Delhi District Court
Sudeep Khanna vs State Government Of Nct Of Delhi on 7 November, 2025
IN THE COURT OF SH. ARUL VARMA, DISTRICT
JUDGE-02, SOUTH DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS, NEW
DELHI
PC No. 1/24
Filing No. 8939/2023
CNR No. DLST01-012997-2023
In the matter of
Sh. Sudeep Khanna
S/o Sh. Sudhir Khanna
R/o B-78, Shivalik,
Malviya Nagar, Delhi - 110017.
Mobile No. +91 9711766702.
Email ID: [email protected] ...Petitioner
Versus
1. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi).
2. Sh. Sudhir Khanna
S/o Late Shri S.P. Khanna
R/o B-78, Shivalik, Malviya Nagar,
New Delhi-110017.
Mobile No. +91 9810055320.
Email ID: [email protected]
Arul Digitally signed
by Arul Varma
Date: 2025.11.07
Varma 17:30:21 +0530
PC No. 1/24
Sudeep Khanna Vs. State (GNCT) of Delhi & Ors. Page 1 of 26
3. Smt. Sunita Grover
W/o Sh. Rakesh Grover,
D/o Late Sh. S.P. Khanna,
R/o 3/33, Punjabi Bagh,
New Delhi-110026.
Mobile No. +91 9818103369.
Email ID: [email protected]
4. Smt. Suchi Khanna
W/o Sh. Anubhav Tyagi
D/o Sh. Sudhir Khanna
R/o Unit 13, 300-306,
Canterbury Road, Canterbury,
New South Wales - 2193, Australia
Mobile No. +62 07042703843.
Email ID: [email protected] ...Respondents
Date of Institution : 02.01.2024
Date of reserving the judgment : 07.11.2025 (F/N)
Date of pronouncement : 07.11.2025 (A/N)
Decision : Allowed
PETITION UNDER SECTION 276 READ WITH SECTION
278 OF THE INDIAN SUCCESSION ACT FOR GRANT OF
LETTERS OF ADMINISTRATION IN TERMS OF
REGISTERED WILL/ CODICIL DATED 05.07.2014 WHICH
WAS IN CONTINUATION OF THE WILL DATED
20.04.1999.
JUDGMENT
Digitally signed Arul by Arul Varma Date: Varma 2025.11.07 17:30:28 +0530 PC No. 1/24 Sudeep Khanna Vs. State (GNCT) of Delhi & Ors. Page 2 of 26
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner Under Section 276 read with section 278 of the Indian Succession Act for grant of Letters of Administration in terms of registered Will/ Codicil dated 05.07.2014 which was in continuation of the Will dated 20.04.1999. BRIEF FACTS OF THE PETITIONER
2. The case of the petitioner, as per the petition is as under:-
3. That the Petitioner is a citizen of India having deep roots in the society and is also enrolled as an Advocate with the Bar Council of Delhi. The instant petition is being filed for the grant of Letters of Administration to the estate left behind by Late Sh. Sat Pal Khanna (also referred as 'Testator), in favour of the petitioner. That the Testator has not named the petitioner or anybody as executor thereof, and therefore, the petitioner is filing the present petition as a beneficiary.
4. That the respondent No.1 is the State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), respondent No.2 is the father of the petitioner (only son of Late Sh. S.P. Khanna), respondent No.3 is the aunt/ bua of the petitioner (only daughter of Late Shri S.P. Khanna) and respondent No.4 is the sister of the petitioner (grand-daughter of Late Sh. S.P. Khanna).
5. That Late Sh. S.P. Khanna left for his heavenly abode on Digitally signed by Arul Arul Varma Date:
Varma 2025.11.07
17:30:36
PC No. 1/24 +0530
Sudeep Khanna Vs. State (GNCT) of Delhi & Ors. Page 3 of 26
25.08.2023 at his fixed place of residence at B-78, Shivalik, New Delhi-110017, it is also submitted that the wife of Late Sh. S.P. Khanna namely, Late Smt. Krishna Khanna predeceased him on 19.03.2014.
6. That Late Sh. S.P. Khanna died, leaving behind the following Legal Heirs, as mentioned herein:-
i. Sh. Sudhir Khanna Son
ii. Smt. Sunita Grover Daughter
iii. Sh. Sudeep Khanna Grand son
iv. Smt. Suchi Khanna Grand daughter
7. That on 20.04.1999, Late Sh. S. P. Khanna executed a Will with regard to his movable and immovable properties and the same was done of his free will and in good physical and mental state. That the said Will dated 20.04.1999 was registered on 26.09.1999 with the Registrar Noida, U.P. as document No. 195 in the additional Book No. III Vol. 188 on pages 53-60.
