Delhi District Court
Krishna Kaur (Now Deceased Through Her ... vs State on 20 February, 2014
IN THE COURT OF AJAY GOEL, ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE-12
CENTRAL DISTRICT:DELHI
(Senior Citizen Probate Petition)
PC-106/13/07
In the Matter of:
Krishna Kaur (now deceased through her following LRs)
w/o late Sh. J.L. Kaura
i) Col. Karan Kaura(Retd.)
s/o late Sh. J .L. Kaura
r/o House no. 25/H, Block 'B',
Sushant Lok Phase-I,
Gurgaon, Haryana-122001
ii) Vipin Kaura
s/o late Sh. J.L. Kaura
r/o C-428, Defence Clony,
New Delhi
.................. Petitioners
VERSUS
State
......Respondent
Smt. Nirmala Handa (Daughter of late
w/o late Sh. S.L. Handa Sh. J.L. from first wife
r/o 7002, Boulevard East, late Smt. Prakashvati)
Apartment 27F, Guttenberg,
New Jersey 07093, USA
............... Objector
PC-106/13/07 Page:-1/24
Date of Institution: 14.9.07
Date of Assignment to this court: 19.7.013
Date of Arguments: 12.2.14
Date of Decision: 20.2.14
JUDGMENT
1. Vide this judgment, I shall conscientiously decide the present petition u/s 276 of the Indian Succession Act for grant of probate in respect of the estate of deceased Sh. J.L. Kaura s/o Late Sh. B.R. Kaura in view of Will dated 13.12.94. Before proceeding further it is pertinent to mention here that initially the original probate petition was filed on behalf of Smt. Krishna Kaura as she was appointed executor of the Will dated 13.12.94 but during the proceedings she expired and her LRs i.e. her sons were substituted on her behalf vide order dated 19.3.09. The brief facts of the case as narrated in the petition are that petitioner Krishna Kaura was the widow of late Sh. J.L. Kaura who expired on 10.9.99 leaving behind petitioner, her two sons and one daughter Nirmala Handa/objector(from his first wife). As stated deceased Sh. J.L.Kaura s/o late Sh. B.R. Kaura left behind his duly executed and last Will dated 13.12.94 registered on the same day with the Sub Registrar concerned in respect of his properties as per Annexure-A. It was stated that after the death of Sh. J.L. Kaura s/o late Sh. B.R. Kaura, executant/testator of the Will dated 13.2.94, the petitioner Smt. Krishna PC-106/13/07 Page:-2/24 Kaura was the sole and exclusive executor and beneficiary of the said Will. It was accordingly prayed that probate be granted to the petitioner in respect of last Will of the deceased dated 13.12.94.
2. After the petition was filed notice of the same was issued to the Collector of State to file valuation report and the same was filed on 16.10.07. Notice was also issued to respondents/near relatives of the deceased and besides that citation to the general public was issued by way of publication in the daily newspaper " National Herald" as well as by affixation in the court notice board.
3. The publication of the citation was effected in the newspaper " National Herald" on 20.9.07.
4. No objections were filed on behalf of present petitioners who were earlier relation no. 2 and 3 in the list of relations P-1 filed alongwith the present petition. However as mentioned above during the proceedings the original petitioner Smt. Krishan Kaura expired on 18.2.09 and her sons namely Karan Kaura and Vipin Kaura, relations no. 2 and 3 were substituted as petitioners.
5. Objections to the original petition were filed on behalf of relation no.
1/objector Nirmala Handa wherein it was stated that the present petition PC-106/13/07 Page:-3/24
is not maintainable since the alleged Will dated 13.12.94 is forged and fabricated and is not the last and final Will of late Sh. J.L. Kaura. It was stated that at the time when the testator is purported to have executed the Will in question he was living with the Krishana Kaura and his two sons who are present petitioners who have influenced him in executing the purported Will. It was stated that the alleged Will has not been made by the testator of his own free Will and as such is invalid and no probate can be granted. It was stated that testator being very old and suffering from Alzheimer decease since 1990 till his death and other ailments was totally dependent upon Smt. Krishna Kaura and her two sons and was under their influence in making of the purported Will. It was stated that the present petition is absolutely malafide and has been made with a view to usurp the objector's share in the property left behind by the deceased Sh. J.L. Kaura. It was stated that testator was not capable of understanding what he was doing or executing and of forming rational judgment as to its effect upon his interests. As stated he could not pursue what was going on in his neighbourhood and could not answer familiar questions and did not have a competent understanding. It was stated the testator at the time of execution of purported Will did not have a sound disposing mind and his state of mind PC-106/13/07 Page:-4/24 was also impaired on account of old age and he lacked volition, necessary intelligence or apprehension to execute the Will in question. It was accordingly prayed that the present petition be dismissed.
