Delhi District Court
Shri Mohan Keshwani vs State on 11 July, 2018
IN THE COURT OF SH. VISHAL SINGH
ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE 06, CENTRAL DISTRICT:
TIS HAZARI COURTS : DELHI
PC No. 42282/16
IN THE MATTER OF:
1. Shri Mohan Keshwani
S/o. Sh. L.C. Keshwani
R/o. Flat No.13, Kilbil, CHS, SNR,
Mulund, Mumbai - 400 080.
2. Sh. Akhil Khanna
S/o. Sh. J.L. Khanna,
1050, Dr. Mukharjee Nagar, Delhi. ....PETITIONERS
VERSUS
1. State
Govt. of N.C.T. Delhi, Delhi.
2. Sh. P.C. Mohan
S/o. Sh. B.L. Sharma
R/o. A138, First Floor,
Shakar Pur, Delhi - 110 092.
3. Sh. Chetan Keshwani
S/o. Late Sh. L.C. Keshwani,
R/o. Flat No.11, New Creation CHS Limited,
SR Road, Khar, Mumbai - 400 052.
4. Sh. Ramdas Keshwani
S/o. Late Sh. L.C. Keshwani,
R/o. Flat No. 19/159, Unmat No.II,
Guregaon (W), Mumbai - 400 062. ...RESPONDENTS
PC No. 42282/16 Mohan Keshwani Vs. State & Ors. Page 1 of 16
Other Details :
Date of Institution : 24.05.2006
Date of Reserving Judgment : 21.05.2018
Date of Judgment : 11.07.2018
Petition U/s. 263 of Indian Succession Act, 1925, for Revocation of
Letters of Administration granted by the Court on 25/09/2003 in Respect
of the Will dated 11/02/1998 of Smt. Kaushalya Devi
JUDGMENT:
1. This is a petition for revocation of Letters of Administration granted by the Court on 25/09/2003 in respect of the Will dated 11/02/1998 of Smt. Kaushalya Devi. As per petition, respondent no.2 P.C. Mohan had obtained Letters of Administration from the Court by committing fraud upon the Court and by concealment and suppression of material facts.
2. As per petition, late Smt. Kaushalya Devi W/o. Late Sh. Prem Chand was the owner of properties no. K22, Krishna Nagar, Delhi, and C5/13, Krishna Nagar, Delhi, having inherited the same from her late husband. Smt. Kaushalya Devi had no issues out of her marriage. Petitioner no.1 as well as PC No. 42282/16 Mohan Keshwani Vs. State & Ors. Page 2 of 16 petitioners no. 3 and 4 are residents of Mumbai, Maharashtra and are the real brothers of late Smt. Kaushalya Devi. Petitioner No. 2 is husband of niece of late Smt. Kaushalya Devi and is a resident of Delhi. Late Smt. Kaushalya Devi used to take help and assistance of petitioner no.2 in all her family matters.
3. During her lifetime, late Smt. Kaushalya Devi executed a Will dated 07/04/1998 in respect of above mentioned two immovable properties situated in Krishna Nagar, Delhi, and movable properties consisting of FDRs in banks and saving bank accounts. Smt. Kaushalya Devi had appointed petitioner no.2 Akhil Khanna as the executor of the Will dated 07/04/1998. The original Will dated 07/04/1998 was handed over by testatrix Smt. Kaushalya Devi to petitioner no.1 for safe custody.
4. Smt. Kaushalya Devi expired on 12/05/1998 in Delhi and after her death, the Will dated 07/04/1998 was got registered in the office of Sub Registrar, Delhi, on 30/06/1998.
PC No. 42282/16 Mohan Keshwani Vs. State & Ors. Page 3 of 16
5. After death of Smt. Kaushalya Devi, petitioner no.2/executor sold property no. K22, Krishna Nagar, Delhi, on 24/04/2000 in pursuance of the Will dated 07/04/1998. Since the original title deeds of the said property were not traceable and there were tenants in the said property, the purchaser took the responsibility on himself to get them evicted. Petitioner no.2 could not sell the other property i.e. Plot No. C5/13, Krishna Nagar, Delhi, due to non availability of the original title deed thereof and it being encroached upon by trespassers.