8. That Late Smt. Krishna Khanna (who had predeceased Late Sh. S.P. Khanna) left behind her last and final Will dated 20.04.1999. As per the contents of the said will, she bequeathed all her movable and immovable estate/assets to her husband (Late Sh. S.P. Khanna) who by virtue of the said will, inherited Arul Digitally signed by Arul Varma Date: 2025.11.07 Varma 17:30:41 +0530 PC No. 1/24 Sudeep Khanna Vs. State (GNCT) of Delhi & Ors. Page 4 of 26 the same.
9. That after the demise of Late Smt. Krishna Khanna (wife of Late Sh. S.P. Khanna) and, due to a subsequent change in circumstances, Late S.P. Khanna deemed it necessary to clarify and revise the distribution of his estate/ assets in furtherance and continuation of the Will dated 20.04.1999. Thereafter on 05.07.2014, Late S.P. Khanna made and executed his last and final Will/ Codicil and the same was registered before the Sub - Registrar-V-A, Hauz Khas, New Delhi vide Registration No.767 in Book No.3 Vol. No. 47 at pages 165-176 on 17.07.2014.
10. That Late Sh. S.P. Khanna, during his lifetime, was the owner and in possession of several estate/ Assets that have been mentioned in the Will/ Codicil dated 05.07.2014 as well as Will 20.04.1999 (mentioned in detail, herein below). However, Sh. S.P. Khanna, after the execution of his last and final Will/ Codicil dated 05.07.2014, decided to part certain properties/ assets by way of selling and/or gifting the concerned property/ asset to members of his family, in the manner detailed herein as follows:
a. Residential Unit (Unit No.8 in Block-III) at Senior Citizen Home Complex, 8, Old Mussorie Road, Dehradun, Uttrakhand, gifted by Late Shri S.P. Khanna to Respondent No.3 sometime in the year 2018. (Concerned documents are in possession of Respondent No.3).Digitally signed
Arul by Arul Varma Date:
Varma 2025.11.07 17:30:51 +0530 PC No. 1/24 Sudeep Khanna Vs. State (GNCT) of Delhi & Ors. Page 5 of 26 b. Built up basement and ground floor with terrace of property bearing No. D-29, Sector-36, Noida-201303, U.P. aгea measuring 308 sq. meters, gifted by Late Shri S.P. Khanna to Respondent No.2 via Transfer-cum-Gift Deed dated 15.12.2022.
c. Entire plot having built up area comprising of basement, ground and first floor of property bearing No. B-78, Shivalik, New Delhi 110017 area measuring 192 sq. yards. (hereinafter, 'said property'). d. Funds in saving Bank Account(s) held jointly with Mr. the year 2021). Sudeep Khanna (Closed by Late Shri S.P. Khanna in the year 2021.
e. Savings Bank Account at Axis Bank, Malviya Nagar, held jointly with Smt. Suchi Khanna and FDS Shri S.P. Khanna in the year 2021). wherein Suchi Khanna is nominee (Closed by Late Sh. S.P. Khanna in the year 2021).
f. FD's held in PPF, Bank Deposits, where Respondent No.3 is a nominee (concerned documents are in possession of Respondent No.3).
11. That Late Sh. S.P. Khanna, bequeathed and left the following property to the name of the Petitioner (his grandson) as per the Will/ Codicil dated 05.07.2014 which was in continuation of the Will dated 20.04.1999, as follows:-
a. Entire plot having built up area comprising of basement, ground and first floor of property bearing No. B-78, Shivalik, New Delhi 110017 area measuring 192 sq. yards.
12. That the property detailed in the 'Schedule B' attached Arul Digitally signed by Arul Varma Date: 2025.11.07 PC No. 1/24 Varma 17:30:55 +0530 Sudeep Khanna Vs. State (GNCT) of Delhi & Ors. Page 6 of 26 herewith, in respect of which Late Sh. S.P. Khanna had made the Wills/Codicil dated 20.04.1999 and 05.07.2014, is situated in the territory of Delhi. The total value of the property left behind by Late Sh. S.P. Khanna, mentioned in the said Wills, in respect of which the grant of probate is sought, as per the Circle Rate is Rs 3,51,99,360/-.
13. That the petitioner is the only beneficiary of the said Will dated 20.04.1999 and Will/ Codicil dated 05.07.2014 as the other immovable as well as movable properties were already dealt with by the Testator during his lifetime.