6. Reply to the objections of the objector were filed wherein contents of the petition were reiterated and those of the objections were denied.
7. Vide order dated 30.4.08 from the pleadings of parties, the following issues were framed:-
(i) Whether the Will dated 13.12.94 propounded by the petitioner is duly is the duly executed last and final Will of late Sh. J.L. Kaura in sound disposing mind?OPP
(ii) Relief.
8. In evidence, petitioners produced PW-1 Smt. Krishna Kaura(original petitioner), PW-2 Sh. C.D. Khurana, PW-3 Sh. Pawan Kapoor, PW-4 Arun Kumar Singh, PW-5 Vijay Kumar. PW-1 Smt. Krishna Kaura was the original petitioner who reiterated her case as set out in the petition and relied upon Will dated 13.12.94, her ration card Ex. PW-1/1, election identity card Ex. PW-1/2, death certificate of late Sh. J.L. Kaura Ex. PW-1/3. PW-2 Sh. C.D. Khurana stated himself to be the attesting witness of the Will dated 13.12.94 and the same was Ex. PW-2/1. He categorically deposed that Sh. J.L. Kaura had executed the Will dated 13.12.94 in my PC-106/13/07 Page:-5/24 presence and in the presence of other witness Col. C. Anand which was got registered before the Sub Registrar. He identified the signatures of testator, witness Col. C. Anand and his signatures on the said Will. PW-3 Sh. Pawan Kapoor official from the office of Zonal Inspector MCD brought the original as well as photocopy of letter dated 22.2.05 issued by Sh. S.C. Yadav, Deputy Assessor and Collector MCD and same was Ex. PW-3/1. PW-4 Sh. Arun Kumar Singh from American Express who brought the letter written by Nirmala Handa to their company in connection with the lease of property no. C-428, Defence Colony, New Delhi in favour of Smt. Krishna Handa which was Ex. PW-4/1. PW-5 Sh. Vijay Kumar, Clerk from the office of Sub Registrar-III brought the Will dated 13.12.94 and stated that Ex. PW-2/1 is the true copy of the Will dated 13.12.94.
9. In defence, objector produced Nirmala Handa produced herself as RW-1, Sh. Balbir Singh as RW-2, Subedar Bhoop Singh Chauhan as RW-3 and Sh. A.E. Sebastian as RW-4. RW-1 reiterated her case as set out in her objections. RW-2 Sh. Balbir Singh stated that Sh. J.L. Kaura was working as Major in Indian Army and he was his commandant. After his retirement he had been going to the house of Sh. J.L. Kaura and he had visited at the house of Sh. J.L. Kaura during the period 1992 to 1999. He also stated that PC-106/13/07 Page:-6/24 in the year 1994 Sh. J.L. Kaura was unable to identify person but some times he was able to identify the persons. He further stated that in the year 1994 Sh. J.L. Kaura used to remain ill but his mental condition was good but again said sometimes he used to forgot since the year 1994. RW-3 Subedar Bhoop Singh brought the letter dated 8.4.10 issued by Lt. Col. Tarun Gosain Ex. RW-3/1 and stated that medical record of Major Jagdish Lal Kaura for the period 1990-99 was not kept as he retired in the year 1962. RW-4 Sh. A.E. Sebastian from R. R. Hospital Dhaula Kuan brought the records of death of late Sh. J.L. Kaura which was marked as Ex. RW-4/1 and forwarding letter for the said record is marked as RW-4/2 which bears the signatures of Colonel Jaiswal.
10. I have heard the arguments of Cl. for both the parties as well as perused the record. My issuewise findings are as under:-
11. Issue no. 1 :- Before proceeding to decide this issue, I would like to discuss the relevant law and judgments on this point. Section 278 of Succession Act deals with petition for grant of letter of administration while the effect of letter of administration has been given in Section 220 of the Act which lays down that the grant of letter of administration entitles the administrator to all the rights belonging to intestate as effectual if the PC-106/13/07 Page:-7/24 administrator had been granted at the moment after death. It is further settled preposition of law that grant of letter of administration does not create any title but is only declaratory existing in the LRs of the deceased.
