Delhi District Court
Jagdeep Ohri Ors vs Sunil Ohri Ors on 17 April, 2026
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. MANOJ KUMAR SHARMA,
DISTRICT JUDGE- 07:
WEST DISTRICT:TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
SUIT NO. :- 611779/2016
CNR No. DLWT010019042016
IN THE MATTER OF :-
1.JAGDEEP OHRI S/o Late B.K. Ohri R/o R-4/2, Second Floor, Ramesh Park, Near Gadhwal Dairy, Laxmi Nagar, New Delhi-110092.
2. SUNIT SAINI W/o Dinesh Saini D/o Late B.K. Ohri R/o H.No. FG-1/20-C, Second Floor, Vikaspuri, New Delhi-110018.
3. ANITA ARORA W/o Satpal Arora D/o Late B.K. Ohri R/o H.No.C-416, Second Floor, Gali No.10, Majlish Park, Adarsh Nagar, Delhi-110033.
4. GEETA PATNI W/o Puneeta Patni D/o Late B.K. Ohri R/o H.No.-53/4, Arya Nagar, Daya Nand Vihar, New Delhi-110092. ....Plaintiffs Jagdeep Ohri Ors Vs. Sunil Ohri Ors.
Page 1 of 43 2VERSUS
1. SUNIL OHRI S/o Late Krishan Lal Ohri.
2. RAJNI OHRI W/o Sunil Ohri.
3. VINOD OHRI S/o Late Krishan Lal Ohri.
All 1 to 3 R/o.
C-109, Anand Vihar, New Delhi-110092.
4. KULBHUSHAN OHRI (SINCE DECEASED) Through his LRs.
(a). SANDHYA OHRI
D/o Late Kulbhushan Ohri.
(b). SEEMA
D/o Late Kulbhushan Ohri.
Both R/o :
Sector-6/60, M.P. Colony,
Bikaner, Rajasthan.
5. PROMILA OHRI @ ASHA OHRI (SINCE DECEASED) Through her LRs.
(a) VIVEK OHRI S/o Late Bharat Bhushan Ohri & Promila Ohri @ Asha Ohri R/o Sunder Apartment, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi-110063.
(b) VAANI D/o Late Bharat Bhushan Ohri & Promila Ohri @ Asha Ohri R/o Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi.
Jagdeep Ohri Ors Vs. Sunil Ohri Ors.
Page 2 of 43 36. SUBHASH CHANDER OHRI S/o Late Milkhi Ram Ohri R/o H.No. A-55, Vikaspuri, New Delhi-110018.
7. DY. LAND & DEVELOPMENT OFFICER Ministry of Home Affairs, New Delhi. ....Defendants SUIT FOR PARTITION, POSSESSION, DECLARATION ALONG WITH CONSEQUENTIAL RELIEF Date of institution of the Suit : 28.03.2016 Date of Judgment was reserved : 18.03.2026 Date of Judgment : 17.04.2026 ::- J U D G M E N T -::
1. The present suit has been filed by the plaintiffs against the defendants seeking the following reliefs:
A. Decree for partition of the property i.e. K-124, First Floor, West Patel Nagar, Delhi-110008, admeasuring 65 sq.yds (hereinafter referred to as suit property) in equal shares between the plaintiffs and the defendant no.1 to 6; B. Or in alternate, the aforesaid property be sold in the open market and the share of the plaintiffs be given to them; C. Decree of declaration thereby declaring the plaintiffs as the owner of 1/5th share in the suit property; D. Declaration of declaration thereby declaring the WILL dated 24.03.2015 purportedly executed by Late Ms. Shobha Rani @ Shubh pertaining to the suit property as null and void and not binding upon them;
Jagdeep Ohri Ors Vs. Sunil Ohri Ors.Page 3 of 43 4
E. Decree of permanent injunction thereby restraining the defendants from creating any kind of third party interest in the suit property; and F. Decree of mandatory injunction thereby directing defendant no.7 not to carry out mutation of the suit property either in favour of defendant no.1 to 6 or any third person, till the final disposal of the present suit.
1.2. At the very outset, it is to be noted that the WILL of Late Ms. Shobha Rani @ Shubh dated 24.03.2015 has been misidentified in some portion of the testimonies of the witnesses as Ex.PW-1/D1. However, the correct identification mark / nomenclature of the said instrument is Ex.PW-1/D5, and the record should be read accordingly and any reference to the former should be read as the latter.
2. CASE OF THE PLAINTIFFS AS PER PLAINT The necessary facts for the adjudication of the present suit, as stated in the plaint, are as under :
2.1. Late Shri Milkhi Ram Ohri, grandfather of plaintiffs, was survived by the following legal heirs:-
A. Late Smt. Vidya Wati Ohri (wife); B. Late Shri Kishan Lal Ohri (son); C. Late Shri Yog Raj Ohri (son); D. Late Shri Baldev Kumar Ohri (son); E. Late Shri Kulbhushan Ohri (son); F. Late Shri Bharat Bhushan Ohri (son); and G. Shri Subhash Chander Ohri (son). Jagdeep Ohri Ors Vs. Sunil Ohri Ors. Page 4 of 43 5
2.2. Late Shri Yog Raj Ohri @ Yogi, one of the uncles of the plaintiffs, had purchased the suit property during his lifetime in the name of his wife Late Smt. Sushila Ohri.
2.3. After the demise of Late Sh. Yog Raj Ohri and Late Smt. Sushila Ohri, the suit property was mutated in the name of their only child / daughter Ms. Shobha Ohri @ Shubh in the records of L&DO.
2.4. Late Ms. Shobha Ohri @ Shubh remained a bachelorette all her life. However, once her marriage was fixed, but it was called off due to some reasons, which affected her mental balance and thereafter, she remained under treatment for her mental illness till her demise on 23.12.2015.
2.5. At the time of her death on 23.12.2015, Ms. Shobha Ohri @ Shubh was the recorded owner of the suit property.
2.6. Ms. Shobha Ohri @ Shubh died intestate and being her cousins, the plaintiffs are entitled for their share in the suit property alongwith other legal heirs under the provisions of The Hindu Succession Act.
2.7. After the last rites of Late Ms. Shubh, when the plaintiffs reached the suit property, they were shocked to find the name of defendant no.2, Smt. Rajni Ohri written on the main door and upon being asked, she told them that now the suit property exclusively belonged to her.
Jagdeep Ohri Ors Vs. Sunil Ohri Ors.
Page 5 of 43 62.8. Defendants no.1 to 3 are attempting to grab the suit property, thereby depriving the plaintiffs of their lawful and legal shares therein.
2.9. Plaintiffs sent legal notices dated 17.01.2016 and 22.01.2016 to the defendants demanding partition of the suit property in terms of their shares, but no reply was received.