14. That in the said Will, Late Sh. S.P. Khanna did not name any person as Executor of either the Will dated 20.04.1999 or Will/ Codicil dated 05.07.2014 and hence, the petitioner is filing the present petition in respect of the estate inherited by him.
15. 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 documents of his own free will.
16. That there are no suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the Will. Further, the Petitioner submits that there is no dispute or differences amongst the Legal Heirs/ beneficiaries of deceased Sh. S.P. Khanna regarding the Will dated 20.04.1999 and Will/ Codicil dated 05.07.2014, either Digitally signed Arul by Arul Varma Date: PC No. 1/24 Varma 2025.11.07 17:31:02 +0530 Sudeep Khanna Vs. State (GNCT) of Delhi & Ors. Page 7 of 26 with respect to the said documents or, the manner in which the estate was bequeathed by Late Sh. S.P. Khanna.
17. That the original Will dated 20.04.1999 as well as the Will/Codicil dated 05.07.2014 left behind by Late Shri S.P. Khanna is with the petitioner and is accordingly being placed on-record before this Court. It is pertinent to mentioned that the as per the Will/ Codicil dated 05.07.2014, the Respondent No.2 shall have a life interest in the suit property wherein, the Petitioner cannot sell/transfer/ alienate/create Third Party rights without prior written approval from respondent No.2 (father of the petitioner).
18. It is submitted that the value of said property left behind by Late Sh. S.P. Khanna in favor of the Petitioner as per the Will dated 20.04.1999 and the Will/ Codicil dated 05.07.2014, is presently prevailing at given market value as follows:-
a. Entire plot having built up area comprising of basement, ground and first floor of property bearing No. B-78, Shivalik, New Delhi 110017 area measuring 192 sq. yards. is Rs 3,51,99,360/- (Rupees Three Crores Fifty- One Lakhs Ninety-Nine Thousand Three Hundred Sixty only).
19. That the petitioner undertakes to administer the property and credits of the deceased testator Late Sh. S.P. Khanna and to make a full and true inventory containing a full and true Digitally signed Arul by Arul Varma Date: Varma 2025.11.07 17:31:07 +0530 PC No. 1/24 Sudeep Khanna Vs. State (GNCT) of Delhi & Ors. Page 8 of 26 estimate of all the properties and credits and also all the debts owing to any person (if any) and exhibit the same in this Court within six months from the date of grant of probate or within such further time as this Court, may, from time to time, appoint, and also to render to this Court a true account of the said properties and credits within one year from the same date, or within such further time as the Court may, from time to time, appoint.
20. That there is no legal impediment for grant of Letters of Administration of the Will/ Codicil dated 05.07.2014 in continuation of the Will dated 20.04.1999 which was made to clarify the distribution of assets of Late Sh. S.P. Khanna.
21. That Late Sh. S.P. Khanna, at the time of his demise, had his fixed place of abode at B-78 Shivalik, New Delhi 110017 as mentioned above, therefore, this Court has the jurisdiction to try and adjudicate the present petition.
22. That the present Petition for grant of probate and letters of administration is within the laws of limitation as the same is only seeking permission of the court to perform the legal duty and discharge the instructions of the testator as mentioned in the Will/ Codicil dated 05.07.2014 which was in continuation of the Will dated 20.04.1999. It is pertinent to mention that the grant of letters of administration as sought by way of the present Digitally signed Arul by Arul Varma Date:
Varma 17:31:14 2025.11.07 +0530 PC No. 1/24 Sudeep Khanna Vs. State (GNCT) of Delhi & Ors. Page 9 of 26 petition is a continuous right which can be exercised at any time after the death of the testator 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.
23. That the requisite court fee has been affixed on the Petition, however, the Petitioner undertakes to pay the deficient Court Fees, if any, as may be found to be payable, from the estate of Sh. S.P. Khanna.
24. That the petitioner herein has not filed any other Petition to any other Court for grant of Letters of Administration /Probate to the estate of the deceased person.'
25. That the present petition is bona-fide and in the interest of justice. Hence, the present petition has been filed with the following prayer:-
(a) Grant Letters of Administration the Will/ Codicil dated 05.07.2014 which was in continuation of the Will dated 20.04.1999, only in respect of the estate/ assets left behind by Late Shri S.P. Khanna and detailed in the Schedule of the property, filed along with this Petition, with further prayer that the Letters of Administration may kindly be granted to the Petitioner having effect in the State of Delhi, where the property of the deceased-Testator is situated; and/or
(b) Pass such other and further order / orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and appropriate in the Digitally signed Arul by Arul Varma Date:
Varma 2025.11.07 17:31:18 +0530 PC No. 1/24 Sudeep Khanna Vs. State (GNCT) of Delhi & Ors. Page 10 of 26 facts and circumstances of the case.
