Delhi District Court
Smt. Sudha Sharma vs State Of Delhi on 2 September, 2019
IN THE COURT OF MS. SAVITRI : ADDL. DISTT. JUDGE-02,
WEST DISTRICT : TIS HAZARI COURTS: DELHI.
PC-15853/2016
Smt. Sudha Sharma
W/o Sh. Ramesh Chander Sharma,
R/o B-30, Dayanand Colony, Lajpat Nagar,
New Delhi.
........Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Delhi
2. Sh. Jag Mohan Sharma,
S/o Late Janak Raj Sharma,
R/o F-122, Vikas Puri, New Delhi.
3. Sh. Ravinder KumarSharma,
S/o Late Jajak Raj Sharma,
R/o F-122, Vikas Puri, New Delhi.
.....Respondents
PROBATE PETITION U/S 276 OF INDIAN SUCCESSION ACT FOR
GRANT OF PROBATE
Date of institution of the case : 22.08.2013
Date of reserving the judgment : 20.08.2019
Date of pronouncement of Judgment : 02.09.2019
JUDGMENT
1. The present petition has been filed by petitioner Sudha Sharma for grant of probate on the ground that an unregistered will dated 09.07.2009 was executed in her favour by her late mother deceased Smt. Janak Kumari with respect to suit property, which is 1/3rd part of H. No. F-122, Vikas Puri, New Delhi. The death of deceased on 24.07.2012 is an admitted PC No. 15853/16 Sudha Sharma Vs. State & Ors. Page 1 of 20 position.
2. Admittedly, on the date of will the property, which had been purchased in an auction held by DDA, had been conveyed in favour of respondent no-2 Sh. Jagmohan Sharma and his wife. Respondent no-2 is elder brother of the petitioner. The case of the petitioner is that the total property measuring 378 sq. meters/yards was purchased in joint names of deceased, respondent no-2 - her elder son and respondent no-3 - her younger son. Later on, respondent no-2 and his wife suppressed the factum of joint allotment and fraudulently misrepresented the facts before DDA and obtained the conveyance deed of the entire property in their name and got excluded the names of deceased and respondent no-3. A representation was accordingly made before DDA for correcting the records and a civil litigation was filed with respect to the same, which had not been decided as of now. It is admitted position that respondent no-3 owns a DDA Flat bearing no. DG-III/357, Vikas Puri, New Delhi-110018.
3. After the notice of the petition was issued, the respondents entered appearance. The respondent no-3 filed his NOC to the present petition while respondent no-2, who is the only contesting respondent filed objections to the present petition. He has denied the allegations of the petitioner and taken a stand that the conveyance deed of the property was executed by DDA on 25.09.1997 in his favour after completing all legal formalities and he and his wife are the lawful joint owners of the same. Be that as it may, the question of title is irrelevant in proceedings for grant of probate/letters of administration.
PC No. 15853/16 Sudha Sharma Vs. State & Ors. Page 2 of 204. Another objection taken by respondent no-2 is that the petitioner and respondent no-3, both siblings of the objector are in collusion with each other. Further, the will in question is forged and fabricated document and it neither bears the signature nor thumb impression of the deceased. Also, no photograph of deceased has been pasted on the same. The alleged witnesses of the will are not independent persons and are petitioner's and respondent no-3's own people. Further, the will is neither registered nor notarized and it has been manufactured by the petitioner and respondent no-3 with malafide design to harass respondent no-2 and his wife and with a view to extort money from them, illegally.
5. Another ground is that the deceased was not much educated and therefore not conversant with English language. Her hands used to shiver, whereas the signature on the will have been made by some healthy person. Not only this, at the time of alleged will, the deceased used to reside with the objector, who had been serving her and taking care of her needs. The deceased had even died at his home. Therefore, no occasion ever arose for execution of the alleged will by the deceased. The deceased must have told him in the event any such will was executed by her. Further, the bare reading of will would suggest that it has been manufactured, as per the wishes and desire of petitioner and respondent no-3. A further stand has been taken that the respondent no-2 and his wife, being joint owners of entire property have inducted Punjab National Bank as tenant in the month of May 2005. The bank had even organized a grand function as a ladies branch has been opened there.
