Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Delhi District Court

Also At vs The State Nct Of Delhi on 15 May, 2023

         IN THE COURT OF SH. ARUN KUMAR GARG,
        ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE-05(CENTRAL)
                TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI

PC No. 42293/2016
CNR No. - DLCT01-000433-2011

Asha Devi,
W/o Sh. Ashok Kumar,
R/o H.No. 3722, Kumhar Maholla,
Baraf Khana, Old Subzi Mandi, Delhi

Also At:-
R/o H.no. 14/357,
Nai Basti, Murad Ali Lane,
Lakhnow, UP                                   ...Petitioner

                                    Versus

1. The State NCT of Delhi

2. Smt. Yashoda (Since Deceased)
Through Legal Heirs-

        i) Sh. Nand Kishore
        S/o Late Sh. Tarachand

        ii) Smt. Santosh W/o Sh. Ramesh,

        iii) Smt. Seema W/o Sh. Paramanand

        iv) Smt. Neelam W/o Sh. Vishwnath

        v) Smt. Ruby W/o Sh. Rinku

        vi) Sh. Shamsunder (Since Deceased)
        S/o Late Sh. Taranchand

                 Through LRs.
                 1. Smt. Kusum
                 W/o Late Sh. Shyamsunder

                 2. Master Ronak

PC no.42293 /2016
Smt. Asha Devi Vs. State and Anr.
Judgment dated 15.05 2023                            Page 1 of 18
                  3. Master Kalu
                 Both sons of Late Sh. Shyamsunder

                 4. Baby Palo
                 D/o Late Sh. Shyamsunder

        All R/o H.no. 3722,
        Kumhar Mohalla, Baraf Khana,
        Old Subzi Mandi, Delhi                            .....Respondents

                                Date of Institution   : 02.01.2012
                                Date of Judgment      : 15.05.2023

JUDGMENT :

1. By this judgment, I will dispose off the present petition of the petitioner for grant of Probate/Letters of Administration with Will dated 25.03.2010 executed by late Smt. Kamla Devi in favour of her adopted daughter, namely, Ms. Shivani in respect of her built up property bearing House No.3722, Kumhar Mohalla, Old Subzi Mandi, Delhi-110007 (measuring about 25 Sq. Yds.) consisting of one room, one kitchen, one toilet and one small shop at the Ground Floor and six rooms on the First/Top Floor (hereinafter referred to as the 'subject property').

2. Brief case of the petitioner as per the amended petition filed on 28.04.2012 is that Late Smt. Kamla Devi W/o Late Sh. Jai Singh was a permanent resident of House No.3722, Old Subzi Mandi, Delhi-110007 and has died on 28.04.2010 leaving behind her adopted daughter, namely, Ms. Shivani, her husband having already expired on 28.01.2005. On 25.03.2010, according to petitioner, Late Smt. Kamla Devi being in perfect sound disposing state of mind had executed a Will bequeathing the subject property in favour of her adopted daughter Ms. Shivani in the presence of two witnesses. Unfortunately, according to PC no.42293 /2016 Smt. Asha Devi Vs. State and Anr.

petitioner, Ms. Shivani has also expired on 30.07.2011. Hence, she, being the mother and natural guardian of the executor/beneficiary under the Will dated 25.03.2010 of Late Smt,. Kamla Devi, has filed the present petition for grant of Probate/Letters of Administration with copy of said Will annexed therewith.

3. The present petition was filed by the petitioner on 23.12.2011 while impleading Smt. Yashoda (sister-in-law/Nanad of Late Smt. Kamla Devi) as respondent no.2. The petition was also duly verified by the petitioner as well as Ms. Ratan Bhatnagar (Notary Public) who had attested the Will.

4. Upon receipt of petition, a general citation was directed to be published in newspaper 'The Hindu' as well as at the notice board of the Court in terms of Section 283 of Indian Succession Act. Besides, a special citation was also directed to be issued to respondent no.2.

5. Perusal of the record reveals that no proof of publication of citation in newspaper 'The Hindu' is available on record since the petitioner seems to have deposited diet money for publication in newspaper 'Veer Arjun' instead of depositing the publication charges for publication of the citation in newspaper 'The Hindu'. Even the copy of newspaper 'Veer Arjun', wherein the aforesaid citation was published, has not been received in the matter.