12. Section 2(h) of the Indian Succession Act describes the Will to be a legal declaration of the intention of the testator with respect to his property, which he desires to be carried into effect after his death and as such Will is the only document, which becomes executable after the death of its executor. The person, who produces the Will before the Court or propounds the same and wants the court to rely thereupon, has to prove that:-
1) Will in question is a legal declaration of the intention of the deceased.
2) The testator, while executing the will, was in a sound and disposing state of mind.
3) The testator has executed the Will of his own free; meaning thereby that he was free from all sorts of influence coercion, fear or force when it was executed.
Reliance placed on AIR 1989 Gujarat 75(DB) titled as Vijaya Ben Vs. State. It is further a settled proposition of the law that no specific format of the Will or specific form of attestation is required. Reliance placed on AIR 1998 Madhya Pradesh 1 titled as Chandan Vs. Longa Bai."
In nutshell, the propounder of the Will is required to prove not only PC-106/13/07 Page:-8/24 the ingredients discussed about but also to take away suspicious circumstances if any, surrounding the Will, to the satisfaction of the conscience of the Court. Further it is pertinent to mention that probate of a Will can be granted only where the testator appoints an executor of the Will and in terms of the Section 222, 234 & 276(e) in other cases only letters of administration with Will annexed can be given.
13.Section 68 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 lays down that if a document is required by law to be attested and the attesting witness is alive and subject to the process of the court capable of giving evidence, must be called to prove its execution. Execution consists of signing a document read out, read over and understood and to go through the formalities necessary for validity for a legal act.
14. Section 63 of the Act of 1925 has three several requirements as regards the execution of Will viz.
"(a) the testator shall sign 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.
PC-106/13/07 Page:-9/24 (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 acknowledgment of his signatures 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."
So, a document has to be proved as per the Evidence Act, particularly in terms of Chapter-V starting with Section 61 and Section 68 of Indian Evidence Act being relevant. However, in this context Section 63 of Indian Succession Act gives an exception which requires as to how a Will is to be executed and proved. Section 63 (c) of the Indian Succession Act requires atleast two attesting witnesses as a mandatory condition, the witness may be more than two but not less than two. The non-compliance with the requirement of the attestation in respect of the Will, which is otherwise valid and is perfectly enforceable document, under the provision of Section 63 Sub-Section (c) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, renders the testamentary document, of no effect. Will is a document required by law PC-106/13/07 Page:-10/24 to be attested, and if the standard of proof as envisaged by Section 68 of the Evidence Act, 1872 and Section 63(3) of the Act falls short of legal requirement, a will which is neither registered, nor proved to be attested and executed in accordance with law, cannot be taken into consideration for purpose of establishing claim of the legatee, reference can be made to Gullan Devi Vs. Mst. Punu @ Puran Devi AIR 1989 J&K 51.
15. In the case of H. Venkatachala Iyengar Vs. B.N. Thimmajamma & others AIR 1959 SC 443, it has been observed as follows:
"It is well known that the proof of Wills presents a recurring topic for decision in Courts and there are a large number of judicial pronouncements on the subject. The party propounding a Will or otherwise making a claim under a Will is no doubt seeking to prove a document and, in deciding how it is to be proved, we must inevitably refer to the statutory provisions which govern of documents. Section 67 and 68 of the Evidence Act are relevant for the purpose. Under S. 67, if a document is alleged to be signed by any person, the signatures of the said person must be proved to be in his handwriting, and for proving such a handwriting under SS. 45 and 47 of the Act the opinions of experts and of persons acquainted with the handwriting of the person concerned are made relevant. Section 68 PC-106/13/07 Page:-11/24 deals with the proof of the execution of the document required by law to be attested; and it provides that such a document shall not be used as evidence until one attesting witness at least has been called for the purpose of proving its execution. These provisions prescribe the requirements and the nature of proof which must be satisfied by the party who relies on a document in a court of law. Similarly, SS 59 and 63 of the Indian Succession Act are also relevant. Section 59 provides that every person of sound mind, not being a minor, may dispose of his property by will and the three illustrations to this Section indicate what is meant by the expression 'a person of sound mind' in the context. Section 63 requires that the testator shall sign or affix his mark to the ill or it shall be signed by some other person in his presence and by his direction and that the signatures or mark shall be so made that it shall appear that it was intended thereby to give effect to the writing as a Will. This Section also requires that the will shall be attested by two or more witnesses as prescribed. Thus, the question as to whether the will set up by the propounder is proved to be the last will of the testator has to be decided in the light of these provisions. Has the testator signed the Will? Did he understand the nature and effect of the deposition in the Will? Did he put PC-106/13/07 Page:-12/24 his signatures to the Will knowing what is contained? State broadly it is the decision of these questions which determines the nature of the finding on the question of the proof of wills. It would prima facie be true to say that the Will has to be proved like any other document except as to the special requirements of attestation prescribed by S. 63 of the India Succession Act. As in the case of proof of other document so in the case of proof of Wills it would be idle to except proof with mathematical certainty. The test to be applied would be the usual test of the satisfaction of the prudent mind of such matters." In this context, reference may also be made to a decision in Seth Beni Chand Vs. Smt. Kamla Kunwar and others, (1977)1 SCR
578.