6. In October, 2003, petitioners received the notice of a criminal complaint case from the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate, Delhi, U/s. 468/463/34 IPC in which respondent no.2 P.C. Mohan had alleged that he had purchased property No. K22, Krishna Nagar, Delhi, from late Smt. Kaushalya Devi on the basis of GPA, Agreement to Sell, Receipt, Will and Possession Letter, all dated 23/02/1998. As per the said notice, a Will dated 11/02/1998 was executed by late Smt. Kaushalya Devi in favour of respondent no.2, which was got registered on 23/02/1998 alongwith other PC No. 42282/16 Mohan Keshwani Vs. State & Ors. Page 4 of 16 documents of sale. As per Will dated 11/02/1998 Smt. Kaushalya Devi had bequeathed all her movable and immovable properties to respondent no.2 as sole beneficiary. Respondent no.2 had made allegation that the petitioners had forged the Will dated 07/04/1998 and wrongfully deprived respondent no.2 of the ownership of property no. K22, Krishna Nagar, Delhi.
7. On 12/07/2005, petitioner no.2 came to know from some police officials that respondent no.2 P.C. Mohan had obtained the Letters of Administration in respect of Will dated 11/02/1998 from the Court. As per petition, respondent no.2 obtained the Letters of Administration in respect of Will dated 11/02/1998 by playing fraud upon the Court. Respondent no.2 was completely unknown to late Smt. Kaushalya Devi and her husband late Sh. Prem Chand. Respondent no.2 had only visited the house of late Smt. Kaushalya Devi at K22, Krishna, Nagar, Delhi, in June - July 1997 and inquired from them about any vacant accommodation for rent purpose. Although, he was given negative reply by late Sh. Prem Chand, respondent no.2 kept on visiting his house even after his death on 23/10/1997. PC No. 42282/16 Mohan Keshwani Vs. State & Ors. Page 5 of 16 Respondent no.2 kept on visiting late Smt. Kaushalya Devi at her home after death of her husband and won her confidence.
8. Respondent no.2 fraudulently obtained title documents of property no. K22, Krishna Nagar, Delhi, from Smt. Kaushalya Devi on pretext of getting the property mutated in her favour and obtained her signatures on some papers. Respondent no.2 fraudulently took late Smt. Kaushalya Devi to the office of SubRegistrar and made her to sign the Will dated 11/02/1998 and got it registered alongwith other documents i.e. Agreement to Sell, Receipt, GPA etc.
9. In this regard, petitioner on.1 filed complaints with the police authorities and also filed suit no.180/98 for permanent injunction against respondent no.2 in respect of properties no. K22, Krishna Nagar, Delhi, and C5/13, Krishna Nagar, Delhi. The said suit got dismissed in default due to negligence of counsel for petitioners.
PC No. 42282/16 Mohan Keshwani Vs. State & Ors. Page 6 of 16
10. The petitioners mentioned in detail how the petition filed by respondent no.2 P.C. Mohan for grant of Letters of Administration of the Will dated 11/02/1998 was dismissed in default but the petitioners, as respondents of the said petition, were never served with notice of application filed by respondent no.2 for restoration of the petition. Petitioners have also mentioned that respondent no.2 did not furnish the names of legal heirs of late Smt. Kaushalya Devi in the petition. Finally, respondent no.2 fraudulently obtained Letters of Administration from the Court on 25/09/2003 at the back of petitioner no.1 and respondents no. 3 and 4, by not getting them served with notice of application for restoration of the petition.
11. In view of the alleged fraud and concealment committed by respondent no.2, petitioners seek revocation of the Letters of Administration granted by the Court on 25/09/2003 in respect of Will dated 11/02/1998, in favour of respondent no.2.
12. Respondent no.2 P.C. Mohan filed reply to the petition and raised the PC No. 42282/16 Mohan Keshwani Vs. State & Ors. Page 7 of 16 objection that the petition was not maintainable and no ground existed to revoke the Letters of Administration granted by Court in his favour. Respondent no.2 asserted that petitioners have forged the Will dated 07/04/1998 of late Smt. Kaushalya Devi, which was never signed by her. He alleged that the petitioners never applied for Probate or Letters of Administration of the alleged Will dated 07/04/1998 as it never existed; it was fabricated later by the petitioners to stake a false claim on the estate of late Smt. Kaushalya Devi. The alleged Will dated 07/04/1998 was not got registered by the petitioners in the lifetime of late Smt. Kaushalya Devi because she never executed it. Respondent no.2 asserted that petitioners want to wrongfully grab the estate of late Smt. Kaushalya Devi, now belonging to respondent no.2.