PC No. 15853/16 Sudha Sharma Vs. State & Ors. Page 3 of 206. After completion of pleadings, following issues were framed by my Ld. Predecessor Judge vide order dated 09.09.2014 :-
ISSUES
1) Whether the will dated 09.07.2009 executed by testatrix Smt. Janak Kumari is a valid, legal and genuine will? OPP
2) Whether the petitioner is entitled to the grant of probate in respect of the aforesaid will dated 09.07.2009, as prayed for? OPP
3) Relief PETITIONER'S EVIDENCE
7. In order to prove its case the petitioner has examined herself as PW-1 on affidavit Ex PW-1/A, which is on the lines of her petition. She has proved the will as Ex PW-1/1 and death certificate of deceased as Ex PW-1/2.
8. During her cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for objector, she deposed that the deceased was 85 years of age when she expired. She deposed that the deceased used to live with the objector but had visited the witness for about 10 days at the time of execution of will. Further, she died after three years of execution of the will. The witness denied the suggestion that the deceased was unable to sign, though admitted that her hands used to shiver mildly. She denied the suggestion that she has forged the signature of the deceased on the will in question while admitting that there was no thumb impression on the same. She admitted that the deceased was suffering from old age ailments. The witness also deposed that objector had PC No. 15853/16 Sudha Sharma Vs. State & Ors. Page 4 of 20 hired a nurse to look after the deceased some 2-3 months prior to her death.
9. PW-2 has been examined by the petitioner as attesting witness of the will vide evidence affidavit Ex PW-2/A, wherein it is mentioned that he had known the deceased, who had signed the will in question in his presence and also in presence of one S. Vilasini. Further, that the witness also signed the will in presence of other attesting witness and the testatrix. During his examination in chief, the witness identified his signature on the will as well as that of deceased and the other attesting witness.
10. During his cross-examination on 29.03.2016 by Ld. Counsel for objector, the witness, who was aged about 65 years and resident of Yamuna Vihar in East Delhi, deposed that the deceased used to reside in Vikas Puri in the year 2009 (the year of execution of will). The witness further deposed that he was not working in the year 2009 and used to remain at home.
11. In response to further questioning, the witness deposed that he did not know the entire family of deceased but only knew respondent no-3 Ravinder Sharma. In the next breath, the witness deposed that deceased called him telephonically on 09.07.2009 to sign the will at Vikas Sadan. He denied the suggestion that he was not so called by the deceased. He further deposed that at Vikas Sadan, the deceased was accompanied by one lady but denied the suggestion that she (deceased) was unwell or that she was not able to sign as her hands used to shiver badly. The witness could not tell the floor on which he had visited but denied the suggestion that he had never visited Vikas Sadan. He also denied the suggestion that he signed the will in question later on at the request of PC No. 15853/16 Sudha Sharma Vs. State & Ors. Page 5 of 20 respondent no-3.
12. The second attesting witness was not examined, though her evidence affidavit has been placed on record. Therefore, her affidavit cannot be read in evidence as it was not tendered in evidence nor was she cross-examined.
RESPONDENT'S EVIDENCE
13. Objector has examined himself as the only RW vide evidence affidavit Ex RW-1/1, which is on the lines of his objections. He relied upon following documents:-
1. PAN card of deceased as Ex R2-1/A;
2. An affidavit dated 23.12.2009 of deceased in civil suit, which was signed by deceased as Ex R2-1/B;
3. Letter from Ministry of Urban Development, dated 04.02.1991 as Ex R2-1/C;
4. Copy of CGHS Card of deceased as Mark-A; and
5. Copy of SBI Form, dated 26.11.2011 as Mark-B.
14. During his cross-examination by Ld. Counsel for petitioner, the witness deposed that he had noticed shivering hands of deceased for the first time in the year 2007 and denied suggestion to the contrary. He further deposed that deceased was illiterate. He denied the suggestion that the will in question was duly executed by deceased or that she was in full senses at the time of execution of will or that she was not under any pressure, threat or coercion. He also denied the suggestion that the alleged will was executed in presence of witnesses.