16. The decisive aspect is to ascertain as to whether the Will is genuine and duly executed Will of testator so as to say that it was executed by him in disposing mind out of his own free will and without any force, coercion or fraud and the petitioner was required to dispel all circumstances which are casting doubt on the execution of Will without any force, coercion or fraud.
17. The independence and exercise of the free Will is one of the attributes of the human being and existence, subject to of-course the reasonable restrictions imposed by the civilized society in various form i.e. statutory, PC-106/13/07 Page:-13/24 customary, moral, social etc. The exercise of right by an individual in the property owned by him or her is one such characteristic of the property given to its owner having considerable freedom to the extent of absolute to do whatever one wants to do with the property in question. This freedom is one of the very vital attributes of ownership of the property rather the sole most important one. In this context, the property, being subject matter of one's discretion to use, subject to the reasonable restriction has been brought into the domain of testamentary document. Thus, the Will is nothing but manifestation of the concept of ownership of property and its attributes wherein the owner of the property expresses his/ her wish to dispose off or transfer the property in favour of the entity chosen by him and that seems to be reason why no specific proforma or format of the Will is prescribed anywhere. The requirement of valid Will is that it should be the last testamentary document of the testator, made in sound disposing mind in presence of two attesting witnesses and free from any kind of force, theft or coercion etc.
18. The intention in the Will are to be ascertained by all possible and available circumstances. In this context reference can be made to the judgment in Anil Kak Vs. Kumari Sharada Raje and others (2008) 7 Supreme Court PC-106/13/07 Page:-14/24 Cases 695, wherein it has been observed as under:
"37.-The testator's intention is collected from a consideration of the whole will and not from a part of it. If two parts of the same will are wholly irreconcilable, the court of law would not be in a position to come to a finding that the Will dated 4.11.1992 could be given effect to irrespective of the appendices. In construing a Will, no doubt all possible contingencies are required to be taken into consideration. Even if a part is invalid, the entire document need not be invalidated, only if it forms a severable part.
In Halsbury's Laws of England, 4th Edn. Vol. 50p. 239, it has been observed as under:
"Leading principle of construction- The only principle of construction which is applicable without qualification to all wills and overrides every other rule of construction, is that the Testator's intention is collected from a consideration of the whole will taken in connection with any evidence properly admissible, and the meaning of the will and of every part of it is determined according to that intention."
Similarly, in P. Manavala Chetty V. P. Ramanujan Chetty, it has been further held as under:
PC-106/13/07 Page:-15/24 "9..... It is the obvious duty of the Court to ascertain and given effect to the true intention of the Testator and also avoid any construction of the Will which will defeat or frustrate or bring about a situation which is directly contrary to the intentions of the Testator. At the same time, it must be borne in mind that there are obvious limits to this doctrine that the court should try to ascertain and give effect to the intentions of the testator. The law requires a will to be in writing and it cannot, consistently with this doctrine, permit parol evidence or evidence of collateral circumstances to be adduced to contradict or add to or vary the contents of such a will. No evidence, however, powerful it may be, can be given in a court of construction in order to complete an incomplete Will, or project back a valid will, if the terms and conditions of the written will are useless and ineffective to amount to a valid bequest, or to prove any intention or wish of the testator not found in the Will. The testator's declaration or evidence of collateral circumstances cannot control the operation of the clear provisions of the Will. The provisions of the Succession Act referred to earlier indicate the limits of the court's power to take note of the testator's declaration PC-106/13/07 Page:-16/24 and the surroundings circumstances i.e. evidence of collateral circumstances."