13. Respondent no.2 denied that petitioner no.1 is a permanent resident of Mumbai, Maharashtra. He asserted that the alleged Will dated 07/04/1998 is a forged and fabricated document and late Smt. Kaushalya Devi never knew Sindhi or Mundi language, neither could read or write the said languages. She used to sign in English invariably.
PC No. 42282/16 Mohan Keshwani Vs. State & Ors. Page 8 of 16
14. Respondent no.2 asserted that he was the only person who assisted late Smt. Kaushalya Devi at the time of her illness before her death, whereas, petitioner no.2 never visited Smt. Kaushalya Devi to help or assist her.
15. Respondent no.2 asserted that he had purchased property no. K22, Krishna Nagar, Delhi, from late Smt. Kaushalya Devi by way of registered GPA, Agreement to Sell, Affidavit, Receipt etc. for a valuable consideration of Rs.3 lakh. Respondent no.2 refuted all the allegations of petitioners regarding obtaining the Letters of Administration in respect of Will dated 11/02/1998 of Smt. Kaushalya Devi by playing fraud upon the Court. He alleged that the petition filed on basis of Will dated 07/04/1998 is barred by limitation.
16. In pursuance of rival pleadings of the parties, the Court framed the following issue on 03/01/2007:
(i) Whether the Will dated 11/02/1998 as propounded by the petitioner was validly executed by deceased Smt. Kaushalya Devi in her sound PC No. 42282/16 Mohan Keshwani Vs. State & Ors. Page 9 of 16 disposing mind and same is her last Will and testament? OPP.
(ii) Relief.
17. Petitioner no.1 Mohan Keshwani deposed as PW1 in support of his petition, whereas, petitioner no.2 Akhil Khanna deposed as PW2. PW3 Anand Prakash Chadha is son of late Sh. Om Prakash Chadha, who was an attesting witness to the Will dated 07/04/1998 of Smt. Kaushalya Devi. He identified the signature of his father at point A on Will Ex. PW1/3. PW4 K.K. Goswami, office of SubRegistrar, Seelam Pur, produced the summoned record i.e. entry register from 30/06/1998 to 05/08/1998 and filed the report Ex. PW4/A that no record was registered as document no. 268/06 in Book No. 3 of his office on 30/06/1998.
Respondent no.2 P.C. Mohan deposed as R2W1 in support of his reply.
18. I have heard the final arguments and have analyzed the evidence adduced by the parties.
PC No. 42282/16 Mohan Keshwani Vs. State & Ors. Page 10 of 16
19. In the present case, petitioners do not seek Probate or Letters of Administration in respect of Will dated 07/04/1998 of late Smt. Kaushalya Devi; petitioners only seek revocation of Letters of Administration granted by the Court to respondent no.2 P.C. Mohan in respect of Will dated 11/02/1998 of Smt. Kaushalya Devi. In fact, strangely, petitioners never sought grant of Probate/Letters of Administration in respect of the Will dated 07/04/1998.
20. Petitioners contended that respondent no.2 P.C. Mohan fraudulently obtained signature of late Smt. Kaushalya Devi on the Will dated 11/02/1998 and got it registered in the office of SubRegistrar, Delhi. Petitioners adduced no evidence to prove that respondent no.2 P.C. Mohan fraudulently obtained the signature of Smt. Kaushalya Devi on the Will dated 11/02/1998 and deceitfully got it registered in the office of SubRegistrar, Delhi.
21. The Will dated 07/04/1998 is stated to be in Sindhi/Mundi language, which resembles Urdu language. It is stated to be authored by late Smt. PC No. 42282/16 Mohan Keshwani Vs. State & Ors. Page 11 of 16 Kaushalya Devi herself. However, petitioners adduced no evidence that the Will Ex. PW1/3 is in handwriting of late Smt. Kaushalya Devi. Petitioners also did not adduce any evidence that Smt. Kaushalya Devi knew Sindi/Mundi/Urdu language. The Will seems to be unsigned. Its translated copy in English or Hindi has not been filed by the petitioners due to which it is not known if the document Ex. PW1/3 is indeed a Will. PW1 Mohan Keshwani as well as PW2 Akhil Khanna replied that late Smt. Kaushalya Devi used to sign her bank documents in English. In view thereof, it remained doubtful that the document Ex. PW1/3 was authored by late Smt. Kaushalya Devi, whereas, the document itself is an unsigned document.