PC No. 15853/16 Sudha Sharma Vs. State & Ors. Page 6 of 2015. Before proceeding to decide the present probate petition let me discuss in nutshell, the relevant legal provisions and judicial pronouncements.
16. 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 thus:-
"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.
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 PC No. 15853/16 Sudha Sharma Vs. State & Ors. Page 7 of 20 explanation makes the basic principle pellucid 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 an intoxiation, 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.
17. 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 thus:-
"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 directions.
(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 from the testator a PC No. 15853/16 Sudha Sharma Vs. State & Ors. Page 8 of 20 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".
18. The plain words used in above quoted clause make it abundantly clear that the executant of a Will need not put his signatures and that affixing his mark is sufficient mode of authentication. As shall also be noted with reference to rule of evidence that while the law requires attestation by minimum two witnesses, it is not mandatory that both must have been present at the time when the testator executed the document, the presence of the testator being more important when the witnesses attest and further that, for proof of such execution and attestation, the testimony of only one of such witnesses is enough, that also only if such witness is alive and available.
19. The provisions contained in Section 67 and 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, also being germane to the discussion here, may be quoted:-
"67. Proof of signature and handwriting of person alleged to have signed or written document produced.---If a document is alleged to be signed or to have been written wholly or in part by any person, the signature or the handwriting of so much of the document as is alleged to be in that person's handwriting must be proved to be in his handwriting.
68. Proof of execution of document required by law to be attested.--- If a document is PC No. 15853/16 Sudha Sharma Vs. State & Ors. Page 9 of 20 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 it 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 provision 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."
Apex court in H. Venkatachala Iyengar Vs B.N. Thimmajamma & Others, 1959 AIR 443 decided on 13 th November 1958 in which the Apex court laid down the following prepositions on the nature and standard of evidence required to prove a Will:-
1. Stated generally, a will has to be proved like any other document, the test to be applied being the usual test of the satisfaction of the prudent mind in such matters. As in the case of proof of other documents, so in the case of proof of wills, one cannot insist on proof with mathematical certainty.
2. Since Section 63 of the Succession Act requires a will to be attested , it cannot be used as evidence until, as required by Section 68 of the Evidence Act, one attesting witness at least has been called for the purpose of proving its execution, if there be an attesting witness alive, and subject to the process of the court and capable of giving evidence.
3. Unlike other documents, the will speaks from the death of the testator and therefore the maker of the will is never available for deposing PC No. 15853/16 Sudha Sharma Vs. State & Ors. Page 10 of 20 as to the circumstances in which the will came to be executed. This aspect introduces an element of solemnity in the decision of the question whether the document propounded is proved to be the last will and testament of the testator. Normally, the onus which lies on the propounder can be taken to be discharged on proof of the essential facts which go into the making of the will.
4. Cases in which the execution of the will is surrounded by suspicious circumstances stand on a different footing. A shaky signature, a feeble mind, an unfair and unjust disposition of property, the propounder himself taking a leading part in the making of the will under which he receives a substantial benefit and such other circumstances raise suspicion about the execution of the will. That suspicion cannot be removed by the mere assertion of the propounder that the will bears the signature of the testator or that the testator was in a sound and disposing state of mind and memory at the time when the will was made, or that those like the wife and children of the testator who would normally receive their due share in his estate were disinherited because the testator might have had his own reasons for excluding them.
The presence of suspicious circumstances makes the initial onus heavier and therefore, in cases where the circumstances attendant upon the execution of the will excite the suspicion of the court, the propounder must remove all legitimate suspicions before the document can be accepted as the last will of the testator.
5. It is in connection with wills, the execution of which is surrounded by suspicious circumstances that the test of satisfaction of the judicial conscience has been evolved. That test emphasises that in determining the question as to whether an instrument produced before the court is the last will of the testator, the court is PC No. 15853/16 Sudha Sharma Vs. State & Ors. Page 11 of 20 called upon to decide a solemn question and by reason of suspicious circumstances the court has to be satisfied fully that the will has been validly executed by the testator.