In case of any confusion or mix up and even otherwise, at times, the documents have to be read thread bare in between the lines so as to ascertain as to what exactly is being conveyed based upon the intentions of the writer of the document subject to the condition that sufficient indications are there in the document itself and the attending circumstances also contribute and indicates towards the particular inference cumulatively and collectively.
19. Now I have to see whether in the present case the above principles have been duly made out or not.
20. First of all I deal with the point whether the alleged Will was made by the testator in sound disposing mind or not. Objector has raised the objection that testator Sh. J.L. Kaura was suffering from Alzheimer and other deceases and ailments since 1990 and was even till the time of his death. It was stated that during all this period and also in 1994 Sh. J.L. Kaura was not capable of understanding what he was doing and was not capable of forming a rational judgment as to its effect. To prove the said contention objector has produced RW-4 A.E. Sebastian from the R.R. Hospital who PC-106/13/07 Page:-17/24 produced death record of Sh. J.L. Kaura which was Ex. RW-4/1 wherein in the diagnosis column that Multi Infarct Dementia IHD EHTN was mentioned. Date of admission was mentioned as 8.9.99. RW-3 Subedar Bhoop Singh had deposed that dossier of Sh. J.L. Kaura was weeded out after retention period of 15 years. Except for the death record of Sh. J.L. Kaura nothing is on record which can suggest that he was suffering from Alzheimer as is alleged by the objector. Even the term or cause of death mentioned in the said death record Ex. RW-4/1 is "Multi Infarct Dementia IHD EHTN" which means weak heart, hypertension and multiple areas in brain got damaged. The testator remained hospitalised for 3 days and in view of the nature of cause of death mentioned in Ex. RW-4/1 possibility of sudden stroke cannot be ruled out. There is no mention of disease Alzheimers or any long term disease. Even otherwise the death record pertains to the period 8.9.99 when Sh. J.L. Kaura was admitted in the hospital till 10.9.99 when he expired which is after a lapse of around 5 years from the date of execution of the alleged Will dated 13.12.94 which is quite a long period. There is nothing on record to suggest that during the relevant period of execution of Will dated 13.12.94 testator was suffering from Alzheimer or other ailments which could have effected his cognitive PC-106/13/07 Page:-18/24 faculties as is alleged by the objector. Even own witness of objector RW-2 deposed that "in the year 1994 Sh. J.L. Kaura used to remain ill but his mental condition was good. Sometimes he used to forgot since the year 1994". Death record Ex. RW-4/1 is immaterial since there is gap of around five years in execution of the Will and death of the testator. When there is nothing on record to show that testator was not having good physical and mental health at the time of execution of the Will, then the objection of the objector that testator was suffering from Alzheimer or other deceases since 1990 is hereby rejected.
21.Now I will deal with the point of valid execution of the Will the onus of proving which lies on the petitioners. The alleged Will had been attested by two attesting witnesses namely Col. C. Anand and Major C.D. Khurana. Sh. C.D. Khurana has been produced as PW-2 who categorically stated that testator Sh. J.L. Kaura, Col. C. Anand and he were mutual friends because all of them were ex-Indian Army from the same branch and settled and resided in the same locality of Defence Colony, New Delhi after their respective retirements. It was stated by him that late Sh. J.L. Kaura requested him to accompany him alongwith Col. C. Anand to Sub Registrar office at New Delhi in connection with the execution, attestation and PC-106/13/07 Page:-19/24 registration of his Will. He stated that on 13.12.94 all three of them reached the office of Sub Registrar at Vikas Sadan and there J.L. Kaura read over the contents of his proposed Will to them and then he signed the said Will in their presence and thereafter they i.e. Col. C. Anand and PW-2 put their signatures as attesting witnesses. PW-2 stated that Sh. J.L. Kaura was quite hale and hearty, physically fit and in sound disposing mind when he executed his Will on 13.12.94 and on the said date itself the will after execution was submitted to the Sub Registrar for its registration where he signed at points A-5 and point A-6 and thumb impressions were also obtained at points A-7 and A-8 on the back of page-1 of the Will before Sub Registrar. He also stated that signatures and thumb impression of Col. C. Anand and signatures of PW-2 were also obtained on the back of the said Will as witnesses to the registration. The testimony of PW-2 remained consistent and no dent could be created