2.10. The defendant no.1 to 3 are relying upon an alleged "Family Deed of Will" dated 24.03.2015, purportedly executed by Late Ms. Shobha Ohri @ Shubh in favour of defendant no.2, which is a forged and fabricated document as at the relevant time Late Ms. Shobha Ohri was mentally unfit to execute a WILL.
3. Summons for settlement of the issues of the present suit were issued to the defendants on 05.04.2016 and the same received back duly executed. Defendants put their appearance through their respective counsels on 25.04.2015 and filed written statements as under:-
A. Written statement was filed by defendant no. 1 to 3, 5 and 6 on 01.07.2016;
B. Written statement was filed by defendant no.7 on 15.09.2016; and C. Written statement was filed by defendant no. 4A and 4B on 02.06.2018.
4. CASE OF DEFENDANTS NO. 1 TO 3.
4.1. The suit property was originally purchased by Late Smt. Sushila Ohri from one Shri Jai Kishan Lal through a WILL dated Jagdeep Ohri Ors Vs. Sunil Ohri Ors.
Page 6 of 43 707.06.1972, out of her own funds and it was her self-acquired property.
4.2. After the demise of Late Smt. Sushila Ohri, the suit property was mutated in the name of her daughter Late Ms. Shobha Ohri @ Shubh by defendant no.7 / L&DO.
4.3. The deceased Ms. Shobha Ohri @ Shubh remained physically and mentally sound throughout her life and was managing the suit property independently. After her mother's death, she also sold the terrace / roof rights of the suit property during her lifetime.
4.4. The deceased shared close familiar relations with defendant no.1 to 3, especially with their mother and she was also maintained and cared by their family, lived with them intermittently, celebrated festivals with them and treated defendant no.1 and 3 as her real siblings, tying rakhi to them regularly.
4.5. After the demise of the mother of defendant no.1 and 3, they continued to look after Late Ms. Shubh financially and both of them were even named as nominees in her bank and post-office accounts.
4.6. Late Ms. Shubh never suffered from any mental illness nor ever admitted to a mental hospital and always remained mentally sound during her lifetime and died a natural death on 23.12.2015.
Jagdeep Ohri Ors Vs. Sunil Ohri Ors.
Page 7 of 43 84.7. During her lifetime, Late Ms. Shubh had expressed her intention to transfer the suit property to defendant no.2 (Smt. Rajni Ohri) due to her emotional attachment and even wrote her name on the main gate of the suit property indicating her ownership.
4.8. In furtherance of her intention, Late Ms. Shubh executed a registered WILL dated 24.03.2015 Ex.PW-1/D5, registered at Sub-Registrar-I, bearing Registration No.1491, Book No.3, Volume No.1186, Pages 190-192, bequeathing the suit property exclusively to defendant no.2.
4.9. On the basis of the registered WILL dated 24.03.2015, the suit property was mutated in favour of defendant no.2 by North Delhi Municipal Corporation vide letter dated 28.03.2016.
4.10. Since the demise of Late Ms. Shubh, defendant no.2 has been in exclusive physical possession of the suit property paying house tax and electricity bills regularly and no other person has any right, title or interest in the suit property.
4.11. The last rites and cremation of the deceased was performed by defendant no.1 to 3, they also borne all the cremation expenses.
4.12. The plaintiffs are not Class-I legal heirs of the deceased and have no locus standi to file the present suit, as the deceased was the absolute owner of the suit property and bequeathed the same in favour of defendant no.2.
Jagdeep Ohri Ors Vs. Sunil Ohri Ors.
Page 8 of 43 94.13. The present suit is filed without any cause of action.
5. CASE OF DEFENDANTS NO. 4(A) AND 4(B) 5.1. Late Shri Milkhi Ram Ohri left behind the following legal heirs i.e. Late Smt. Vidya Wati Ohri, Shri Krishan Lal Ohri, Late Shri Yog Raj Ohri, Late Shri Baldev Kumar Ohri, Late Shri Bharat Bhushan Ohri and Shri Subhash Chander Ohri.
5.2. The family background, relationships and pedigree as stated in paras 3 to 6 of the plaint are admitted.
5.3. Late Ms. Shobha Ohri @ Shubh was the daughter of Late Shri Yog Raj Ohri and the suit property belonged to her, who died intestate and the facts relating to her death and ownership of the suit property, as stated in paras 8 to 10 of the plaint are correct.
5.4. It is admitted that no title documents or any Will was executed by the deceased Ms. Shobha Ohri @ Shubh in favour of defendant no.1 and 2 during her lifetime with respect to the suit property.
5.5. It is further admitted that Late Ms. Shubh was under
treatment for mental disorder from mental hospitals till the date of her death.
5.6. The claim of partition put forth by the plaintiffs in the suit property as per their lawful share is admitted.
Jagdeep Ohri Ors Vs. Sunil Ohri Ors.
Page 9 of 43 105.7. In the prayer clause of their written statement, defendant no.4(A) and 4(B) have opposed the reliefs sought by the plaintiffs through the present suit.
6. CASE OF DEFENDANT NO. 5 AND 6.
6.1. The present suit is not maintainable in the eyes of the law and have been filed without any valid cause of action.
6.2. The suit property bearing No. K-124, First Floor, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi admeasuring approximately 65 sq. yards was the self-acquired property of Late Smt. Sushila Ohri, who purchased it in the year 1972 from Shri Jai Kishan Lal (son of Shri Thakur Das) by virtue of a registered Will dated 07.06.1972.
6.3. After the demise of Late Smt. Sushila Ohri, the suit property devolved upon Late Ms. Shobha Ohri @ Shubh and a fresh lease deed was executed in her favour by defendant no.7 / L&DO.
6.4. It is denied that Late Shri Yog Raj Ohri had purchased the suit property in the name of his wife. The property was never purchased by him and it was the self-acquired property of Late Smt. Sushila Ohri.
6.5. During her lifetime, Ms. Shobha Ohri @ Shubh executed a registered WILL dated 24.03.2015, registered at Sub-Registrar-I, bearing Registration No.1491, Book No. 3, Volume No. 1186, Pages 190-192, whereby she bequeathed the entire suit property Jagdeep Ohri Ors Vs. Sunil Ohri Ors.
Page 10 of 43 11to defendant no.2 / Smt. Rajni Ohri.
6.6. On the basis of the said registered WILL dated 24.03.2015, defendant no.2 got the suit property mutated in her name.
6.7. Ms. Shobha Ohri @ Shubh died on 23.12.2015, a natural death and it is emphatically denied that she suffered from any mental illness or was under psychiatric treatment at any point of time. She was mentally sound, sane and capable of executing the WILL in question.
6.8. During her lifetime, the deceased handed over the physical possession of the suit property to defendant no.2 and also wrote her name on the property in her own handwriting, signifying her intention to transfer ownership.
6.9. The suit has been filed with malafide intent to harass the defendants and to illegally grab the suit property, despite the plaintiffs being fully aware of the registered WILL in favour of defendant no.2.