6. Citation was duly served upon respondent no.2 on 25.01.2012, who has filed her objections to the aforesaid petition on 28.02.2012. Respondent no. 2 has objected to the maintainability of the aforesaid petition inter-alia on the ground that even if the case of the petitioner regarding adoption of Ms. Shivani by Late Smt. Kamla Devi is assumed to be correct, the PC no.42293 /2016 Smt. Asha Devi Vs. State and Anr.

petitioner, being the biological mother of Ms. Shivani and having already given her daughter in adoption to Late Smt. Kamla Devi, had no locus to file the present petition claiming herself to be the natural guardian of the beneficiary.

7. It is further the case of respondent no.2, as per the objections, that Late Smt. Kamla Devi had neither adopted any daughter in the name of Ms. Shivani at any point of time nor has she executed the Will dated 25.03.2010. It has further been alleged that Late Smt. Kamla Devi has no right, title or interest over the subject property and hence, was not even competent to execute the Will dated 25.03.2010. Respondent no. 2 has further alleged that the Will has been forged and fabricated by the petitioner in conspiracy with the attesting witnesses. She has thus prayed for dismissal of the present petition with cost by simultaneously pointing out the contradictory plea taken by the petitioner in the opening part of the petition wherein the petitioner had prayed for grant of Probate/Letters of Administration in respect of the Will dated 20.08.1990 of Late Sh. Kuldeep Chaddha.

8. An application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC was thereafter filed by the petitioner seeking amendment in the original petition to the extent the name of testatrix as well as the date of Will had been wrongly mentioned in the heading of the original petition and the said application was allowed by Ld. Predecessor of this Court vide order dated 26.04.2012.

9. By the same order dated 26.04.2012, following issues were also settled by Ld. Predecessor of this Court :-

i) Whether the petitioner has any locus standi to file the present petition? OPR PC no.42293 /2016 Smt. Asha Devi Vs. State and Anr.

ii) Whether the Will dated 25.03.2010 is forged and fabricated document? OPR

(iii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to grant of Probate/Letters of Administration in respect of will dated 25.03.2010 executed by Smt. Kamla Devi?

iv) Relief

10. Petitioner has thereafter examined three witnesses in support of her case including herself. She has examined herself as PW-1 and has tendered her evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW1/A along with following documents:-

i) EX.PW1/1: Death certificate of husband of testatrix, namely, Sh. Jai Singh

ii) EX.PW1/2: Birth certificate of Ms. Shivani

iii) EX.PW1/3: Adoption deed dated 04.11.2007

iv) EX.PW1/4: Original Will dated 25.03.2010

v) EX.PW1/5: Death certificate of Kamla Devi

vi) Ex.PW1/6: Death certificate of Shivani

11. Sh. Dimple S/o Late Sh. Guddu Ram, one of the attesting witnesses to the Will, has been examined by the petitioner as PW-2 and he has tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex.PW2/A.

12. Ms. Ratan Bhatnagar, Notary Public, who had purportedly attested the Will Ex.PW1/4 as Notary Public, was examined by the petitioner as PW-3.

13. PW-1 and PW-2 were duly cross examined by Ld. Counsel for respondent no.2, whereas, the cross examination of PW-3 could not be concluded. Vide order dated 27.08.2019, cross examination of PW-3 was deferred until 01.10.2019, however, the petitioner has failed to make PW-3 available thereafter for her PC no.42293 /2016 Smt. Asha Devi Vs. State and Anr.

remaining cross examination leading to closure of opportunity of petitioner to lead further evidence vide order dated 04.02.2020.

14. It is significant to note that respondent no.2 has died during pendency of the present petition on 23.10.2012 and an application under Order 22 Rule 4 read with Section 151 CPC seeking impleadment of her LRs was moved on behalf of the petitioner on 13.02.2013 which was allowed vide order dated 07.08.2013. Since the LRs of deceased respondent no.2 have failed to lead any evidence despite repeated opportunities, RE was closed vide order dated 14.10.2022 and matter was adjourned for final arguments.

15. Final arguments were thereafter heard on behalf of both the parties on 24.04.2023. Besides, written arguments were also filed on behalf of the petitioner.

16. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for petitioner that the petitioner has been able to prove the Will Ex.PW1/4 by examining one of the attesting witnesses to the Will as PW-2. He further submits that the adoption of Ms. Shivani by the testatrix Smt. Kamla Devi has been duly proved by the petitioner through her uncontroverted testimony, which is duly corroborated by the adoption deed Ex.PW1/3 and birth certificate of Shivani Ex. PW- 1/2. He submits that since Ms. Shivani has already died, the petitioner, being the natural mother and guardian of the sole beneficiary under the Will, was competent to file the present petition seeking Probate/Letters of Administration with copy of the aforesaid Will annexed. It is further submitted that respondent no.2 has failed to lead any evidence in support of her objections despite the fact that the onus to prove the Will dated 25.03.2010 to be a forged and fabricated Will was upon the PC no.42293 /2016 Smt. Asha Devi Vs. State and Anr.

respondent no.2. He has thus prayed for grant of Probate/Letters of Administration with copy of the Will annexed in favour of the petitioner.

17. On the other hand, it is submitted by Ld. Counsel for respondent no. 2 that the present petition for grant of Probate/Letters of Administration is not maintainable, in as much as, the petitioner is neither an executor appointed under the alleged Will dated 25.03.2010 nor she is the beneficiary under the aforesaid Will. It has further been alleged by him that the petitioner is not even a remote legal heir of Ms. Shivani. Even otherwise, according to him, the Will dated 25.03.2010 has not been proved by the petitioner as per the applicable provisions of law. No doubt, according to him, petitioner has examined one of the attesting witnesses to the Will as PW-2, however, the testimony of PW-2 is fraught with contradictions and cannot be relied upon by the Court as a proof of due execution of the Will by the testatrix Smt. Kamla Devi in a sound disposing state of mind.

18. So far as the testimony of PW-3 is concerned, according to him, the same cannot be allowed in evidence on behalf of the petitioner since after her cross examination was deferred by the Court vide order dated 27.08.2019, she has failed to appear along with the relevant record. Thus, under the aforesaid circumstances, according to him, the respondent no.2 has been able to discharge her onus to prove that the petitioner had no locus standi to file the present petition and that the Will dated 25.03.2010 is forged and fabricated, through cross examination of the witnesses examined by the petitioner herself and the averments made by the petitioner in her own petition. He has PC no.42293 /2016 Smt. Asha Devi Vs. State and Anr.

thus prayed for dismissal of the present petition with heavy costs.

19. I have heard the submissions made on behalf of the parties and have also carefully perused the material available on record. My issuewise findings on the issues settled by Lerner predecessor of this Court vide order dated 26.04.2012 are as follows:

Issue No. 1: Whether the petitioner has any locus standi to file the present petition? OPR

20. It has been alleged by Ld. Counsel for respondent No. 2 that the petitioner had no locus standi to file the present petition for grant of probate/letters of administration, since, she is neither the executor appointed under the Will nor is she the beneficiary. He submits that the petitioner is not even the remotest legal heir of the sole beneficiary under the Will.

21. On the other hand, the present petition has been filed by the petitioner alleging herself to be the mother and natural Guardian of the sole beneficiary under the Will namely Mr. Shivani, who had allegedly been given in adoption by her to the deceased testatrix namely Smt. Kamla Devi.

22. At this stage, I deem it appropriate to reproduce relevant provisions of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 which deals with the issue as to the person who can apply for grant of probate/letters of administration with Will annexed. The same are reproduced hereinbelow for ready reference.

"222. Probate only to the appointed executor-

(1) Probate shall be granted only to an executor appointed by the Will.

(2) the appointment may be expressed or by PC no.42293 /2016 Smt. Asha Devi Vs. State and Anr. Judgment dated 15.05 2023 Page 8 of 18

necessary implication.

232. Grant of administration of universal or residuary legatees-When-

(a) the deceased has made a will, but has not appointed an executor, or

(b) the deceased has appointed an executor who is legally incapable or refuses to act, or who has died before the testator or before he has proved the Will, or

(c) the executor dies after having proved the Will, but before he has administered all the estate of the deceased, a universal or a residuary legatee may be admitted to prove the Will, and letters of administration with the Will annexed may be granted to him of the whole estate, or of so much thereof as may be unadministered.

233. Right to administration of representative of deceased Residuary legatees-when a residuary legatee who has a beneficial interest survives the testator, but dies before the estate has been fully administered, his representative has the same right to administration with the Will annexed as such residuary legatee.

