Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Submissions of counsels

18. In the background of the pleadings and evidence on record, submissions were made by counsels in support of their respective cases in line with the stand taken therein. Mr Singhal made submissions on behalf of the plaintiff/Vinod Prabha while, Mr Sachdeva appeared on behalf of Indu Sehgal. Ish Kumar was represented by Mr Sujoy Kumar and Mr Ashwani Kumar was represented by Mr Jagdev Singh. The submission of Mr Singhal and Mr Sachdev were more or less same.

22. Mr Jagdev Singh, who appeared on behalf of Ashwani Kumar, argued that the Will dated 03.05.1975 (Ex. D2/W1/1) was a genuine document which conformed to the provisions of Section 63(c) of the Succession Act and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (hereinafter referred to as the "Evidence Act"). He submitted that provisions of Section 63(c) of the Succession Act require that a valid Will should have been signed by the executants in the presence of the witnesses. The witnesses, in turn, should append their signatures in the presence of the executant or, the witness, at least, should receive confirmation from the executant that the Will has been signed by him or bears his mark. Mr Jagdev Singh submitted that it was sufficient to proof of execution of a Will if, one of the witnesses were to affirm this fact. This requirement of law, according to Mr Jagdev Singh, was fulfilled completely as was evident from Tuteja‟s testimony. Mr Jagdev Singh submitted that Tuteja in his testimony had consistently deposed that D.R. Chopra had executed the Will dated 03.05.1975 (Ex. D2/W1/1) without any pressure or coercion, and that he was in a sound disposing mind at the time of execution of the Will. Mr Jagdev Singh submitted that Tuteja in his testimony had adverted to the effect that D.R. Chopra had signed the Will in his presence. On Tuteja being shown the Will dated 03.05.1975 (Ex. D2/W1/1), he had identified the signatures of D.R. Chopra and his own signatures on the said Will. He had also gone on to say that the other witness, i.e., Surender Singh had also signed the Will dated 03.05.1975 (Ex. D2/W2/1). As regards the relationship of Ashwani Kumar with his parents, Mr Jagdev Singh submitted that the same was not relevant. Nevertheless, Mr Jagdev Singh tried to prove by alluding to the photographs of Ashwani Kumar‟s marriage to demonstrate that the parents of Ashwani Kumar were present at his marriage, since he enjoyed a cordial relationship with them. On the aspect of relationship of his sibling with his parents Mr Jagdev Singh laid stress that, on the other hand, the relationship of the plaintiff/ Vinod Prabha was less than cordial as she had married against the wishes of her parents. For this purpose he relied upon the testimony of his other siblings including Ish Kumar and Indu Sehgal. REASONS