26. Vide order dated 01.03.2024, the citation was directed to be published in the newspaper. Notice / Citation of the petition was directed to be issued to the private respondents and to the Collector / Revenue Authorities. Citation was published in the newspapers "The Statesman" dated 26.04.2024 and "Veer Arjun" dated 16.04.2024. No one had appeared from General Public despite citation being published in the Newspapers and notices affixed at the conspicuous part of the Court Complex and at the notice board of the DM concerned. Valuation report by SDM office was filed on 28.08.2024.
FRAMING OF ISSUES
27. On the basis of the record, following issues were framed vide order dated 28.08.2024:-
i) Whether the Will dated 20.04.1999 and Codicil thereto dated 05.07.2024 were validly executed by Late Sh. S.P. Khanna? OPP
ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to letters of administration with Will dated 20.04.1999 and Codicil thereto dated 05.07.2024 annexed as prayed for? OPP
iii) Relief.
28. No objection statement of respondents no. 2 & 3 was recorded on 10.07.2024. No objection affidavit of respondent Digitally signed Arul by Arul Varma Date:
PC No. 1/24Varma 2025.11.07 17:31:24 +0530 Sudeep Khanna Vs. State (GNCT) of Delhi & Ors. Page 11 of 26 no. 4 was filed on 28.08.2024. On the same day, respondent no.4 appeared through VC and submitted that she has no objection if the present petition is decided in favour of the petitioner.
EVIDENCE LED BY THE PETITIONER
29. The petitioner was asked to lead evidence. The petitioner examined total 4 (four) witnesses and examined himself as PW-1. He tendered his affidavit in evidence Ex.PW-1/A. He reiterated the facts stated in the petition. He has relied upon the following documents:
(a) Photocopy of Aadhar card of deponent, Ex. P-1 is de-exhibited and same is Mark P-1/1;
(b) Copy of death certificate of Late Sh. S.P. Khanna dated 07.09.2023, Ex. P-2;
(c) Copy of death certificate of Late Smt. Krishna Khanna dated 19.03.2014, Ex. P-3;
(d) Original Will dated 20.04.1999 of Late Sh. S.P. Khanna, Ex. P-4;
(e) Original Will/ Codicil dated 05.07.2014 of Late Sh.
S.P. Khanna, Ex. P-5;
(f) Photocopy of no objection certificate dated 08.12.2022 issued by Kendriya Sarkari Seva Sahkari Bhumi Tatha Girh Nirman Samiti Ltd. (UP), copies of transfer-cum-Gift Deed dated 15.12.2022, Mutation Letter dated 21.12.2022, share certificates in favour of respondent no. 2 dated 05.12.2022 and 24.12.2022 and site plan of property no. D-29, Sector-36, Noida-201303, UP, Ex. P-6 (colly) is de-exhibited and same is Mark Digitally signed Arul by Arul Varma Date: PC No. 1/24 Varma 2025.11.07 17:31:29 +0530 Sudeep Khanna Vs. State (GNCT) of Delhi & Ors. Page 12 of 26 P-1/2 (page n o. 48 to 64);
(g) Photocopy of Conveyance Deed along with siteplan of property bearing no. B-78 Shivalik, New Delhi-110017, Ex. P-7 (colly) (page no. 65 to
70);
(h) Copy of e-circle rate as calculated by the Delhi Online Registration Information System, Ex. P-8.
30. The petitioner also examined attesting witnesses PW-2 Sh. Rajinder Saxena and PW-3 Sh. Deepak Sachdeva. They have tendered their evidence by way of affidavits Ex. PW-2/A and Ex. PW-3/A respectively. PW-2 & PW-3 have relied upon Will/ Codicil dated 05.07.2014 already Ex. P-5 which was in continuation of the Will dated 20.04.1999 already Ex. P-4. They have deposed that they have seen the original Will in the Court in Judicial File. They deposed that they are the attesting witness in the said Will. They deposed that the Will/ Codicil dated 05.07.2014 was signed by Sh. S.P. Khanna (since deceased) in their presence. They deposed that the Will bears signatures of Late Sh. S.P. Khanna. They deposed that another attesting witness, had also signed on the Will and both of them were present at that time. They also signed the Will in the presence of the testator Sh. S.P. Khanna. At the time of signing of the Will Sh. S.P. Khanna was in sound disposing mind and good health.