22. The Will dated 07/04/1998 is highly suspicious document. The lingering question is that if Smt. Kaushalya Devi executed it on 07/04/1998 then why it was not got registered by her during her lifetime. She expired on 12/05/1998, whereas, the Will dated 07/04/1998 was allegedly got registered on 30/06/1998.
23. Petitioners examined no witness who saw late Smt. Kaushalya Devi PC No. 42282/16 Mohan Keshwani Vs. State & Ors. Page 12 of 16 authoring or executing the document Ex. PW1/3 or that the witnesses signed it in presence of late Smt. Kaushalya Devi and vice versa.
24. Petitioners filed the original Will Ex. PW1/3 in the Court alongwith the revocation petition, claiming the said Will to be a registered document. This is a contradiction in itself. Upon registration, the office of SubRegistrar retains the registered document and does not return it to the presenter. The presenter can only obtain the certified copy of the registered document from the office of SubRegistrar. Another situation could be that the document to be registered was prepared in duplicate, one copy out of which was presented for registration, whereas, other copy was retained by the presenter. This is not the case herein. In the present case, strangely, the petitioners directly filed the purportedly registered Will dated 07/04/1998 in the Court, which implied that office of SubRegistrar registered it, stamped it and handed it back to the petitioners rather than retaining it in its office. This deviation from procedure remained unexplained.
PC No. 42282/16 Mohan Keshwani Vs. State & Ors. Page 13 of 16
25. PW4 K.K. Goswami, Office of SubRegistrar, Seelam Pur, Delhi, filed the report dated 27/02/2013 of D.C. (Revenue), N/E District, Nand Nagri, Delhi, to the effect that the Will dated 07/04/1998, stated to be registered as document no. 26806, Book No.3, Vol. No. 2217 at Page 82, in the office of SubRegistrarIV, Delhi, has not been found to be registered as per office record and cannot be produced before the Court. As per report, an enquiry was conducted by office of D.C. (Revenue) in this regard and in the outcome it has been inferred that :
(i) either the above said document was registered and not entered in all the relevant Books by the then SubRegistrar/Officials concerned;
(ii) or, document was fake which was prepared by the then Sub Registrar/Officials or by the interested parties in connivance with the SubRegistrar and staff.
Thus, there is no proof that the document Ex. PW1/3 is a registered document. In fact, the document Ex. PW1/3 is itself of dubious origin. PC No. 42282/16 Mohan Keshwani Vs. State & Ors. Page 14 of 16
26. PW3 Anand Prakash Chadha comes across as an interested and unreliable witness. In his affidavit of evidence Ex. PW3/A, sworn on 20/08/2009 before Oath Commissioner, he stated that he had seen the Will dated 07/04/1998, Ex. PW1/3 of late Smt. Kaushalya Devi and it bears the signature of his father late Sh. Om Prakash Chadha at point A as an attesting witness at serial number 1.
On the other hand, when he was examined and cross examined in the Court on 05/04/2010, he replied that he had not seen the original Will of Smt. Kaushalya Devi till that day. He replied that he saw it in the Court on the date of deposition i.e. 05/04/2010. He replied that he had not seen his father late Sh. Om Prakash Chadha signing the Will Ex. PW1/3.
27. In view of above mentioned discussion and analysis, the petitioners failed to prove that respondent no.2 P.C. Mohan had fraudulently obtained the Letters of Administration dated 25/09/2003 in respect of Will dated 11/02/1998 of late Smt. Kaushalya Devi. Petitioners also failed to prove that PC No. 42282/16 Mohan Keshwani Vs. State & Ors. Page 15 of 16 the document Ex. PW1/3 was a Will authored by late Smt. Kaushalya Devi and was duly executed by her. The petitioners failed to make out a case for revocation of the Letters of Administration granted to responded no.2 P.C. Mohan. Hence, the petition is dismissed.
28. File be consigned to record room after completion of all the legal formalities.
Digitally
signed by
VISHAL
VISHAL SINGH
SINGH Date:
Announced in open Court 2018.07.11
16:32:16
Dated: 11.07.2018 +0530
(VISHAL SINGH)
Addl. District Judge06 (Central)
Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi
PC No. 42282/16 Mohan Keshwani Vs. State & Ors. Page 16 of 16