7. CASE OF DEFENDANTS NO. 7 / L&DO.
7.1. The suit property bearing No. K-124, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi is a government-leased property, which was leased by the President of India in favour of Shri Jai Kishan Lal, son of Shri Thakur Dass.
7.2. The suit property was mutated in the name of Smt. Sushila Ohri on the basis of the death certificate of the original lessee, Jagdeep Ohri Ors Vs. Sunil Ohri Ors.
Page 11 of 43 12Sh. Jai Kishan Lal and his Will dated 07.06.1972.
7.3. Thereafter, on the application filed by Ms. Shobha Ohri, granddaughter of deceased lessee vide letter dated 24.09.1996, the suit property was mutated in her name.
7.4. The present suit is bad in law as the answering defendant was never served with the notice under Section 80 CPC.
8. In their replication, plaintiffs reiterated the averments made in the plaint and denied the averments made in the written statements of defendants.
9. Thereafter, on the basis of pleadings, the following issues were framed on 19.07.2019:-
(i) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of partition, declaration and possession in respect of suit property, if yes, what would be the shares of the parties to the suit? OPP.
(ii) Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of permanent injunction in respect of suit property? OPP.
(iii) Whether deceased Ms Shobha Rani @ Shubh has executed legally valid Will dated 24.03.2015 in favour of defendant no.2? OPD.
(iv) Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD.
(v) Relief.
10. PLAINTIFF EVIDENCE AND DOCUMENTS RELIED UPON.
Jagdeep Ohri Ors Vs. Sunil Ohri Ors.
Page 12 of 43 1310.1. In support of their case, plaintiffs examined plaintiff no.1 Sh. Jagdeep Ohri as PW-1 and plaintiff no.4 Ms. Geeta Patni as PW-2, who tendered their evidence affidavits as Ex.PW-1/A and Ex.PW-2/A respectively in their examination-in-chief.
10.2. In his evidence, PW-1 has relied upon the following documents:
A. Site plan as Ex.PW-1/1;
B. Photocopy of legal notice dated 15.01.2016 as
Ex.PW-1/2 (Colly);
C. Photocopies of postal receipts as Mark A (mentioned as
Ex.PW-1/3 in evidence affidavit);
D. Photocopies of delivery status as Mark B (mentioned as
Ex.PW-1/4 in evidence affidavit);
E. Photocopies of the title documents of the suit property as
Mark C (mentioned as Ex.PW-1/5 in evidence affidavit); F. Complaint filed by Jagdeep Ohri to SHO, PS Patel Nagar dated 10.11.2016 as Ex.PW-1/6;
G. Coloured photographs as Ex.PW-1/7; and H. Photocopy of electricity bill as Ex.PW-1/8.
During cross examination, following documents were put to PW-1 :
a. Certificate dated 01.10.1970 issued by Dr. R.C. Mahajan to Sh. Yog Raj as Ex.PW-1/D1;
b. Death certificate of Sh. Yograj dated 20.08.1971 as Ex.PW-1/D2;
c. Agreement to Sell dated 07.06.1972 between Sh. Jai Kishan and Smt. Sushila Ohri for purchasing suit property as Ex.PW-1/D3;
Jagdeep Ohri Ors Vs. Sunil Ohri Ors.Page 13 of 43 14
d. Letter dated 16.12.2013 issued by Punjab National Bank to Sobha Rani as Mark D-1;
e. Photocopy of Saving Bank Account no.8535602368 with the Post Office in the name of Ms. Sobha Rani as Mark D-2;
f. Acknowledgment receipt of Aadhar Card of Ms. Sobha Rani as Ex.PW-1/D4;
g. Photocopy WILL of Late Shobha Rani dated 24.03.2015 as Ex.PW-1/D-5.
10.3. PW-1 Sh. Jagdeep Ohri reiterated the contents of his plaint in his examination-in-chief and deposed that the owner of the suit property Late Ms. Shobha Rani @ Shubh was their cousin, who died intestate on 23.12.2015 and after her demise, the suit property has devolved upon her all legal heirs in equal shares.
PW-1 has further deposed that a WILL propounded by defendant no.1, 2 and 3 is a false and fabricated document as Late Ms. Shubh was suffering from mental disorder and remained under treatment from several mental hospitals till the date of her death and consequently not competent / capable to execute a WILL propounded by defendant no.1, 2 and 3.
10.4. In her evidence, PW-2 has relied upon the documents brought on record by plaintiff as PW-1 in his examination-in- chief. PW-2 also reiterated the contents of the plaint but never stepped into the witness box for her cross examination by the defendants.
Jagdeep Ohri Ors Vs. Sunil Ohri Ors.
Page 14 of 43 1511. Thereafter, vide separate statement of plaintiff no.1 recorded on 10.08.2023, plaintiff evidence was closed.
12. DEFENDANT EVIDENCE AND DOCUMENTS RELIED UPON.
12.1. In support of their case, defendant no.1 Sh. Sunil Ohri examined himself as DW-1, Sh. Manoj Kumar Chauhan, Senior Assistant Finance Officer, BSES as DW-2, Sh. Raj Kumar, Junior Section Assistant, House Tax Department as DW-3, Sh. Kishore Kumar, Sub Registrar, Karol Bagh Zone as DW-4, Sh. Sanjiv Kumar, Consultant at Lands and Development Office, Nirman Bhawan as DW-5, defendant no.2 Smt. Rajni Ohri as DW-6, Sh. Suresh Chand, Peon in the office of Sub Registrar, Kashmere Gate as DW-7 and Sh. Pankaj Gupta as DW-8.
DW-1, DW-6 and DW-8 have tendered their evidence affidavits as Ex.DW-1/X, Ex.DW-6/X and Ex.DW-8/A and DW-8/AA respectively in their examination-in-chief.
12.2. In his evidence, DW-1 has relied upon the following documents as under:
A. Photocopy of Aadhar Card of deceased Ms. Shobha Rani as Ex. DW-1/A (however mentioned as Ex.DW-1/1 in evidence affidavit and examination-in- chief);
B. Photocopy of the letter issued by the L&DO department to Smt. Shobha dated 24.09.1996 as Mark A; C. Photocopy of the lease and conveyance deed executed in favour of Late Sh.Kishan Lal dated 26.12.1979 as Ex.DW-1/3 (OSR);
Jagdeep Ohri Ors Vs. Sunil Ohri Ors.
Page 15 of 43 16D. Photocopy of the house tax receipt of the suit property bearing no.207021 in the name of Shobha Rani as Mark B; E. WILL of Shobha Rani dated 24.03.2015 as Ex.PW-1/D5 (however mentioned as Ex.DW-1/5 in the evidence affidavit);
F. Photocopy of the mutation letter by L&DO Department dated 28.03.2016 as Ex.DW-1/6 (OSR);
G. Photocopy of the house tax filed by defendant no.2 dated 07.03.2016 as Ex.DW-1/7 (OSR);
H. Photocopy of death certificate of the deceased Shobha Rani as Ex.DW-1/8 (OSR);
I. Photocopies of the receipt from the cremation ground as Ex.DW-1/9 (Colly)(OSR); and J. Photocopies of the electricity bills of the suit property as Mark C (Colly).