31. The petitioner also examined summoned witness i.e. Sh.
Digitally signedArul by Arul Varma Date: Varma 2025.11.07 17:31:33 +0530 PC No. 1/24 Sudeep Khanna Vs. State (GNCT) of Delhi & Ors. Page 13 of 26
Avneesh Chanana, MTS, Sub-Registrar V A, Hauz Khas, New Delhi as PW-4.
32. The petitioner did not examine any other witness. PE was closed vide order dated 09.07.2025. Final arguments were heard.
ARGUMENTS OF COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER
33. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner would argue that the petitioner has proved the Will of the testator. The petitioner has also examined the attesting witnesses Sh. Deepak Sachdeva and Sh. Rajinder Saxena, who proved the signatures of the testator. The petitioner has submits that he has proved the Will as per law. Hence, it was prayed that the letters of administration qua the Will of the testator be granted in favour of the petitioner. ISSUE WISE ANALYSIS AND FINDINGS THERETO
34. I have heard the submissions and perused the record. My issue-wise findings are as under.
35. Issue No. 1:-
Whether the Will dated 20.04.1999 and Codicil thereto dated 05.07.2024 were validly executed by Late Sh. S.P. Khanna? OPP
36. Before discussing the matter on merits, it would be relevant to discuss the law relating to the execution and proof of Digitally signed Arul by Arul Varma Date:
2025.11.07 Varma 17:31:37 +0530 PC No. 1/24 Sudeep Khanna Vs. State (GNCT) of Delhi & Ors. Page 14 of 26 Wills under the Indian Succession Act and the Evidence Act. The expression "Will" is defined by Section 2(h) of Indian Succession Act, 1925 to mean the legal declaration of "the intention" of a testator with respect to his property "which he desires to be carried into effect after his death". Section 59 of Indian Succession Act, 1925 governs the capability of a person to make a Will. It reads as under:
"59. Person capable of making Wills --- Every person of sound mind not being a minor may dispose of his property by Will.
"Explanation1.-A married woman may dispose by Will of any property which she could alienate by her own act during her life.
"Explanation 2.--- Persons who are deaf or dumb or blind are not thereby incapacitated for making a Will if they are able to know what they do by it.
"Explanation 3.--- A person who is ordinarily insane may make a Will during interval in which he is of sound mind. "Explanation 4.--- No person can make a Will while he, is in such a state of mind, whether arising from intoxication or from illness or from any other cause, that he does not know what he is doing."
37. Section 59 thus declares that every person (not being a minor) "of sound mind" may dispose of his property by Will. The second explanation appended to the said provision clarifies that persons who are "deaf or dumb or blind" are not incapacitated by such condition for making a Will "if they are able to know what they do by it". The third explanation makes Digitally signed Arul by Arul Varma Date:
2025.11.07 Varma 17:31:42 +0530 PC No. 1/24 Sudeep Khanna Vs. State (GNCT) of Delhi & Ors. Page 15 of 26 the basic principle clear by adding that even a person who is "ordinarily insane" may make a Will during the interval in which "he is of sound mind". The fourth explanation renders it even more lucent by putting it negatively in words to the effect that it the person "does not know what he is doing" for any reason (such as intoxication, illness or any other such cause) he is incompetent to make a Will. The focal pre-requisite, thus, is that at the time of expressing his desire vis-a-vis the disposition of the estate after his demise he must know and understand its purport or import.
38. The execution of an unprivileged Will, as the case at hand relates to, is governed by Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, which reads 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.
"(b) The signature or mark of the testator, or the signature of the person signing for him, shall be so placed that it shall appear that it was intended thereby to give effect to the writing as a Will.
"(c) The Will shall be attested by two or more witnesses, each of whom has seen the testator sign or affix his mark to the Will or has seen some other person sign the Will, in the presence and by the direction of the testator, or has received Arul Digitally signed by Arul Varma Date: 2025.11.07 Varma 17:31:48 +0530 PC No. 1/24 Sudeep Khanna Vs. State (GNCT) of Delhi & Ors. Page 16 of 26 from the testator a personal acknowledgment of his signature or mark, or the signature of such other person; and each of the witnesses shall sign the Will in the presence of the testator, but it shall not be necessary that more than one witness be present at the same time, and no particular form of attestation shall be necessary."
