Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

8. The learned counsel Mr. Ashok Chhabra made submissions on behalf of the petitioners, and the gist thereof is as under:

i. The testatrix who was unmarried and issueless resided alone in Delhi without her immediate family. After the demise of their parents, while Respondents 2 and 3 continued residing in Mumbai and Paris respectively, the testatrix continued to reside in the family home at W-146, Greater Kailash-I, New Delhi. This property was, however, the joint property of the three sisters. So while Respondents 2 and 3 wanted to sell it, the testatrix did not- this led to disputes between them in 2010. The testatrix filed a suit in this Court seeking permanent injunction against the Respondents 2 and 3, whereas they filed a suit for partition of the joint property. These proceedings were pending not only when the testatrix executed her Will on 27.09.2012 but also when she passed away on 03.05.2015. Therefore, the relations between them were strained when the subject Will was executed and even at the time of her death ii. The three executors of the subject Will, the petitioners herein, are childhood friends of the testatrix who were well-known to the testatrix and her sisters. Most of the beneficiaries of this Will were known to Respondents 2 and 3 since they used to stay with the testatrix in her home whenever they visited Delhi. Inasmuch as Respondents 2 and 3 claim that they are natural legal heirs or Class II heirs of the testatrix, they did not show any care or concern for her. Thus, without any immediate family in the city, the testatrix was quite reliant on the petitioners. In fact, while she battled terminal cancer which ultimately led to her death in 2015, she was looked after by the petitioners. This is evident in the fact that when the testatrix visited Mumbai for medical treatment, she was accompanied by and cared for by Petitioner No.3, and not Respondent No.2who despite residing in the city did not visit her sister in the hospital. For that matter, the testatrix regarded Petitioner No.1 as her own brother; he had performed the last rites for her mother in 2004. It was in these circumstances that the petitioners were made executors of the subject Will.After making her Will on September 27, 2012, the testatrix sent a communication by envelope on 04.10.2012 to all the petitioners telling them about execution of the subject Will and where it was kept. The testimony of all the petitioners, PW1, PW2 and PW3 established that they had been informed of the subject Will by the testatrix. Exhibits PW3/1 to PW 3/3 placed on record is the communication sent to PW3 by the testatrix. Further, the Will had been stored in a safe locker in the testatrix's house, and the petitioners did not know the code to open and close the locker, only the testatrix and her sisters knew of it. The petitioners, therefore, have approached this Court not for any personal gain but only to see to it that the true wishes of the testatrix are carried out. Barring Petitioner No.2, who has been bequeathed Rs. 20,00,000/- under the subject Will, the other Petitioners do not stand to make any material gain from execution thereof. iii. Insofar as the signatures on the subject Will are concerned, the attesting witnesses PW4/Ms. Seema Bansal had stated in her evidence that she and the other attesting witness, Mrs Geetanjali J. Singh had placed their signatures on the Will at the specific request of the testatrix who had brought the Will with her to PW4's residence in Sundar Nagar. This testimony remained unrebutted. Therefore, the two attesting witnesses and the testatrix were present in the house when the subject Will was signed by the former. Further, the signatures of the testatrix were identified by the attesting witnesses and admitted by Respondents 2 and 4. The answers to Questions 71, 72, 74, 76, 77, 78 and 79 given during cross examination by Respondent No. 2, and to Questions 33 to 36 given during cross- examination by RW4 contain this admission. Given the aforesaid, there is no merit in the respondents' plea that the petitioners did not lead cogent evidence to establish the authenticity of the subject Will. The evidence of PW4 that the attesting witnesses had affixed their signatures together in the presence of the testatrix at her express request, coupled with the admission during cross examination by RW1, who was conversant with her sister's signature, that the signature on the subject Will belonged to the testatrix, there were no suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will. The statement of PW4 that she did not remember whether the testatrix had signed the subject Will when the former signed as an attesting Witness cannot void the Will as a witness statement must be read holistically and reliance in this regard was placed on the decisions in Ganesan v. Kalanjiam, (2020) 11 SCC 715 and Hari Singh & Anr. vs. State & Anr. 2010 (120) DRJ 716. A stray inconsistent statement in one part of the witness' evidence cannot discount the entire testimony given by the witness. The decision in V. Prabhakara vs. Basavraj K. (Dead) by Legal Representatives & Anr. (2022) 1 SCC 115 was then relied upon to contend that all relevant materials ought to be considered by a court of law at the time of appreciating evidence. Ultimately a testamentary court is not a court of suspicion, but that of conscience and it is with this perspective that the plea of probate ought to be examined.

20. Having held that the subject Will was validly executed in accordance with statutory provisions, I may now turn to the respondents' plea that the execution of the Will is shrouded in suspicion considering that despite there being no Class I heirs, the only 2 Class II heirs of the testatrix have been left out from the Will. That too, without assigning any reasons for excluding them in the first place especially when they were on cordial terms. It has been further urged that the numerous cuttings and overwriting on the Will is in itself a suspicious circumstance that warrants rejection of the subject Will. In order to appreciate this plea, it may be apposite to examine the circumstances surrounding the execution of the subject Will.