12.3. DW-1 has reiterated the contents of their written statement and deposed that the suit property originally belonged to Late Ms. Shobha Rani @ Shubh, who executed the WILL dated 24.03.2015 Ex.DW-1/5 (Ex.PW-1/D5) thereby bequeathing the suit property in favour of his wife defendant no.2.
12.4. DW-1 has deposed that during her lifetime, the deceased Ms. Shubh had decided to transfer the suit property in the name of his wife and even wrote the name of defendant no.2 at the main gate of suit property and she was having a special affectionate relation with the family of defendant no.1, 2 and 3.
Jagdeep Ohri Ors Vs. Sunil Ohri Ors.
Page 16 of 43 1712.5. DW-1 has deposed that the suit property stands mutated in the name of defendant no.2 and now she is in the peaceful possession of the same.
12.6. In his evidence, DW-2 has relied upon the following documents:
A. Certified scanned copy of electricity bill in the name of Sh.Jaikishan Lal R/o K-124, West Patel Nagar, Delhi-110008 bearing CA No.100670372 for August, 2024 as Ex.DW-2/1;
B. Certified scanned copy of statement of account of Sh.
Jai Kishan Lal w.e.f. 31.03.2011 to 12.08.2024 as Ex.DW-2/2 (8 pages);
C. Certified scanned copy of payment detail of CA No.100670372 from year 2013 till 2024 as Ex.DW-2/3 (2 pages);
D. Certified scanned copy of reading detail of CA No.100670372 from March 2013 till 24.07.2024 as Ex.DW-2/4 (5 pages);
E. Certified scanned copy of EBS format of meter detail in the name of Sh. Jai Kishan Lal as Ex.DW-2/5 (3 pages); and F. Certificate under Section 65B of Indian Evidence Act as Ex.DW-2/6.
12.7. In his evidence, DW-3 has relied upon the documents already Ex.DW-1/6 (OSR) and Ex.DW-1/7 (OSR).
Jagdeep Ohri Ors Vs. Sunil Ohri Ors.
Page 17 of 43 1812.8. In his evidence, DW-4 has relied upon the following documents:
A. True copy of entry no.6924 in the name of Shobha Rani / female as Ex.DW-4/1;
B. True copy of death report of Shobha Rani as Ex.DW-4/2;
C. True copy of death certificate details as Ex.DW-4/3;
and D. True copy of death certificate of Shobha Rani as Ex.DW-4/4.
12.9. In his evidence, DW-5 has relied upon the following documents:
A. Office copy of letter dated 24.09.1996 as already Mark A, now as Ex.DW-5/A. 12.10. DW-6 tendered her evidence affidavit Ex.DW-6/X and reiterated the contents of their written statement and deposed that Late Ms. Shubh bequeathed the suit property in her favour vide the WILL in question dated 24.03.2015 and now she is in the peaceful possession of the same and the suit property is mutated in her name as well.
12.11. In his evidence, DW-7 has relied upon the following document:
A. Photocopy of WILL dated 24.03.2015, Registration No.1,491 in Book No.3 Vol No.1,186 on page 190 to 192 executed by Smt. Shobha Rani as already Ex.PW-1/D1(OSR) (Ex.PW-1/D1 is also one certificate Jagdeep Ohri Ors Vs. Sunil Ohri Ors.Page 18 of 43 19
dated 01.10.1970 issued by Dr. R.C. Mahajan to Sh.Yograj in cross examination of PW-1).
12.12. DW-8 Sh. Pankaj Gupta deposed that he is one of the attesting witnesses of the WILL dated 24.03.2015 Ex.DW-1/5 (Ex.PW-1/D5) executed by Ms. Shobha Rani.
12.13. DW-8 has deposed that the aforesaid WILL was registered at the Office of Sub Registrar I, Delhi and the testator put her signatures and thumb impression on the WILL in his presence and thereafter, he alongwith Sh. Sunil Ohri and Sh. Harishyam Singh attested the WILL as witnesses. However, name of Harishyam Singh was striked out as he was not carrying his Aadhar Card / Identity Card.
12.14. DW-8 has identified the signatures of testator, DW-1 Sh.
Sunil Ohri and himself on the WILL Ex.DW-1/5 (Ex.PW-1/D5).
13. No other witness was examined by the defendants, accordingly defence evidence was closed on 28.02.2025.
14. I have heard Ld. counsels for plaintiff and defendants and have also gone through material on record.
15. My issue-wise findings is as follows:-
16. ISSUE NO. 1.
Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of partition, declaration and possession in respect of suit Jagdeep Ohri Ors Vs. Sunil Ohri Ors.
Page 19 of 43 20property, if yes, what would be the shares of the parties to the suit? OPP.
And ISSUE NO.2.
Whether the plaintiff is entitled for decree of permanent injunction in respect of suit property? OPP. And ISSUE NO.3.
Whether deceased Ms Shobha Rani @ Shubh has executed legally valid Will dated 24.03.2015 in favour of defendant no.2? OPD.
And ISSUE NO.4.
Whether the plaintiff has no locus standi to file the present suit? OPD.
16.1. All the aforesaid four issues are interconnected, hence they are taken up together for adjudication.
16.2. The present suit has been initiated by the plaintiffs seeking partition of the estate / suit property left by their late cousin Ms. Shobha Rani @ Shubh. Meanwhile, defendant no.1, 2 and 3 have propounded a WILL dated 24.03.2015 Ex.PW-1/D5, claiming that the suit property was bequeathed to defendant no.2 by the deceased vide the said WILL.
16.3. The plaintiffs have set up their case / claim that they being the cousins of Late Ms. Shubh have inherited equal share in the suit property alongwith the other legal heirs.
Jagdeep Ohri Ors Vs. Sunil Ohri Ors.
Page 20 of 43 2116.4. In brief, the plaintiffs claim inheritance through intestate succession, whereas defendant no.1, 2 and 3 have pleaded testamentary disposition of the suit property.
16.5. Legally speaking, a WILL is a specifically designed instrument meant to alter or disturb the natural line of succession by enabling an individual to distribute his / her property / estate to chosen beneficiaries.
16.6. However, it is also pertinent to highlight that a natural legal heir of the deceased testator, who would have inherited the property under the law of intestate succession had there been no WILL, has the locus standi to question / dispute the genuineness of the said WILL.
16.7. So in light of the factual matrix of the present case wherein it is apparent from the record that the testator Late Ms. Shubh was not survived by any Class I legal heir, before getting into the issue of genuineness of the WILL Ex.PW-1/D5 propounded by defendant no.2, it is expedient / apposite to examine the locus of plaintiffs to file the present suit and seek share in the property of their late cousin Ms. Shubh.