39. As per the mandate of clause (c), a Will is required to be attested by two or more witnesses each of whom should have seen the testator sign or put his mark on the Will or should have seen some other person sign the Will in his presence and by the direction of the testator or should have received from the testator a personal acknowledgment of his signature or mark, or of the signature of such other person. The Will must be signed by the witness in the presence of the testator, but it is not necessary that more than one witness should be present at the same time. No particular form of attestation is necessary. Thus, there is no prescription in the statute that the testator must necessarily sign the Will in the presence of the attesting witnesses only or that the attesting witnesses must put their signatures on the Will simultaneously, that is, at the same time, in the presence of each other and the testator. In H. Venkatachala Iyengar v. B.N. Thimmajamma and Others:AIR 1959 SC 443 Hon'ble Supreme Court of India has held that a Will is produced before the court after the testator who has departed from the world, cannot say that the Will is his own or Arul Digitally signed by Arul Varma Date: 2025.11.07 Varma 17:31:52 +0530 PC No. 1/24 Sudeep Khanna Vs. State (GNCT) of Delhi & Ors. Page 17 of 26 it is not the same. This factum introduces an element of solemnity to the decision on the question where the Will propounded is proved as the last Will or testament of the departed testator. Therefore, the propounder to succeed and prove the Will is required to prove by satisfactory evidence that
(i) the Will was signed by the testator; (ii) the testator at the time was in a sound and disposing state of mind; (iii) the testator understood the nature and effect of the dispositions; and
(iv) that the testator had put his signature on the document of his own free will. It further held that ordinarily, when the evidence adduced in support of the Will is disinterested, satisfactory and sufficient to prove the sound and disposing state of mind of the testator and his signature as required by law, courts would be justified in making a finding in favour of the propounder. Such evidence would discharge the onus on the propounder to prove the essential facts. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that it is necessary to remove suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the Will.
40. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Meena Pradhan vs. Kamla Pradhan in Civil appeal no. 3351/2014 on 21.09.2023 has held as under:
9. A Will is an instrument of testamentary disposition of property.
It is a legally acknowledged mode of bequeathing a testator's property during his lifetime to be acted upon on his/her death and Digitally signed by Arul Arul Varma Date:
Varma 2025.11.07 17:31:55 +0530 PC No. 1/24 Sudeep Khanna Vs. State (GNCT) of Delhi & Ors. Page 18 of 26 carries with it an element of sanctity. It speaks from the death of the testator. Since the testator/testatrix, at the time of testing the document for its validity, would not be available for deposing as to the circumstances in which the Will came to be executed, stringent requisites for the proof thereof have been statutorily enjoined to rule out the possibility of any manipulation.
10. Relying on H. Venkatachala Iyengar v. B.N. Thimmajamma, 1959 Supp (1) SCR 426 (3 Judge Bench), Bhagwan Kaur v. Kartar Kaur, (1994) 5 SCC 135 (3 Judge Bench), Janki Narayan Bhoir v.
Narayan Namdeo Kadam, (2003) 2 SCC 91(2Judge Bench) Yumnam Ongbi Tampha Ibema Devi v. Yumnam Joykumar Singh, (2009) 4 SCC 780 (3 Judge Bench) and Shivakumar v. Sharanabasappa, (2021) 11 SCC 277 (3 Judge Bench), we can deduce/infer the following principles required for proving the validity and execution of the Will:
i. The court has to consider two aspects: firstly, that the Will is executed by the testator, and secondly, that it was the last Will executed by him;
ii. It is not required to be proved with mathematical accuracy, but the test of satisfaction of the prudent mind has to be applied.
iii. A Will is required to fulfil all the formalities required under Section 63 of the Succession Act, that is to say:
(a) 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 the said signature or affixation shall show that it was intended to give effect to the writing as a Will;
(b) It is mandatory to get it attested by two or more witnesses, though no particular form of attestation is necessary;
(c) Each of the attesting witnesses must have 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 acknowledgment of such signatures;
(d) Each of the attesting witnesses shall sign the Will in the Digitally signed Arul by Arul Varma Date:
2025.11.07 Varma 17:31:59 +0530 PC No. 1/24 Sudeep Khanna Vs. State (GNCT) of Delhi & Ors. Page 19 of 26 presence of the testator, however, the presence of all witnesses at the same time is not required; iv. For the purpose of proving the execution of the Will, at least one of the attesting witnesses, who is alive, subject to the process of court, and capable of giving evidence, shall be examined;
v. The attesting witness should speak not only about the testator's signatures but also that each of the witnesses had signed the will in the presence of the testator; vi. If one attesting witness can prove the execution of the Will, the examination of other attesting witnesses can be dispensed with;
vii. Where one attesting witness examined to prove the Will fails to prove its due execution, then the other available attesting witness has to be called to supplement his evidence; viii. Whenever there exists any suspicion as to the execution of the Will, it is the responsibility of the propounder to remove all legitimate suspicions before it can be accepted as the testator's last Will. In such cases, the initial onus on the propounder becomes heavier. ix. The test of judicial conscience has been evolved for dealing with those cases where the execution of the Will is surrounded by suspicious circumstances. It requires to consider factors such as awareness of the testator as to the content as well as the consequences, nature and effect of the dispositions in the Will; sound, certain and disposing state of mind and memory of the testator at the time of execution; testator executed the Will while acting on his own free Will; x. One who alleges fraud, fabrication, undue influence etcetera has to prove the same. However, even in the absence of such allegations, if there are circumstances giving rise to doubt, then it becomes the duty of the propounder to dispel such suspicious circumstances by giving a cogent and convincing explanation.