6. If a caveator alleges fraud, undue influence, coercion, etc, in regard to the execution of the will, such pleas have to be proved by him, but even in the absence of such pleas, the very circumstances surrounded the execution of the will may raise a doubt as to whether the testator was acting of his own free will. And then it is a part of the initial onus of the propounder to remove all reasonable doubts in the matter. "
In Shashi Kumar Banerjee vs. Subodh Kumar Banerjee, AIR 1964, SC 529, a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court had the occasion to rule on the principles governing mode of proof of a Will before a probate court. Referring, inter alia, to the earlier decision of H. Venkatachala Iyengar ( supra), the court held:-
"4.... The mode of proving a will does not ordinarily differ from that of proving any other document except as to the special requirement of attestation prescribed in the case of a will by S.63 of the Indian Succession Act. The onus of proving the will is on the propounder and in the absence of suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the will, proof of testamentary capacity and the signatures of the testator as required by law is sufficient to discharge the onus. Where however there are suspicious circumstances, the onus is on the propounder to explain them to the satisfaction of the Court before the Court accepts the will as genuine. Where the caveator alleges undue influence, fraud and coercion, the onus is on him to prove the same. Even where there are no such pleas but the circumstances give rise to doubts, it is for the propounder to satisfy the conscience of the Court. The suspicious circumstances may be as to genuineness of the PC No. 15853/16 Sudha Sharma Vs. State & Ors. Page 12 of 20 signature of the testator, the condition of the testator's mind, the dispositions made in the will being unnatural improbable or unfair in the light of relevant circumstances or there might be other indications in the will to show that the testator's mind was not free. In such a case the Court would naturally expect that all legitimate suspicious should be completely removed before the document is accepted as the last will of the testator. If the propounder himself takes part in the execution of the will which confers a susbtantial benefit on him, that is also a circumstance to be taken into account and the propounder is required to remove the doubts by clear and satisfactory evidence. If the propounder succeeds in removing the suspicious circumstances the Court would grant probate, even if the will might be unnatural and might cut off wholly or in part near relations..."
( emphasis supplied)
20. The decisions of the Supreme Court in Uma Devi Nambiar Vs. T.C. Sidhan, (2004) 2 SCC 321, and Pentakota Satyanarayana Vs. Pentakota Seetharatnam, (2005) 8 SCC 67 are authorities on the principle that active participation of the propounder or beneficiary in the execution of the Will or exclusion of the natural heirs need not or necessarily lead to an inference that the Will was not genuine. One may quote, with advantage, the following observations in Uma Devi Nambiar (supra):-
"16. A will is executed to alter the ordinary mode of succession and by the very nature of things, it is bound to result in either reducing or depriving the share of natural heirs. If a person intends his property to pass to his natural heirs, there is no necessity at all of executing a will. It is true that a propounder of the will has to remove all suspicious circumstances. Suspicion means PC No. 15853/16 Sudha Sharma Vs. State & Ors. Page 13 of 20 doubt, conjecture or mistrust. But the fact that natural heirs have either been excluded or a lesser share has been given to them, by itself without anything more, cannot be held to be a suspicious circumstances especially in a case where the bequest has been made in favour of an offspring. As held in P.P.K. Gopalan Nambiar v. P.P.K. Balakrishnan Nambiar [1995 Supp (2) SCC 664] it is the duty of the propounder of the will to remove all the suspected features, but there must be real, germane and valid suspicious features and not fantasy of the doubting mind. It has been held that if the propounder succeeds in removing the suspicious circumstances, the court has to give effect to the will, even if the will might be unnatural in the sense that it has cut off wholly or in part near relations. ( See Pushpavathi v. Chandraraja Kadamba [(1993) 3 SCC 291]. In Rabindra Nath Mukerjee v. Panchanan Banerjee [(1995) 4 SCC 459] it was observed that the circumstance of deprivation of natural heirs should not raise any suspicion because the whole idea behind execution of the will is to interfere with the normal line of succession and so, natural heirs would be debarred in every case of will. Of course, it may be that in some cases they are fully debarred and in some cases partly."
