Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: Amit bhatia in Shri Anil Kumar Gupta vs State on 13 October, 2011Matching Fragments
3. The citation was issued in the Hindi Daily newspaper 'Dainik Jagran', pursuant to which one Sunil Kumar Gupta appeared and filed his objections contending at the outset that the Will has not been properly executed which leads no cause of action with the petitioner and also being barred by various principles like waiver, estoppal and acquiescence etc. More so, the required attesting witnesses are not there. It is further alleged that the Will is forged and fabricated document and prepared in collusion between Anil Kumar Gupta, Ajit Kumar Gupta in conspiracy with Smt. Madhu Gupta, Smt. Purnima Gupta together with the attesting witnesses. It is further submitted that the Will has been forged and fabricated by the petitioner in order to usurp the properties left behind by late Shri Sunder Lal Gupta. There were numerous suspicious circumstances such as despite being hale and hearty why the Will was dictated to Sh. Amit Bhatia and further despite there being 100 of friends and relatives in Delhi, why Shri D.P. Bhatia was made attesting witness to the Will, who is not related to him. Then again when the stand of the petitioner about the said Will in the earlier suit bearing No. 145/07 which was fought between the petitioner and the respondent no.2 goes to indicates that the petitioner with a view to deprive the respondent no. 2, hatched a conspiracy and prepared a forged and fabricated Will on the basis of which the respondent no.2 is being attempted to be denied with valuable rights in the property left behind by the deceased Shri Sunder Lal Gupta.
4. Rejoinder to the objections was filed whereby the contentions made in the objections were controverted and the case set up in the petition was reiterated by the petitioners.
5. On the basis of the pleadings, the following issues were framed on 3.2.2011:
1. Whether the Will dated 13.9.2004 has been executed properly by Shri Sunder Lal Gupta and probate of the same can be granted? OPP.
2. Relief.
6. The petitioner in support of their case examined himself as PW1, Shri D.P. Bhatia as PW2 and Shri Amit Bhatia as PW3 and thereafter closed their evidence.
9. To establish the above aspect, the petitioner has primarily relied upon the testimony of the attesting witness Sh. D.P. Bhatia examined as PW2 and from the strength of his unassailed testimony, it is attempted to show that Shri Sunder Lal Gupta was in perfect physical and mental health when the Will was executed by him, which was witnessed by Shri D.P. Bhatia. It has also come in the evidence that the Will which is a hand written document was prepared on the dictation of Shri Sunder Lal Gupta by Shri Amit Bhatia who has been examined as PW3. Incidentally, Amit Bhatia happens to be son of Shri D.P. Bhatia, both of whom are practising Advocates. Shri Amit Bhatia has appeared as PW3 and testified that he had prepared the Will on the dictation of the executor Shri Sunder Lal Gupta. The Will which was so executed is Ex.PW1/3.
11. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that the signatures of Amit Bhatia are there on the Will and he was too had witnessed the execution of the Will, therefore, the requirement of two attesting witnesses stands satisfied. However, the testimony of PW3 Shri Amit Bhatia is contrary to what has been contended by the counsel for the petitioner as he has deposed categoricaly that he had signed the Will as drafter of the said Will at point C. It is also stated by him that the Will was drafted by the deceased Sunder Lal Gupta as per his own wishes. It was PW3 Shri Amit Bhatia, who in his own hand writing, on the basis of oral dictation of Sunder Lal Gupta, written the Will. It makes amply clear that Shri Amit Bhatia was not the attesting witness to the Will. In this context, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has emphasised that the person put his signatures on the document for some other purpose i.e. to certify that he is scriber or a registered officer, he is not the attesting witness, reference can be made to Rupa Chand Mannulal Vs. Gangubai 1978 UCR 710 (Bom) (DB).