xi. Suspicious circumstances must be 'real, germane and valid' and not merely 'the fantasy of the doubting mind' 1. Whether a particular feature would qualify as 'suspicious' would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. Any circumstance raising suspicion legitimate in nature Digitally signed Arul by Arul Varma Date:PC No. 1/24
Varma 2025.11.07 17:32:04 +0530 Sudeep Khanna Vs. State (GNCT) of Delhi & Ors. Page 20 of 26 would qualify as a suspicious circumstance for example, 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, etc.
11. In short, apart from statutory compliance, broadly it has to be proved that (a) the testator signed the Will out of his own free Will, (b) at the time of execution he had a sound state of mind, (c) he was aware of the nature and effect thereof and (d) the Will was not executed under any suspicious circumstances.
41. It is also settled position of law that the jurisdiction of a probate Court is limited only to consider the genuineness of a Will. A question of title arising under the act cannot be gone into the proceedings and construction of a Will relating to the right, title and interest of any other person is beyond the domain of the Probate Court. Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in judgment titled Kanwarjit Singh Dhillon Vs. Hardayal Singh Dhillon & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 4890/2007 decided on 12.10.2007, while relying upon the judgments titled as CHeeranjilal Shrilal Goenka Vs. Jasjit Singh & Ors. (1993) 2 SCC 507 has held that the Court of probate is only concerned with the question as to whether the document put forward as the last Will and testament of a deceased person was duly executed and attested in accordance with law and whether at the time of such execution, the testator had sound disposing mind. The question whether a particular bequest is good or bad is not Arul Digitally signed by Arul Varma Date: 2025.11.07 PC No. 1/24 Varma 17:32:08 +0530 Sudeep Khanna Vs. State (GNCT) of Delhi & Ors. Page 21 of 26 within the purview of the Probate Court. Therefore, the only issue in probate proceedings relates to the genuineness and due execution of the Will.
42. It is the duty of the propounder of the Will to prove the Will in question in accordance with law. In the present case, the petitioner has examined himself as PW-1. He has also examined PW-2 and PW-3 as attesting witnesses of the Will. PW-2 and PW-3 proved their signatures and the signatures of the testator Will/ Codicil dated 05.07.2014 Ex. P-5. Their testimony also shows that the testator was in good physical health and sound disposing state of mind at the time of execution of the Will/ Codicil dated 05.07.2014 already Ex. P-5 which was in continuation of the Will dated 20.04.1999 already Ex. P-4. As held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Shashi Kumar Banerjee & Ors vs Subodh Kumar Banerjee Since deceased through LRs.:AIR 1964 SC 529, the mode of proving a Will does not differ from that of proving any other document except as to the special requirement of attestation prescribed in a case of a Will under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act. The role of the Court in the present petition is to examine whether the instrument propounded as the last Will of the testator is the last Will or not of the testator and whether the same has been executed with free sound disposing mind. Digitally signed Arul by Arul Varma Date:
Varma 2025.11.07 17:32:13 +0530 PC No. 1/24 Sudeep Khanna Vs. State (GNCT) of Delhi & Ors. Page 22 of 26
43. The petitioner is one of the beneficiary of the Will. The petitioner and respondent no. 2 to 4 are the class-I & class II legal heirs of testator and no objection statements were recorded of respondents no. 2 & 3 and no objection affidavit was filed on behalf of respondent no. 4 and she appeared through VC and states that she has no objection if the present petition is allowed in favour of petitioner. The Court has not received any objections from any person despite publication of the citation as per law. The testimonies of the witnesses examined by the petitioner have remained unrebutted. There is no reason to doubt the testimonies of PW-1 to PW-4. Nothing has come on record which can show that the Will was executed under suspicious circumstances or that the Will was not signed in the presence of the attesting witnesses. Further, there is nothing on record to show that the testator was not having free sound disposing mind at the time of execution of the Will. There is no contention to the present petition as per Section 286 of the Indian Succession Act. The petitioner has also proved the death certificate of the testator on record which is Ex.P-2. The Will/ Codicil dated 05.07.2014 Ex. P-5 which was in continuation of the Will dated 20.04.1999 Ex. P-4 thus stands proved in accordance with law. In view of the same, I held that the petitioner has proved to the satisfaction of the Court that the Digitally signed Arul by Arul Varma Date:
Varma 2025.11.07 17:32:17 +0530 PC No. 1/24 Sudeep Khanna Vs. State (GNCT) of Delhi & Ors. Page 23 of 26 Will/ Codicil dated 05.07.2014 Ex. P-5 is the last and final Will of testator of Sh. S.P. Khanna(since deceased). It also stands proved that the Will/ Codicil dated 05.07.2014 Ex. P-5 which was in continuation of the Will dated 20.04.1999 Ex. P-4 has been duly executed as per law by the testator voluntarily and in sound mind. The Court's conscience is also satisfied with testimonies of PW-1 to PW-4. There are no suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the Will/ Codicil dated 05.07.2014 Ex. P-5 which was in continuation of the Will dated 20.04.1999 Ex. P-4 which may lead to any contrary inference. The issue no.1 is accordingly decided in favour of the petitioner.