16.8. It is undisputed that Late Ms. Shubh and parties to the present suit are Hindus by religion and governed by the provisions of The Hindu Succession Act, 1956 (hereinafter referred to as HSA).
Jagdeep Ohri Ors Vs. Sunil Ohri Ors.
Page 21 of 43 2216.9. HSA classifies heirs based on their closeness / proximity with the deceased and prioritise them, with Class I heirs taking precedence over Class II, followed by the agnates and cognates.
16.10. For a better understanding / clarity, the relation of the parties to the suit with Late Ms. Shubh is mentioned against their respective names in the following table:
S.No Name Relation with Ms.
. Shobha Ohri @
Shubh
1. Jagdeep Ohri - Plaintiff no.1 Cousin
2. Sunit Saini - Plaintiff no.2 Cousin
3. Anita Arora - Plaintiff no.3 Cousin
4. Geeta Patni - Plaintiff no.4 Cousin
5. Sunil Ohri - Defendant no.1 Cousin
6. Rajni Ohri - Defendant no.2 Sister-in-law
7. Vinod Ohri - Defendant no.3 Cousin
8. Sandhya Ohri D/o Late Sh. Cousin
Kulbhushan Dhir - Defendant
no.4a
9. Seema D/o Late Sh. Kulbhushan Cousin
Dhir - Defendant no.4b
10. Vivek Ohri S/o Late Ms. Promila Cousin
Ohri @ Asha Ohri - Defendant
no.5a
11. Vani D/o Late Ms. Promila Ohri @ Cousin
Asha Ohri - Defendant no.5b
12. Subhash Chander Ohri - Defendant Uncle, brother of no.6 Late Sh. Yograj Ohri 16.11. The sum and substance of the claim filed by the plaintiffs is that they being the cousins of Late Ms. Shubh have inherited equal share in the suit property under The Hindu Succession Act. Jagdeep Ohri Ors Vs. Sunil Ohri Ors.
Page 22 of 43 2316.12.For a better understanding, the relevant excerpt from the body of the plaint is reproduced hereinbelow :
"Para 10 of the plaint:
That Ms. Shobha Ohri @ Shubh died intestate i.e. without executing any WILL, on dated 23.12.2015 and as per the record, deceased was the owner of the suit property and deceased Ms Shubh Ohri @ Shubh was the daughter of their (plaintiffs) Taya ji. Hence, the plaintiffs as per the law of succession (Hindu succession act) have the equal right in the estate of the decease Ms. Shobha Ohri@ Shubh, along with other legal heirs."
16.13. Section 15 and 16 of HSA incorporates the general rules of succession governing the devolution of property held by a female Hindu. For a better understanding, both the said provisions are reproduced hereinbelow:
"15. General rules of succession in the case of female Hindus.--(1) The property of a female Hindu dying intestate shall devolve according to the rules set out in section 16,--
(a) firstly upon the sons and daughters (including the children of any pre-deceased son or daughter) and the husband;
(b) secondly, upon the heirs of the husband;
(c) thirdly, upon the mother and father;
(d) fourthly, upon the heirs of the father; and
(e) lastly, upon the heirs of the mother.
Jagdeep Ohri Ors Vs. Sunil Ohri Ors.
Page 23 of 43 24(2) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub- section (1),--
(a) any property inherited by a female Hindu from her father or mother shall devolve, in the absence of any son or daughter of the deceased (including the children of any pre- deceased son or daughter) not upon the other heirs referred to in sub-section (1) in the order specified therein, but upon the heirs of the father; and
(b) any property inherited by a female Hindu from her husband or from her father-in-law shall devolve, in the absence of any son or daughter of the deceased (including the children of any pre-deceased son or daughter) not upon the other heirs referred to in sub-section (1) in the order specified therein, but upon the heirs of the husband.
16. Order of succession and manner of distribution among heirs of a female Hindu.-- The order of succession among the heirs referred to in section 15 shall be, and the distribution of the intestates property among those heirs shall take place according to the following rules, namely:--
Rule 1.-- Among the heirs specified in sub-
section (1) of section 15, those in one entry shall be preferred to those in any succeeding entry and those included in Jagdeep Ohri Ors Vs. Sunil Ohri Ors.Page 24 of 43 25
the same entry shall take simultaneously.
Rule 2.-- If any son or daughter of the intestate had pre-deceased the intestate leaving his or her own children alive at the time of the intestate's death, the children of such son or daughter shall take between them the share which such son or daughter would have taken if living at the intestate's death. Rule 3.-- The devolution of the property of the intestate on the heirs referred to in clauses (b), (d) and (e) of sub-section (1) and in sub-section (2) to section 15 shall be in the same order and according to the same rules as would have applied if the property had been the father's or the mother's or the husband's as the case may be, and such person had died intestate in respect thereof immediately after the intestate's death."
16.14. A plain reading of the aforesaid statutory provisions makes it amply clear that the property of a female Hindu dying intestate firstly devolves upon her sons, daughters and her husband, secondly upon the heirs of husband, thirdly upon the mother and father, fourthly upon the heirs of the father and lastly upon the heirs of the mother.
Jagdeep Ohri Ors Vs. Sunil Ohri Ors.
Page 25 of 43 2616.15. The parties to the present suit are in consensus that Late Ms. Shubh was never married and had no children and she was predeceased by her parents.
16.16. Hence, in terms of Section 15 HSA, the suit property would devolve upon the legal heirs of her father.
16.17. For ascertaining the legal heirs of her father, Late Sh. Yog Raj Ohri, it is necessary to refer to Section 8 HSA, which is reproduced hereinbelow:
"8. General rules of succession in the case of males.--The property of a male Hindu dying intestate shall devolve according to the provisions of this Chapter--
(a) firstly, upon the heirs, being the relatives specified in class I of the Schedule;
(b) secondly, if there is no heir of class I, then upon the heirs, being the relatives specified in class II of the Schedule;
(c) thirdly, if there is no heir of any of the two classes, then upon the agnates of the deceased; and
(d) lastly, if there is no agnate, then upon the cognates of the deceased.
16.18. As Section 8 HSA has provided devolution of property of a Hindu male dying intestate as per the schedule annexed with the Act, it is apposite to navigate through the schedule for the identification of the legal heirs who are entitled to inherit the suit Jagdeep Ohri Ors Vs. Sunil Ohri Ors.