234. Grant of administration where no executor, nor residuary legatee, nor representative of such legatee- When there is no executor and no residuary legatee or representative of a residuary legatee, or he declines or is incapable to act, or cannot be found, the person or persons who would be entitled to the administration of the estate of the deceased if he had died intestate, or any other legatee having a beneficial interest, or a creditor, may be admitted to prove the Will, and letters of administration may be granted to him or them accordingly.

Smt. Asha Devi Vs. State and Anr.

218. To whom administration may be granted, where deceased is a Hindu, Muhammadan, Buddhist, Sikh, Jaina or exempted person- (1) If the deceased has died intestate and was a Hindu, Muhammadan, Buddhist, Sikh or Jaina or an exempted person, administration of his estate may be granted to any person who, according to the rules for the distribution of the estate applicable in the case of such deceased, would be entitled to the whole or any part of such deceased's estate.

(2) when several such persons apply for such administration, it shall be in the discretion of the court to grant it to any one or more of them.

(3) when no such person applies, it may be granted to a creditor of the deceased."

23. On a bare perusal of the aforesaid provisions, it is apparent that a probate can only be granted to an appointed executor. A perusal of the Will in question shows that the petitioner has not been appointed as an executor under the Will, though, she seems to have been appointed as the Guardian to look after the beneficiary and her properties, in case the testatrix dies before the beneficiary attains majority. In fact, a bare perusal of the Will shows that no executor has been appointed by the testator in the Will.

24. In the case in hand a perusal of documents produced by the petitioner shows that Mr. Shivani, the sole beneficiary under the Will in question, was a minor at the time of death of the deceased testator and hence she could have applied for grant of letters of administration with the copy of Will dated 25.03.2010 annexed therewith through her guardian as appointed under the Will i.e. the petitioner herein. However, before any petition for grant of PC no.42293 /2016 Smt. Asha Devi Vs. State and Anr.

letters of administration could have been filed by the sole beneficiary, she has already expired.

25. A bare perusal of the Will further shows that Ms. Shivani was the universal legatee under the Will and hence after her death, in the absence of any of her representatives, only such person or persons would have been entitled to the administration of the estate of deceased testatrix Smt. Kamla Devi, as if she had died intestate. In the absence of any such person, it is the creditor of the deceased testator who might have been admitted to prove the Will and letters of administration could have been granted to him or them accordingly.

26. Admittedly, Ms. Shivani, the sole beneficiary/universal legatee under the Will in question, has died intestate and hence to determine the representatives who would be entitled to seek administration of her estate, one needs to fall back upon the provisions of section 15 and 16 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.

27. As per the provisions of Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the property of a female Hindu dying intestate shall devolve according to the rules set out in section 16 firstly- upon her children including the children of any predeceased son or daughter and the husband and in their absence upon the heirs of husband. In the absence of heirs of husband, the property shall devolve upon the mother and father of the female dying intestate and in the absence of father and mother, the same shall devolve upon the heirs of father. In the absence of heirs of father, the same shall devolve upon the heirs of mother of the female Hindu dying intestate.

28. As per provisions of Section 15(2) of the Act, in case the PC no.42293 /2016 Smt. Asha Devi Vs. State and Anr.

property is inherited by a female Hindu from her father or mother, the same, in the absence of any children or children of predeceased children, shall devolve upon the heirs of father of the female Hindu.

29. In the case in hand, admittedly, Ms. Shivani was a minor at the time of her death and was not married. Hence, as per the provisions of Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, her estate would have devolved upon her mother and father. It is the own case of petitioner that although she was the biological mother of Ms. Shivani, however, she had given Mr. Shivani in adoption to the testatrix and her husband way back in the year 1997. Since, even as per the own case of petitioner, Shivani had already been given by her in adoption to the deceased testatrix and her husband, this Court in a petition for grant of probate/letters of administration need not to go into the legality/validity of the alleged adoption and hence, this Court shall proceed to examine the issue of Locus standi of the petitioner to file the present petition on the assumption that Ms. Shivani was validly adopted by deceased testatrix and her husband.

30. As per section 12 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, an adopted child shall be deemed to be the child of his or her adoptive father or mother for all purposes with effect from the date of the adoption. Besides, all the ties of the child in the family of his or her birth shall be deemed to be severed and replaced by those created by adoption in the adoptive family. Although, there are as many as three provisos appended to Section 12 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, however the same are not applicable to the facts and PC no.42293 /2016 Smt. Asha Devi Vs. State and Anr.

circumstances of the present case.