(emphasis supplied)
21. Following the above rulings, the Supreme Court in Mahesh Kumar (dead) by LRs Vs. Vinod Kumar & Ors., (2012) 4 SCC 387, held, in the facts and circumstances of the said case that the evidence unmistakably showing that the objectors had separated from the family, taking their respective shares, not bothering to look after the parents in their old age, there was "nothing unatural or unusual" in the decision of the testator ( the father) to give his share in the joint family property to the son PC No. 15853/16 Sudha Sharma Vs. State & Ors. Page 14 of 20 who, along with his wife and children, had taken care of the parents, adding that :-
"Any person of ordinary prudence would have adopted the same course and would not have given anything to the ungrateful children from his/her share in the property."
22. In Hari Singh & Anr Vs. The State & Anr. 2010 ( 120) DRJ 716, a division bench of this Court, after noting the law declared, inter alia, in Uma Devi Nambiar (supra), observed thus:-
"31 Courts are not expected to be satisfied that a bequenathal is rational or not; what has to be considered is whether the bequest was so unnatural that the testator could not have mae it. ... There is nothing in law that prescribes that the testatmentary document has to be made and executed on the same day. Law does not mandate that each of the witnesses must be aware of the contents of the Will and the nature of the bequests. The rigours of attestation endeavour to eradicate manipulation and fabrication of such a testament by mandating that the testator as well as the witnesses should be simultaneously present at the time of its execution; nothing more and nothing less. Though there is no categorical evidence coming forth on the record, we do not find this fact to be legally anomalous or suspicious as to impeach the entire case of the appellant/petitioner."
(emphasis supplied)
23. Naveen Bhatia through LRs, Vs. Raj Kumari Bhatia & Ors.
decided by late Hon'ble Justice Valmiki J. Mehta of our own High Court and reported as 2017 (165) DRJ 511, holding as follows :-
PC No. 15853/16 Sudha Sharma Vs. State & Ors. Page 15 of 20"A trial court commits legal error by going into issues of title of the properties because a Probate Court only decides the validity or invalidity of execution of the will. Whether or not the testator did or did not have title to the properties which were subject of bequests under the will or that actually someone else had title or that the testator had title only of some of the properties and not all of the properties or that testator had only part interest and not full interest in the bequeathed properties etc. etc. are all issues which have to be decided by a civil court in a civil suit between the parties whenever and where ever disputes will arise with respect to title of a particular property."
ISSUEWISE FINDINGS
24. I have gone the record of case file and have heard the arguments advanced by Ld. Counsel for parties and considered the case laws cited above and my issue-wise findings are as follows :-
ISSUES NO-1 & 3
1) Whether the will dated 09.07.2009 executed by testatrix Smt. Janak Kumari is a valid, legal and genuine will?
OPP
25. Admittedly, the will in question is neither notarized nor registered. Hence, a good amount of caution is required while examining the same. Admittedly, the deceased had been residing with the objector till her last breath except for a period PC No. 15853/16 Sudha Sharma Vs. State & Ors. Page 16 of 20 of 10 days when, as per the petitioner, she had gone to visit her house, which visit has been denied by the objector. It is also admitted position that the objector was taking good care of her and had even appointed a nurse to look after her physical needs. Admittedly, the deceased was suffering from old age ailments while the alleged will was executed. It is also admitted position that she was 82 years of age at that time.
26. The only attesting witness examined to prove the will does not appear to be a truthful and independent witness, to me. There are more than one reason for the same. The witness was residing at a far off distance from the deceased. He did not know anyone in her family except her younger son, the respondent no-3. The deceased was near illiterate woman and due to her old age and ailments, must have needed assistance for movement outside her house. Under these circumstances, it is not logical to believe that she maintained a telephone/mobile phone and contacted the witness personally and asked him to be a witness to her will.