Page 26 of 43 27property and for the said purpose, the entire schedule is reproduced hereinbelow:
" THE SCHEDULE
(See Section 8)
HEIRS IN CLASS I AND CLASS II
Class I
Son; daughter; window; mother; son of a pre- deceased son; daughter of a pre-deceased son; son of a pre-deceased daughter; daughter of a pre- deceased daughter; widow of a pre-deceased son; son of a pre-deceased son of a pre-deceased son; daughter of a pre-deceased son of a pre-deceased son; widow of a pre-deceased son of a pre-deceased son; [son of a pre-deceased daughter of a pre- deceased daughter, daughter of a pre-deceased daughter of a pre-deceased daughter; daughter of a pre-deceased son of a pre-deceased daughter, daughter of a pre-deceased daughter of a pre-
deceased son]
Class II
I. Father.
II. (1) Son's daughter's son, (2) son's daughter's
daughter, (3) brother, (4) sister.
III. (1) Daughter's son's son, (2) daughter's son's
daughter, (3) daughter's daughter's son, (4) daughter's daughter;
IV. (1) Brother's son, (2) sister's son, (3) brother's daughter, (4) sister's daughter. V. Father's father; father's mother.
Jagdeep Ohri Ors Vs. Sunil Ohri Ors.
Page 27 of 43 28VI. Father's widow; brother's widow.
VII. Father's brother; father's sister. VIII. Mother's father; mother's mother. IX. Mother's brother; mother's sister. Explanation.-- In this Schedule, references to a brother or sister do not include references to a brother or sister by uterine blood."
16.19. A close scrutiny of the aforesaid schedule manifests that no Class I legal heir of Late Sh. Yog Raj Ohri was alive at the time of demise of Late Ms. Shubh upon whom the suit property would have devolved, however, in category II of Class II heirs, the relation of 'brother' is provided at serial no.3, which is important and pertinent for the adjudication of the issue in hand as defendant no.6, Sh. Subhash Chander Ohri, brother of Late Sh. Yog Raj Ohri @ Yogi falls within the said category and by virtue of Section 16 read with Section 9 HSA, the entire suit property would have devolved upon him had Late Ms. Shubh died intestate.
16.20. In a nutshell, according to the mandate of Section 9 and Section 16 HSA, the entire suit property would have devolved solely / entirely upon defendant no.6, Sh. Subhash Chander Ohri S/o Late Sh. Milkhi Ram Ohri had Late Ms. Shubh died intestate.
16.21. The aforesaid conclusion is material / crucial, as it extinguishes the plaintiffs right to seek partition of the suit property.
Jagdeep Ohri Ors Vs. Sunil Ohri Ors.
Page 28 of 43 2916.22. To put it another way, the plaintiffs did not have any legal right / standing to inherit the suit property in the presence of defendant no.6, even if Late Ms. Shubh had died intestate.
16.23. Before concluding the discussion, it is important to highlight that although no such plea of devolution of the suit property upon defendant no.6 / Sh. Subhash Chander Ohri was raised by either of the defendants but it is also a well settled position of law that a pure legal issue can be raised at any stage of proceedings. Reference can be made by the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in The National Textile Corporation Limited Vs. Naresh Kumar Badri Kumar Jagat and Others, (2011) 12 SCC 695.
16.24. So, in light of the entire foregoing discussion, this Court is of the opinion that the plaintiffs lacks the cause of action / have no legal standing to file the present suit seeking partition, in light of entitlement of defendant no.6 to inherit the suit property, provided Late Ms. Shubh died intestate.
16.25. Now coming to the issue of genuineness of WILL Ex.PW-1/D5 dated 24.03.2015 propounded by defendant no.2 and purportedly executed by Late Ms. Shubh in her favour.
16.26. The plaintiffs have contended that Late Ms. Shubh died intestate while defendant no.1, 2 and 3 have set up the case that she executed the WILL Ex.PW-1/D5 during her lifetime thereby bequeathing the suit property in favour of defendant no.2.
Jagdeep Ohri Ors Vs. Sunil Ohri Ors.
Page 29 of 43 3016.27. In the present suit, it is undisputed that Late Ms. Shobha Ohri @ Shubh was the exclusive owner of the suit property and the only contentious issue is as to whether she died intestate or had executed the WILL Ex.PW-1/D5 dated 24.03.2015 in the favour of defendant no.2 Smt. Rajni Ohri.
16.28. Briefly putting the case, the plaintiffs have raised a two fold arguments challenging the WILL Ex.PW-1/D5, firstly, that Late Ms. Shubh died intestate without executing any WILL and secondly, that she was mentally unfit at the point of time, when she purportedly executed the WILL in question.
16.29. Since the issue regarding the execution / validity of a WILL has arisen in the present suit, it is necessary to refer to Section 63 of Indian Succession Act, 1925 (hereinafter referred to as ISA) and Section 68 of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872, (hereinafter referred to as IEA / Section 67 BSA) which are reproduced hereinbelow:
"Section 63 of Indian Succession Act, 1925 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 Jagdeep Ohri Ors Vs. Sunil Ohri Ors.Page 30 of 43 31
placed that it shall appear that it was intended thereby to give effect to the writing as a Will.
(c) The Will shall be attested by two or more witnesses, each of whom has seen the testator sign or affix his mark to the Will or has seen some other person sign the Will, in the presence and by the direction of the testator, or has received from the testator a personal acknowledgement of his signature or mark, or 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.
Section 68 of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
68. Proof of execution of document required by law to be attested.-- If a document is required by law to be attested, it shall not be used as evidence until one attesting witness at least has been called for the purpose of proving its execution, if there be an attesting witness alive, and subject to the process of the Court and capable of giving evidence.
[Provided that if shall not be necessary to call an attesting witness in proof of the execution of any document, not being a Will, which has been registered in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), unless its execution by the person by whom it purports to have been executed is specifically denied.]"
Jagdeep Ohri Ors Vs. Sunil Ohri Ors.Page 31 of 43 32
16.30. Section 67 BSA / Section 68 IEA prescribes the method as to how a document required by law to be attested can be proved. It stipulates that a document which is required by law to be attested cannot be used as evidence unless one of the attesting witness is examined for proving its execution provided an attesting witness is still alive and is capable of giving evidence.
16.31.While, Section 63 ISA prescribes the method of execution of a WILL as follows :
(i) The testator has to sign or affix his mark to the WILL, or it has to be signed by some other person in his presence and direction;
(ii) The aforesaid signature or mark should be appended at the place reflecting the intent of the testator who execute the said WILL; and
(iii) The WILL has to be attested by two or more witnesses and both of them must have seen the testator sign or affix his mark to the WILL and they had signed the WILL in the presence of the testator.
16.32. A conjoint reading of the aforesaid provisions of law illuminates that the propounder of the WILL has to establish not only its valid execution, which cannot be done by simply establishing the fact that the WILL bears the signatures of the testator, but also that the attestation was made according to the mandate of Section 63 ISA.
16.33. Moreover, in H.Venkatachala Iyengar Vs. B.N.Thimmajamma and Others, AIR 1959 SC 443, Hon'ble Jagdeep Ohri Ors Vs. Sunil Ohri Ors.