31. Thus, as per Section 12 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956, the petitioner ceased to be the mother of Mr. Shivani immediately after she had allegedly given her in adoption to the deceased testatrix and hence any reference to the mother and father in Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, shall be construed as a reference to the adoptive mother and father of Mr. Shivani, who as per the own case of the petitioner were the deceased testatrix and her husband late Sh. Jai Singh. Admittedly, both the adoptive parents of Ms. Shivani had pre-deceased her and hence, as per Section 15(1)(d) of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the estate of deceased Shivani would have devolved upon the heirs of her adoptive father late Sh. Jai Singh. It is not the case of petitioner that there are no surviving legal heirs of adoptive father of Mr. Shivani at the time of death of Ms. Shivani.

32. On the other hand, in view of provisions of Section 12 of the Hindu Adoptions and Maintenance Act, 1956 and sections 15 and 16 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956, the petitioner is not even the remotest legal heir of deceased Ms. Shivani. The petitioner is thus neither entitled to letters of administration of the estate of deceased testatrix under Sections 233 and 234 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 nor she is entitled under section 218 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.

33. It is further significant to note that the petitioner is not seeking letters of administration of estate of deceased Ms. Shivani but is seeking letters of administration of Will of deceased testatrix Mrs. Kamla Devi. Be that as it may, in view of the legal provisions noted hereinabove, the petitioner would not PC no.42293 /2016 Smt. Asha Devi Vs. State and Anr.

even have been entitled to seek letters of administration of estate of deceased Shivani also.

34. Under the aforesaid circumstances, in my considered opinion, the respondent no. 2 has been able to discharge her onus to prove that petitioner had no locus standi to file the present petition either for grant of probate or for grant of letters of administration with Will annexed. Issue No. 1 is thus decided against the petitioner.

Issue No. 2: Whether the Will dated 25.03.2010 is forged and fabricated document? OPR

35. Onus to prove the aforesaid issue was upon respondent No.

2. It has already been observed hereinabove that the petitioner had no locus standi to file the present petition for grant of probate/letters of administration with Will dated 25.03.2010 annexed therewith and hence, the present petition is liable to be dismissed only on the aforesaid ground. However, since the issues have already been settled by Ld. Predecessor of this Court way back on 26.04.2012, the Court has proceeded to decide all the issues in terms of provisions of Order 14 Rule 2 CPC read with Order 20 Rule 5 CPC.

36. It is significant to note that an un-privileged Will is required to be proved in the manner contemplated under Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, which mandates proof of a Will by examination of at least one of the attesting witnesses to the Will. Besides, the attesting witness to the Will is required to prove its due execution in terms of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.

37. The petitioner, in the present case, has sought to prove the PC no.42293 /2016 Smt. Asha Devi Vs. State and Anr.

Will by examining one of the attesting witnesses to the Will as PW2, who has tendered his evidence by way of affidavit Ex. PW- 2/A. Although the testimony of PW2 by way of affidavit Ex. PW- 2/A was not sufficient to prove due execution of the Will as per the provisions of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, however, in response to the questions of Ld. Counsel for respondent No. 2 during his cross-examination, PW-2 has sought to prove execution of the Will Ex. PW 1/4 strictly in terms of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.

38. Although, nothing material could come during cross- examination of PW-2, however, the petitioner, who was the propounder of the Will and has examined herself as PW1, has contradicted the testimony of PW2 in material particulars. It is significant to note that PW1, during her cross-examination dated 08.12.2015, was confronted with the Will Ex. PW1/4 and she has deposed that the said document was given to her by Ms. Shivani after the death of Smt. Kamla Devi in the year 2011, whereafter, the Shivani has died in the year 2013. However, she has immediately changed her stand and has deposed that Smt. Kamala Devi died in the year 2010, whereas, Shivani has died in the year 2011.

39. She has categorically deposed that she was informed about the document Ex. PW-1/4 by testatrix Kamla Devi between 08.03.2010 to 12.03.2010 when she had come to meet the testatrix at the time of her illness. She has further deposed that the aforesaid document was shown by the deceased testatrix to the petitioner during the aforesaid period when she visited Delhi to see her. However, it is significant to note that the Will had purportedly been executed on 25.03.2010 and the petitioner had PC no.42293 /2016 Smt. Asha Devi Vs. State and Anr.

alleged having seen the same almost 2 weeks prior thereto.