44. Issue No. 2: -
Whether the petitioner is entitled to letters of administration with Will dated 20.04.1999 and Codicil thereto dated 05.07.2024 annexed as prayed for? OPP
45. Having regard to the testimonies of PW-1 to PW-4 and the fact that the petitioner has been able to prove the signatures, there appears to be no impediment in grant of letters of administration in respect of the Will/ Codicil dated 05.07.2014 Ex. P-5 which was in continuation of the Will dated 20.04.1999 Ex. P-4. The Court's conscience is also satisfied with testimonies of PW-1 to PW-4. There are no suspicious Digitally signed Arul by Arul Varma Date: PC No. 1/24 Varma 2025.11.07 17:32:21 +0530 Sudeep Khanna Vs. State (GNCT) of Delhi & Ors. Page 24 of 26 circumstances surrounding the execution of the Will/ Codicil dated 05.07.2014 Ex. P-5 which was in continuation of the Will dated 20.04.1999 Ex. P-4, which may lead to any contrary inference. As per the averment of the petitioner, at the time of death of the testator, the testator had left behind immovable property, as mentioned in the Will and under the terms of the Will the same is to be devolved upon petitioner. Hence, the issue No.2 is decided in favour of the petitioner.
46. Issue No. 3 - Relief: In view of the discussion hereinabove, the petition is allowed. The petitioner is held entitled to grant of letter of administration in line with the Will/ Codicil dated 05.07.2014 Ex. P-5 which was in continuation of the Will dated 20.04.1999 Ex. P-4, executed by S.P. Khanna. The Letters of Administration be issued to the petitioner to administer the estate left behind by S.P. Khanna as per Schedule-B annexed with the petition, on the prescribed form VII upon furnishing of the proper Court Fee, administration bond and surety bond by the petitioner. The formalities of issuance of letters of administration shall be completed by the petitioner/beneficiary within six months from the date of the judgment as per Section 290 & 291 of Indian Succession Act.
47. The petitioner, as per Section 317 of the Indian Succession Act, shall furnish full and true inventory of the Digitally signed Arul by Arul Varma Date:
Varma 17:32:26 2025.11.07 +0530 PC No. 1/24 Sudeep Khanna Vs. State (GNCT) of Delhi & Ors. Page 25 of 26 properties and credits mentioned in the Will and exhibit the same in the Court within 6 months from the date of grant of letters of administration in prescribed Form No. 178. The petitioner shall also file true account of the properties and credits within 1 year in prescribed Form No. 179.
48. It is made clear that the granting of letters of administration would not tantamount to any declaration of the title of the deceased to the estate in question. It is further clarified that till the petitioner does not furnish the requisite Court Fee, Administration Bond and Surety Bond and does not obtain the letters of ministration, duly signed and sealed by the Court as required under Section 290 of the Indian Succession Act, this judgment shall not be read as proof of the same.
49. Both the original Wills shall remain part of judicial file, in terms of Section 294 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.
Digitally signedPronounced in the open Court Arul by Arul Varma Date: on this 7th day of November 2025. Varma 2025.11.07 17:32:31 +0530 (ARUL VARMA) DISTRICT JUDGE-02, SOUTH, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI.
PC No. 1/24 Sudeep Khanna Vs. State (GNCT) of Delhi & Ors. Page 26 of 26