounder himself taking a leading part in the making of the will under which he receives a substantial benefit and such other circumstances raise suspicion about the execution of the will. That suspicion cannot be removed by the mere assertion of the propounder that the will bears the signature of the testator or that the testator was in a sound and disposing state of mind and memory at the time when the will was made, or that those like the wife and children of the testator who would normally receive their due share in his estate were disinherited because the testator might have had his own reasons for excluding them. The presence of suspicious circumstances makes the initial onus heavier and therefore, in cases where the circumstances attendant upon the PC No.42267/16 Sumit Arora & Ors. Vs Stated & Ors. Page no.16/27 execution of the will excite the suspicion of the court, the propounder must remove all legitimate suspicions before the document can be accepted as the last will of the testator.
5. It is in connection with wills, the execution of which is surrounded by suspicious circumstances that the test of satisfaction of the judicial conscience has been evolved. That test 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 called upon to decide a solemn question and by reason of suspicious circumstances the court has to be satisfied fully that the will has been validly executed by the testator.
6. If a caveator alleges fraud, undue influence, coercion etc. 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 raise a doubt as to whether the testator was acting of his own free will. And then it is a part of the initial onus of the propounder to remove all reasonable doubts in the matter." The Court further held: "9. In cases where the execution of a will is shrouded in suspicion, its proof ceases to be a simple lis between the plaintiff and the defendant. What, generally, is an adversary proceeding becomes in such cases a matter of the court's conscience and then the true question which arises for consideration is whether the evidence led by the propounder of the will is such as to satisfy the conscience of the court that the will was duly executed by the testator. It is impossible to reach such satisfaction unless the party which sets up the will offers a cogent and convincing explanation of the suspicious circumstances surrounding the making of the will."
12. Similarly in Ram Piari vs. Bhagwant & Ors.4 this Court held when suspicious circumstance exists, Courts should not be swayed by due execution of the Will alone:
"3. ...................Unfortunately none of the courts paid any attention to these probably because they were swayed with due execution even when this Court in Venkatachaliah case [AIR 1959 SC 443 :
1959 Supp 1 SCR 426] had held that, proof of signature raises a presumption about knowledge but the existence of suspicious circumstances rebuts it................"
13. There is no cavil when suspicious circumstances exist and have not been repelled to the satisfaction of the Court, the PC No.42267/16 Sumit Arora & Ors. Vs Stated & Ors. Page no.17/27 Court would not be justified in holding that the Will is genuine since the signatures have been duly proved and the Will is registered one5. Parameters to ascertain 'suspicious circumstances' vitiating a Will: 4 (1993) 3 SCC 364.
5 AIR 1962 SC 567, Para 23.
14. This brings us to the next issue i.e. what are the suspicious circumstances which may vitiate the disposition. In Indu Bala Bose & Ors. vs. Manindra Chandra Bose & Anr.6 the Court held any and every circumstance is not a "suspicious" circumstance. "8. Needless to say that any and every circumstance is not a "suspicious" circumstance. A circumstance would be "suspicious" when it is not normal or is not normally expected in a normal situation or is not expected of a normal person." The Court quoted the Privy Council's elucidation in Hames v. Hinkson 7 of suspicious circumstances as follows:
"17...............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 was again reiterated in PPK Gopalan Nambier vs. PPK Balakrishnan Nambiar & Ors.8 that suspected features should not be mere fantasies of a doubting mind.
"5...............It is trite that it is the duty of the propounder of the will to prove the will and to remove all the suspected features. But there must be real, germane and valid suspicious features and not fantasy of the doubting mind."
34. The Will in question dated 31.07.1992(Ex.PW1/3) has been propounded by the petitioners. Accordingly, the onus was on them to prove the due execution of the Will in question. In order to prove the execution of the Will in question, one of the witness to the Will namely Sh. S. C. Jain, has been examined as PW-2. He has given a detailed description as to how he came in contact with the testatrix and had assisted her in drafting and execution of her two Wills that PC No.42267/16 Sumit Arora & Ors. Vs Stated & Ors. Page no.18/27 are, the initial Will dated 23.12.1983 and the subsequent Will dated 31.07.1992. He has also given a detailed version of the submissions made to him by the testatrix regarding the reasons for changing her initial Will and include her daughter Nargis/petitioner no.4 as one of the beneficiary in the Will dated 31.07.1992. These reasons are also corroborated with the contents mentioned in the Will (Ex.PW1/3). PW-2 duly identified the signatures of the testatrix as well as his own signatures and the signatures of the other witness Ms. Meena Wadhwa on the Will (Ex.PW1/3) and also deposed that the testatrix had signed on the Will in his presence and both the witnesses had signed the Will in the presence of the testatrix. He also deposed about the registration of the Will in question and identified the signatures of the testatrix as well as both the witnesses taken on the back side of the first page of the Will, at the time of registration of the Will. He categorically deposed that the contents of the Will in question were duly read over and explained to the testatrix and she had accepted them as her will before signing the Will (Ex.PW1/3). He also deposed about the sound disposing mind of the testatrix at the time of execution of Will (Ex.PW1/3).