Page 32 of 43 33Apex Court observed that an important feature which distinguishes WILLs from other documents as, unlike other documents, a WILL speaks from the death of the testator and at the time when it is produced before a Court, the testator by that time has already departed from the world and cannot depose whether it is his WILL or not and it is the responsibility of the propounder to prove the WILL as per the mandate of law and dispel all the suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the WILL, if any and unless the aforesaid onus is satisfactorily discharged, the Court should be reluctant to treat the document as the last WILL of the testator.
16.34. Succinctly stating, the fundamental duty of the Court is to realize / ascertain the true intent of the testator regarding the disposition of his / her property.
16.35. At this stage, it is also relevant to highlight that it is a well settled position of law that mere registration of WILL does not make it valid unless its execution and attestation has been proved in terms of the mandate of Section 68 IEA and Section 63 ISA.
16.36. It is clear that before deriving any right from the WILL Ex.PW-1/D5, the propounder / defendant no.2 is required not only to prove the due execution and valid attestation of the WILL but also dispel the suspicious circumstances raised by the plaintiffs or otherwise surrounding the WILL.
16.37. Firstly, this Court would get into the issue of valid execution and attestation of the WILL Ex.PW-1/D5.
Jagdeep Ohri Ors Vs. Sunil Ohri Ors.
Page 33 of 43 3416.38. For proving the WILL, the propounder, defendant no.2 Smt Rajni Ohri not only herself stepped into the witness box as DW-6 and deposed that at the time of the execution of WILL, testator Late Ms. Shobha Ohri was physically and mentally hale and hearty, but also examined the two attesting witnesses of the said WILL, namely Sh. Sunil Ohri as DW-1 and Sh. Pankaj Gupta as DW-8.
16.39. A plain reading of the testimony of DW-8 shows that he has deposed in extenso regarding the execution and attestation of WILL Ex.PW-1/D5 in terms of Section 63 ISA.
16.40. DW-8 Sh. Pankaj Gupta stated that on 24.03.2015, Late Ms. Shubh executed the WILL Ex.PW-1/D5 in the presence of him and the remaining attesting witnesses and thereafter, he, DW-1 Sh. Sunil Ohri and one Harishyam Singh, whose signatures were striked out as he was not carrying his Aadhar Card / identity proof on that date, signed the WILL as attesting witnesses.
16.41. DW-8 Sh. Pankaj Gupta deposed to the signatures of himself, the other attesting witness Sh. Sunil Ohri and the testator Late Ms. Shubh on the WILL Ex.PW-1/D5.
16.42. So when the testimony of DW-8 is seen in juxtaposition with the ingredients of Section 63 ISA, it clearly indicates / proves due execution and attestation of WILL Ex.PW-1/D5 as per the mandate of law.
Jagdeep Ohri Ors Vs. Sunil Ohri Ors.
Page 34 of 43 3516.43. Moreover, a close scrutiny of the testimony of DW-8, especially his cross examination, does not reveal any major inconsistency / contradiction / improvement that could cast a doubt upon his testimony regarding due attestation and execution of WILL Ex.PW-1/D5.
16.44. In a nutshell, DW-8 remained unshaken, devoid of any gaps or contradictions during his evidence despite facing cross examination on more than one occasion and moreover, there is no evidence of any collusion or he having any vested interest in the execution of the alleged WILL Ex.PW-1/D5, which could discredit his deposition.
16.45. Furthermore, during his cross examination, DW-8 Sh.Pankaj Gupta candidly admitted that he did not check any medical certificate regarding the mental and physical fitness of Late Ms. Shobha Rani, but he made it clear that at the time of execution of the WILL, she was fit.
16.46. DW-8 also denied the suggestion put by the plaintiffs that he was deposing falsely regarding the mental / physical fitness of the testator of the WILL Ex.PW-1/D5.
16.47. Most importantly, DW-8 was not confronted by the plaintiffs with any material / evidence either questioning his integrity and capability to prove the execution and attestation of the WILL or regarding the alleged mental incapacity of Late Ms. Shubh.
Jagdeep Ohri Ors Vs. Sunil Ohri Ors.
Page 35 of 43 3616.48. In light of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the opinion that defendant no.2 / propounder of the WILL has duly satisfied the requisites of Section 68 IEA and Section 63 ISA through the testimony of DW-8 Sh. Pankaj Gupta and have proved due execution and attestation of the WILL Ex.PW-1/D5 by the testator, Late Ms. Shubh and the attesting witnesses respectively.
16.49. Besides the testimony of DW-8 Sh. Pankaj Gupta, defendant no.1 Sh. Sunil Ohri who deposed as DW-1 also identified his signatures on the WILL Ex.PW-1/D5 at point A as one of the attesting witnesses, during his cross examination dated 08.11.2023.
16.50. At the cost of repetition, the testimonies of DW-1 and DW-8 have proved the due execution and attestation of WILL Ex.PW-1/D5 as per the requirement of law.
16.51. Now coming to the contention of the plaintiffs disputing the genuineness of the WILL in question Ex.PW-1/D5.
16.52. The plaintiffs have premised their entire claim seeking partition of the suit property and disputing the genuineness of the WILL Ex.PW-1/D5 upon the premise of alleged mental illness of the testatrix Late Ms. Shobha Rani.
Jagdeep Ohri Ors Vs. Sunil Ohri Ors.
Page 36 of 43 3716.53. The plaintiffs have pleaded that Late Ms. Shobha Rani remained mentally unwell till the date of her demise and was incompetent / unable to execute the WILL Ex.PW-1/D5.
16.54. However, it is a matter of record that the plaintiffs have not filed any relevant document shedding light upon the alleged mental ill-health of Late Ms. Shobha Rani.
16.55. The aforesaid omission is material as in the plaint, the plaintiffs have pleaded that Late Ms. Shobha Rani was taking treatment for her mental illness from a number of mental hospitals.
16.56. While, during his cross examination as PW-1, Sh. Jagdeep Ohri deposed that Ms. Shobha Rani was taking treatment at home and has not taken treatment from any mental hospital. But, in the follow up reply, he stated that she was also simultaneously taking treatment from Agra Mental Hospital. The aforesaid excerpts are reproduced hereinbelow for better appreciation :
"Para 7 of the plaint That when Ms. Shobha Ohri @ Shubh (d/o LT Shri Yograj Ohri attained her marriageable age, then her mother Smt. Sushila Ohri started looking a suitable match for performing her marriage, but unfortunately and due to some certain reasons, the said marriage could not be materialized, which caused great embarrassment to Ms. Shubh @ Shubh, ultimately, her 'Rishta' was broken and due to Jagdeep Ohri Ors Vs. Sunil Ohri Ors.Page 37 of 43 38
said impact, shocked, Ms Shobha @ Shubh lost her stable state of mind and with great regret and unfortunately, she became mental and lost her state of mind and for the purpose of curing mental illness, she started taking the treatment form then mental hospitals and from different doctors, her treatment was continued till her said demise on dated 23.12.2015.