At the time of alleged will, the deceased had visited the house of petitioner, as stated by petitioner herself. It is the case of petitioner that deceased had visited her for 10 days for the purpose of will. In overall circumstances, it is clear that the petitioner must have accompanied her to the place, where the will was drafted and executed by deceased, if at all.
27. The attesting witness Sh. Jamuna Lal has deposed that deceased was accompanied by one female. He has not mentioned as to who was that female, who accompanied the deceased. I am of the view that it must have been none other than the petitioner herself as deceased can be safely presumed PC No. 15853/16 Sudha Sharma Vs. State & Ors. Page 17 of 20 to be incapable of independent movement and engaging counsel/deed writer for drafting the will and executing the same. This implies that the alleged second witness was never present at Vikas Sadan, while the PW-2 had signed the will in question. Admittedly, the will does not bear thumb impression of the deceased. Even if assuming for the sake of argument that the document bears the signature of deceased, it remains a mystery as to why her thumb impression was not affixed on the same. If it was a genuine will, nothing prevented its registration before the competent authority, similarly, there must not have been any hitch in appending thumb impression upon the same. What is even more doubtful is that not even photograph of deceased has been affixed on such an important document.
28. Also, there appears no good reason for depriving the objector of her assets by the deceased, if it is presumed that she was owner of the suit property, as claimed by the petitioner. He had taken care of her till her last breath like a dutiful son. Therefore, I am of the view that the alleged will was prepared at the instance of respondent no-3, who is in collusion with the petitioner. The fact that sole attesting witness examined did not know anyone in the family of deceased except respondent no-3, not even the petitioner, goes on to show that he had signed the will at the instance of respondent no-3 and not the deceased.
29. Also, perusal of the alleged signature of deceased in comparison with her signature on affidavit filed in suit bearing no. 411/14, titled "Ravinder Kumar Sharma Vs. DDA & Anr." pending in the court of Sh. Bharat Aggarwal, Ld. Civil Judge (West), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, successor court of Ms. Chhavi Kapoor, the then Civil Judge (West), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi, PC No. 15853/16 Sudha Sharma Vs. State & Ors. Page 18 of 20 shows prima facie that there are visible differences between the two sets of signatures making it likely that the will in question did not bear the signature of deceased. Not only this, the signature of deceased on the will, as compared with her scanned signatures on her PAN Card are entirely different. Admittedly, the hands of deceased used to shiver. This fact of shivering is evident in the signature on PAN Card, whereas it is visible to naked eye and requires no expertise to say that there is no shivering of hand at all in the signatures on the will, making it highly probable that it was affixed by some healthy person and not by the deceased. This fact disproves the case of the petitioner that the deceased had executed the alleged will in her favour. Also, the perusal of the contents of the will reflects that the assertion of objector that it has been manufactured, as per the wishes and desire of petitioner and respondent no-3, is correct and both of them are in collusion with each other.
30. In view of the reasons discussed above, the issue no-1 is decided against the petitioner and in favour of respondent no-2.
Issues No. 2 & 32) Whether the petitioner is entitled to the grant of probate in respect of the aforesaid will dated 09.07.2009, as prayed for? OPP AND
3) Relief
31. The natural corollary of the above discussion is that the petitioner is not entitled for probate on the basis of aforesaid PC No. 15853/16 Sudha Sharma Vs. State & Ors. Page 19 of 20 will. Both these issues are decided in favour of objector and against the petitioner. The petition fails and is dismissed.
32. File be consigned to record room.
Digitally signed by SAVITRI SAVITRI CHAUDHARY
Announced in the open court CHAUDHARY ATTRI Date: 2019.09.02
on 2nd day of September 2019 ATTRI 15:41:34 +0530
(SAVITRI)
Addl. District Judge-02 (West)
Tis Hazari Courts: Delhi
Note :- The above judgment has been dictated directly on computer and shorthand dictation was not given to the stenographer.
PC No. 15853/16 Sudha Sharma Vs. State & Ors. Page 20 of 20