35. PW-2 was cross-examined at length by Ld. Counsel for the defendant no.4. However, nothing material came on record to doubt the testimony of this witness.
36. Ld. Counsel for the defendant no.4 has argued that from the cross-examination of the witnesses of the petitioner suspicious PC No.42267/16 Sumit Arora & Ors. Vs Stated & Ors. Page no.19/27 circumstances surrounding the Will have come on record which have not been duly explained by the petitioners. It is stated that petitioner no.4/PW-1 has not herself deposed about the sound disposing mind of the testatrix at the time of execution of the Will (Ex.PW1/4). However, this argument of Ld. Counsel for respondent no.4 is of no consequence as petitioner no.4/PW-1 was neither a witness to the execution of the Will (Ex.PW1/3) nor she had any knowledge of the execution of the same around the time of execution. On the other hand, the witness to the Will who has been examined as PW-2 has categorically deposed about the sound disposing mind of the testatrix and his testimony has remained unshaken on this aspect. Respondent no.4 herself has not come forward with any document at all which is sufficient to doubt the sound disposing mind of the testatrix at the time of execution of the Will (Ex.PW1/3).
37. It is further argued that PW-1/petitioner no.4 has herself deposed that she had matrimonial disputes with the husband since 1978. However, still the earlier Will dated 23.12.1983 does not record this fact. However, the Will in question Ex.PW1/3 mentions about this fact as a reason for change in the Will. This again is a suspicious circumstance that has come on record and has remained unexplained. Again this argument of Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.4 does not inspire the confidence of the Court as it is the common practice that in cases of matrimonial disputes there is hope of settlement and efforts in this regard are made for years altogether. It PC No.42267/16 Sumit Arora & Ors. Vs Stated & Ors. Page no.20/27 is possible that when all such efforts failed, the testatrix deemed it appropriate to change her Will so that future of the petitioner no.4 i.e. her daughter Nargis and her granddaughter could be secured. This is not at all an unnatural thinking and corresponds to the thought process of a prudent mind. In the absence of any other evidence on this aspect, merely because there has been a change in the Will on the ground of matrimonial disputes of the petitioner no.4 which had already initiated at the time of execution of the earlier Will, it is not sufficient to consider the Will in question (Ex.PW1/3) as a doubtful document.
38. It is also argued on behalf of the respondent no.4 that PW-1/petitioner no.4 has admitted during her cross-examination that the testatrix had suffered a paralytic attack. This again is sufficient to doubt that the testatrix was not in a fit physical and mental condition at the time of execution of Will in question (Ex.PW1/3). I have gone through the evidence of PW-1. She testified that her mother had suffered a paralytic attack and volunteered that her mother was mentally and physically fit. Respondent no.4 did not bring on record any date as to when the testatrix had suffered a paralytic attack or any document to show her physical condition at the time of execution of the Will in question (Ex.PW1/3). It is worthwhile to note that the Will in question was executed on 31.07.1992 while the testatrix had expired on 02.03.2003. If during her life time at any point, the testatrix had suffered a paralytic attack, it is not sufficient PC No.42267/16 Sumit Arora & Ors. Vs Stated & Ors. Page no.21/27 to hold that she was not in a fit physical and mental condition at the time of execution of Will (Ex.PW1/3). The witness to the Will examined as PW-2 has categorically deposed about fit mental and physical condition of the testatrix at the time of execution of the Will and the said statement has not been rebutted by the respondent no.4 by bringing on record any cogent evidence. Accordingly, mere admission of PW-1 regarding of paralytic attack suffered by the testatrix during her life time is not sufficient to hold that the Will in question (Ex.PW1/3) is a doubtful document.
39. It is further argued by Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.4 that the Will in question categorically talks about certain compliancies to be made by her sons Sh. Satish Kumar and Sh. Kailash Chander regarding payment of Rs.10,000/- on the marriage of each of her grand daughters and payment of Rs.6000/- to the Gurudwara. However no such receipts have been placed on record by the petitioners. Accordingly, it is submitted that the Letter of Administration cannot be issued in favour of the petitioners. I have perused the Will (Ex.PW1/3), although, the testatrix has expressed her wish in the Will regarding the above mentioned payments to be made by her sons. However, this wish is not a pre-condition for bequest of the property no.3496-3497. Even otherwise, the compliance of all the conditions expressed in the Will has to be monitored after the Letter of Administration is issued and this cannot be a ground for denying issuance of a Letter of Administration to the PC No.42267/16 Sumit Arora & Ors. Vs Stated & Ors. Page no.22/27 petitioners with Will in question annexed.