Examination-in-chief of PW-1 Sh. Jagdeep Ohri dated 11.05.2022:
Para 8------- , She became mental and lost her state of mind and for the purpose of curing mental illness, she started taking the treatment form then mental hospitals and from different doctors, her treatment was continue till her sad demise on dated 23.12.2015.
Cross examination of PW-1 Sh. Jagdeep Ohri dated 23.09.2022:
----- Ms. Shobha Rani was taking treatment at home and was not under treatment of any mental hospital. Again said, Ms. Shobha Rani was taking treatment at home and simultaneously also taking treatment from Agra Mental Hospital."
16.57. The aforesaid contradiction / inconsistency in the version of the plaintiff no.1 discredits his testimony and renders his claim Jagdeep Ohri Ors Vs. Sunil Ohri Ors.
Page 38 of 43 39regarding the mental incapacity of Late Ms. Shobha at the relevant time unbelievable / improbable.
16.58. At this stage, it is relevant to highlight the settled position of law that bald assertions of facts are of no use to the parties to the suit unless they are backed by the admissible evidence. Reference can be made to the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in A.B. Govardhan Vs. P. Ragothaman, Civil Appeal no.9975-76 of 2024.
16.59. In view thereof, this Court is of the opinion that the plea of plaintiffs regarding the mental illness of Late Ms. Shobha Rani is hollow and nothing but a bald assertion, having no evidentiary value.
16.60. Nevertheless, WILL is a solemn document which comes into operation after the death of the testator. So before placing reliance upon a WILL, not only its due execution and attestation has to be proved by the propounder, but also the suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the WILL should be dispelled.
16.61. In the present case, the only suspicious circumstance arising from the factual matrix of the present case is the participation of the beneficiaries i.e. defendant no.1 and 2 in the execution of the WILL Ex.PW-1/D5.
16.62. It is a matter of record that defendant no.1 and 2 themselves have deposed that on 24.03.2015, they accompanied Jagdeep Ohri Ors Vs. Sunil Ohri Ors.
Page 39 of 43 40Late Ms. Shubh to the concerned Sub Registrar office for the execution of the WILL in question.
16.63. During the course of his arguments, Ld. Counsel for the plaintiffs submits that the WILL Ex.PW-1/D5 propounded by defendant no.1 to 3 should be rejected solely upon the premise that defendant no.1 and 2, who are the direct beneficiaries of the alleged testamentary disposition, participated in the execution of the same.
16.64. But, this Court is of the view that there is no absolute principle of law which renders a WILL invalid solely on the ground of the propounder accompanying the testator to the concerned Sub Registrar Office for its execution and registration. Rather, the facts and circumstances of the each individual case should be adjudged / considered on the case to case basis, keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the each individual case.
16.65. In light of the factual matrix of the present case, the factum of defendant no.1 and 2 accompanying the testatrix Late Ms. Shubh to the concerned Sub Registrar Office on the day of execution of the WILL appears perfectly natural, as it is undisputed that at that point of time Late Ms. Shubh was living entirely alone and required assistance to reach the concerned Sub Registrar Office.
16.66. Hence, under such circumstances, the most viable / natural person to accompany her would be the one in whose favour she Jagdeep Ohri Ors Vs. Sunil Ohri Ors.
Page 40 of 43 41was interested to bequeath the property i.e. defendant no.1 and 2 in the present case.
16.67. In view thereof, the factum of defendant no.1 and 2 accompanying Late Ms. Shubh to the concerned Sub Registrar Office on the day of execution of the WILL in question cannot be termed as a suspicious circumstance of a grave nature rendering the WILL invalid in law.
16.68. Furthermore, nothing came out / surfaced during the cross examination of either defendant no.1 or defendant no.2 indicating that they had exercised any kind of undue influence or coercion upon Late Ms. Shobha Rani in the execution of the WILL in question.
16.69. It is also important to underline that the plaintiffs have not even pleaded, let alone proving the same by bringing on record admissible evidence that the WILL Ex.PW-1/D5 was got prepared by defendant no.1 and 2 and the testator had no knowledge about its contents.
16.70. Hence, it can be safely concluded that there is no admissible evidence / material available on record which could cast any doubt on the genuineness of the WILL Ex.PW-1/D5.
16.71. Before concluding the discussion, the following three aspects of the present case are extremely important having a direct bearing upon the issue of execution, attestation and genuineness of the WILL Ex.PW-1/D5:
Jagdeep Ohri Ors Vs. Sunil Ohri Ors.Page 41 of 43 42
(i) Firstly, defendant no.6, Sh. Subhash Chander Ohri who would have inherited the suit property had there been no WILL of Late Ms. Shubh, has supported the WILL propounded by defendant no.2 and opposed the claim put forth by the plaintiffs challenging the genuineness of the WILL in question and seeking partition of the suit property;
(ii) Secondly, there is not an iota of material / evidence available on record indicating any kind of affectionate relation / bond between Late Ms. Shobha Rani and the plaintiffs; and
(iii) Thirdly, the WILL Ex.PW-1/D5 is a registered document duly executed and attested before the concerned Sub Registrar and it is a well settled position of law that a registered WILL raises a presumption of genuineness regarding its execution and the burden to prove otherwise would lie on the party who dispute its existence thereof.
Reference can be made to the judgment passed by Hon'ble Apex Court in Mettalli Lasum Bai (since dead) and Others Vs. Mettalli Muthaih (D) by LRs, Civil Appeal No.5921 of 2015 dated 21.07.2025. It is to be noted that the plaintiffs have not brought on record any credible evidence which could dislodge the presumption of the genuineness of the registered WILL Ex.PW-1/D5.
16.72. So in light of the entire foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that Late Ms. Shobha Rani @ Shubh executed the WILL dated 24.03.2015 Ex.PW-1/D5 in favour of defendant no.2 Ms. Rajni Ohri thereby bequeathing the suit Jagdeep Ohri Ors Vs. Sunil Ohri Ors.
Page 42 of 43 43property in her favour and the plaintiffs have no locus standi to seek partition of the suit property.
16.73. Accordingly, all the four issues are decided in favour of defendant no.1, 2 and 3 and against the plaintiffs.
17. RELIEF.
17.1. In view of the aforesaid discussion, the suit of the plaintiffs stands dismissed.
18. Parties are left to bear their own costs.
19. Decree sheet be prepared accordingly.
20. File be consigned to record room.
Announced in the Open Court Digitally signed MANOJ by MANOJ KUMAR on 17th APRIL, 2026. KUMAR SHARMA SHARMA Date: 2026.04.17 17:02:41 +0530 (MANOJ KUMAR SHARMA) DJ-07 (West) Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.
Jagdeep Ohri Ors Vs. Sunil Ohri Ors.
Page 43 of 43