in the same. The petition is duly signed by the other attesting witness Col. C. Anand who has signed the verification clause in support of the present petition. PW-5 Sh. Vijay Kumar from Sub Registrar office proved that the Will in question was registered with the Sub Registrar office. Though the objector has raised no objection regarding the mode and manner of execution of Will and the objection of PC-106/13/07 Page:-20/24 the objector is restricted to the point that testator was not in sound mental health and was influenced by the Smt. Krishna Kaura and present petitioners. However, one affidavit Ex. PW-3/2 to Municipal Corporation of Delhi as well as one letter to the American Express Company Ex. PW-4/1 have been placed on record by the plaintiff and the witnesses PW-3 and PW-4 have duly proved the same which were alleged to be issued by the objector Nirmala Handa. In the said documents the objector accepted the contents of the Will dated 13.12.94. During her cross examination though objector admitted her signatures on Ex. PW-3/2 but stated that her husband died in January,1999 and her father on 10.9.99. Thereafter her brother came to her and obtained her signatures on some paper by saying that the same were required for change of meters etc and she signed on the same. She also stated that at one time when she was in New York her brothers sent some papers saying that the tenants were not paying rent and she had to sign on the said papers. The said defence was taken by the objector for the first time during her cross examination and she herself has never disclosed about the said documents. Further, it is not a case here that objector is a illiterate lady rather she resides in foreign countries like USA and Indonesia, hence it is very unlikely for a person of stature of PC-106/13/07 Page:-21/24 objector to just sign over some papers without reading the same. Hence, the clarification as forwarded by the objector during her cross examination regarding said documents is unbelievable and cannot be relied upon. The documents Ex. PW-3/2 and PW-4/1 and the admitted signatures of objectors of the same have worked as the last nail in the coffin and has completely destroyed the case of the objector. On the other hand petitioners have duly proved the valid execution of the Will Ex. PW-2/1 and no dent could be created in the case of the petitioners by the objector. Besides the abovesaid, in Will Ex. PW-2/1 the testator had disclosed about his first marriage with Smt. Parkash Vati and objector being his daughter from the said wedlock as well as about his second marriage with Smt. Krishna Kaura and present petitioners being born out of said wedlock. The testator in the Will in question distributed his immovable properties among Smt. Krishna Kaura and her sons and even 50% share was granted to objector Nirmala Handa in the movable assets of the testator. The testator not only discussed about his assets but also mentioned in the said Will that his liabilities of income tax/property tax shall be made out of his estate and not only that he also mentioned about the expenses of illness, funeral and other court fees to be payable from his PC-106/13/07 Page:-22/24 estate which shows the conscious and alert state of mind of testator. The Will dated 13.12.94 Ex.PW-2/1 has been proved to be executed by deceased Sh. J.L. Kaura in sound disposing mind of his own free will and its authenticity and genuineness also stands proved. Accordingly the Will dated 13.12.94 Ex. PW-2/1 is held to be the last testamentary disposition of deceased Sh. J.L. Kaura. In the Will Ex. PW-2/1 Smt. Krishna Kaura was made the executor and in case of her death present petitioners namely Karan Kaura and Vipin Kaura being son of Sh. J.L. Kaura were made executors of the said Will. As is already observed Smt. Krishna Kaura has expired and her sons were impleaded as petitioners in the present petition. Accordingly since present petitioners were appointed as executor in the Will dated 13.12.94 by the testator in the event of death of Smt. Krishna Kaura who has expired during the pendency of present proceedings, hence the case for grant of probate is made out in their favour in respect of Will dated 13.12.94 Ex. PW-2/1. Hence issue no. 1 is decided in favour of the petitioners and against the objector.
22.Relief:- In view of the above findings, the petition is allowed. Probate be granted in favour of petitioners in respect of estate of deceased Sh. J.L. Kaura as detailed in Will dated 13.12.94 Ex. PW-2/1. It be accordingly granted after completion of required formalities in this PC-106/13/07 Page:-23/24 context i.e. filing of requisite court fee, administration bond alongwith one surety bond of the amount of valuation in accordance with law. This file be consigned to record room.
Announced in the open court on (AJAY GOEL) 20.2.14 ADJ-12(Central)Delhi. PC-106/13/07 Page:-24/24