40. Certain other immaterial contradictions in the testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2 have been pointed out by Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.4 during the arguments. However, they are highly irrelevant and immaterial to doubt the execution of the Will in question. It is also argued that the Will in question was executed by the testatrix under the influence of Ms. Meena Wadhwa/respondent no.2. However, again this argument does not inspire the confidence of the Court as Ms. Meena Wadhwa was the eldest daughter of the testatrix and the fact that the testatrix consulted her or placed her confidence on Ms. Meena Wadhwa in the matters of execution of the Will is not sufficient to hold that she was under any kind of undue influence from Ms. Meena Wadhwa. This is more so as Ms. Meena Wadhwa herself is not a beneficiary to the Will in question. Ms. Meena Wadhwa/respondent no.2 has also given her no objection for issuance of Letter of Administration in favour of the petitioners.
41. Ld. Counsel for the respondent no.4 has relied upon the following citations in support of his arguments :
1. H. Venkatachala Iyengar vs V. N. Thimmajamma and Ors., 1959 AIR 443 .
2. Guro vs Atma Singh, 1992 SCR (2) 30.
3. Jaswant Kaur vs Amrit Kaur, 1977 AIR 74 .
4. Indubala Bose vs Manindra Chandra Bose, 1982 AIR 133.
PC No.42267/16 Sumit Arora & Ors. Vs Stated & Ors. Page no.23/27
5. Apoline D'souza vs John D'souza, AIR 2007 SC 2219.
6. Harish Chandr Kwatra vs State & Ors., Test Case No.42/1994, decided on 18.05.2009 by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi.
7. Dhani Ram vs Shiv Singh, Civil Appeal no.8172/2009, decided by the Apex Court on 06.10.2023.
8. Tapan Kumar Mitra vs Debendra Nath Benerji, 2023 AIR (Cal.)
19.
9. Vidya Sagar Soni vs State, AIR 2006 Delhi 354.
42. These citations have been filed by respondent no.4 along with the written submissions without clarifying as to on what law points the citations have been filed. I have perused the citations. In those cases, the Wills have been rejected on the particular evidence and facts of those cases as the Will could not be properly proved by the attesting witnesses or there were some suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the Will. These citations are judgments on facts and every case has to be decided on the basis of evidence led in that particular case.
43. In the present case as discussed above, the testimony of the attesting witness/PW-2 has remained unfaultered despite lengthy cross-examination. The Will in question (Ex.PW1/3) is a duly executed document in terms of provisions as contained in Section 63 of Indian Evidence Act. No reasonable suspicious circumstances have come on record to doubt the sound disposing mind of the testatrix at the time of execution of the Will (Ex.PW1/3).
PC No.42267/16 Sumit Arora & Ors. Vs Stated & Ors. Page no.24/27
44. The Indian Succession Act provides the method of execution of the will. As per the Section 63 of Indian Evidence Act, the testator is to sign/acknowledge the will in presence of the attesting witnesses and the attesting witnesses shall sign the will in presence of the testator.
45. As per Section 68 of Indian Evidence Act, one of the attesting of the witnesses needs to be examined to prove the Will. In the present case, the testimony of the attesting witness has proved the due execution of the Will in question (Ex.PW1/3). The testimony of the attesting witness has not been rebutted.
46. Thus, on the basis of evidence produced in the case, the Will ha been duly proved on record as required in law. On the other hand, respondents have miserably failed to prove on record that Will (Ex.PW1/3) is a forged or fabricated document.
47. There is no reasonable challenge to the impugned Will by any other person. It is to be noted here that as per the Section 222 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 the probate of the will is given to the executor of the Will only. In the present Will, there has been no executor. However, in absence of executor, the Letter of Administration can be given to the beneficiary of the Will. The petitioners are the beneficiaries of the Will. As a result, the petitioners are entitled to get the letter of administration with Will PC No.42267/16 Sumit Arora & Ors. Vs Stated & Ors. Page no.25/27 Ex.PW1/3 annexed in their favour.
48. In view of the reasons given, these issues are decided in favour of the petitioners and against the respondent no.4.
RELIEF :
49. In view of my issue wise findings given above, the present petition is allowed and it is held that the petitioners are entitled to get the letter of administration with Will (Ex.PW1/3) annexed in their favour.
50. The petitioners shall file an inventory containing a full and true estimate of all the properties in possession within 06 months from the date of grant of Letter of Administration, or within such further time as this Court grants and shall exhibit in the Court an inventory containing a full and true estimate of all the property in possession, and all the credits, and also all the debts owing by any person to which the executor or administrator is entitled in that character; and shall in like manner, within one year from the grant or within such further time as the said Court may appoint, exhibit an account of the estate, showing the assets which have come to their hands and the manner in which they have been applied or disposed of.
PC No.42267/16 Sumit Arora & Ors. Vs Stated & Ors. Page no.26/27
51. Before parting with the present matter, it is clarified here that this judgment cannot be put to any use unless formal probate alongwith Letter of Administration is issued on filing of Court fees and administration bond cum surety bond.
52. File be consigned to Record Room as per rules.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY I.E. 20TH SEPTEMBER 2025 (SHIVALI SHARMA) Digitally District Judge-06 (Central) signed by SHIVALI Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi SHIVALI SHARMA SHARMA Date:
2025.09.20 13:04:16 +0530 PC No.42267/16 Sumit Arora & Ors. Vs Stated & Ors. Page no.27/27