40. In response to further questions of Ld. Counsel for respondent No. 2, it was deposed by the petitioner that the Will Ex. PW1/4 was got prepared on 18.12.2011 in her presence in the chamber of Counsel Sh. Lalit Ji at Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi and at the time of preparation of the same, she along with her husband Sh. Ashok Kumar, and advocates Lalit Kumar were present whereas no one else was present on the spot at the time of preparation of the said document. Once again, it is significant to note that the Will had purportedly been executed by the deceased testatrix on 25.03.2010, whereas, the petitioner has alleged having got the same prepared on 18.12.2011 when none of the attesting witnesses to the Will were present. She has also admitted having been present at the time of putting of Stamp by the notary public on the aforesaid Will Ex. P W1/4 and has deposed that probably the same was affixed by Advocate Sh. Lalitji.

41. The aforesaid deposition of PW1 not only contradicts her own case as per the petition but also contradicts the entire testimony of PW2, who is the sole attesting witness to the Will examined by the petitioner in support of her case. The testimony of PW1 does not leave any manner of doubt that the Will Ex. PW1/4 was never executed by the deceased testatrix under the circumstances alleged in the petition and the same appears to have been fabricated by the petitioner in connivance with the attesting witnesses and the notary public. It is significant to note that the notary public has failed to produce the relevant record and did not even appear after her cross-examination was deferred vide order dated 27.08.2019 with the direction to her to produce PC no.42293 /2016 Smt. Asha Devi Vs. State and Anr.

the relevant record regarding attestation of the Will and also regarding her license during the relevant period to act as a notary public.

42. In view of the aforesaid discussion, in my considered opinion, respondent No. 2 has been able to discharge her onus to prove issue no. 2 also. Issue No. 2 is thus also decided against the petitioner and in favour of respondent no. 2.

Issue No. 3: Whether the petitioner is entitled to grant of Probate/Letters of Administration in respect of will dated 25.03.2010 executed by Smt. Kamla Devi?

43. Onus to prove the aforesaid issue was upon the petitioner. As has already been observed hereinabove the petitioner has neither been able to prove her locus standi to file the present petition, but she has also failed to prove due execution of Will my Smt. Kamla Devi in a sound and disposing state of mind in terms of section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.

44. It is further significant to note that although in the petition, the petitioner has failed to disclose her relationship with the deceased testatrix, however, during her cross-examination she has referred to the deceased testatrix as her maternal aunt. Similarly, PW2 has referred to the deceased testatrix as the sister of his father-in-law, meaning thereby, that the deceased testatrix was survived by more legal heirs other than the deceased respondent no. 2, the names of whom have not been disclosed by the petitioner in the present petition and hence, no special citation in terms of Section 283 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 could be served upon them.

45. It has already been noted hereinabove that the citation was PC no.42293 /2016 Smt. Asha Devi Vs. State and Anr.

not published in the newspaper as per the directions of this court. Although, in case the petitioner would have been able to prove her locus standi to file the present petition, the court would have granted the petitioner an opportunity to rectify the aforesaid defects, however, since on the basis of evidence led on behalf of the petitioner, the Court has already concluded that she had neither been able to prove her locus standi to file the present petition nor has she been able to prove due execution of Will dated 25.03.2010 by Late Smt. Kamla Devi, having considered the fact that the present petition was filed by the petitioner way back in the year 2012, in my considered opinion, no purpose will be served by giving any opportunity to the petitioner at this stage to remedy the aforesaid defects.

46. Thus, in view of my findings on issues no. 1 and 2 hereinabove and the discussion under the present issue, the petitioner is not entitled to grant of probate/letters of administration with Will dated 25.03.2010 annexed therewith. Issue No. 3 is thus decided against the petitioner.

Issue No. 4: relief

47. In view of my findings on issues no. 1 to 3 hereinabove, in my considered opinion, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief. The present petition for grant of probate/letters of administration with Will dated 25.03.2010 is thus liable to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.

48. Ordered Accordingly.

Announced in the open court on this 15th day of May, 2023. This Judgment consists of 18 number of signed pages. ARUN KUMAR Digitally signed by ARUN KUMAR GARG Date: 2023.05.15 GARG 18:30:35 +05'30' (ARUN KUMAR GARG) Additional District Judge-05 Central District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi.

Smt. Asha Devi Vs. State and Anr.