Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

4. Respondents were served in the matter. Respondent no. 5 Nikki During the proceedings respondent no. 3 Sh. Ajay Khanna expired and his LRs were brought on record vide order dated 3.9.05 and vide said order Sh. Anil Khanna, respondent no. 2 was appointed as guardian Ad Litem/next friend of minors Jyotsana, respondent no. 3(b) and 3(c) and Master Arav Khanna.

5. Objections were filed on behalf of objectors Anil Khanna and Mrs. Gita Khanna w/o late Sh. Ajay Khanna jointly whereby it was stated that alleged Will was not executed by the deceased Sh. A.S. Khanna and the same is forged and manipulated. It was stated that deceased Sh. A.S. Khanna was not having sound state of mind on the date of alleged Will because he was suffering from paralytic stroke and was under the influence of medication. It was stated that even after reading so called alleged averments in the so called alleged Will it is clearly indicated that there was no such intention of the deceased Sh. A.S. Khanna to execute any such Will as alleged. It was stated that on reading of entire Will it is evidence from start till end that it is nowhere stated that who had executed it. It was stated that on one point it was mentioned C-4/140 but the area is not mentioned and complete PC-57/13/97 Page:-4/36 address was not mentioned which clearly indicates itself that he might be making some notes. It was further pointed out that in the alleged Will it was mentioned that the ground floor will to Ms Ajau Kapoor whereas there is no such person or LR by that name. It was also stated that share holding of M/s Anil Rubber Mills on the date of alleged Will was not as alleged as per company record. It was also pointed out that in the Will a plot of 500 sq. yards was written but it is nowhere mentioned where the said plot was situated. It was also stated that on the date of so called alleged Will it was mentioned that Rs. 10 lakhs will go to Anil Kanna from his holdings, however there was no cash holding of Rs.10 lakh in the account of deceased on the date of alleged Will. It was stated that regarding shop of Sadar Bazar no number, gali or any identification of said shop was mentioned. It was further pointed out that in the Will it was mentioned that deceased's bank balance will be equally divided between Anju Kapoor, Mr. Anil Kapoor and Mr. Ajay Kapoor. As stated there is no legal heir of deceased by the name of Anil Kapoor and Ajay Kapoor and not only this there is no family member by the name of Anil Kapoor or Anjay Kapoor. It was averred that above discrepancies clearly indicate how the alleged Will was manufactured/fabricated. It was also stated that as per the alleged PC-57/13/97 Page:-5/36 Will Ms. Neena Kapoor had admitted that she was not present on 7.11.96 and alleged signatures had not been put in her presence whereas as per law the attesting witness should sign at one place in the presence of each other. It was stated that Mr. S.Kumar alleged witness is a dharam brother of the petitioner and signatures are not of Radha Tayde which were also fabricated. It was also stated that it is interesting to note that according to the alleged Will the petitioner is the only beneficiary and how can a father throw both the sons out an deprive them of the assets completely and give most of his assets to a daughter who is of fighting nature and whose conduct is not good and even she was not having good relations with her in laws and that was the reason that she was given divorce on account of her nature. Even she was not having good relation with her father and insisting and fighting with the deceased. As stated she was trying to create difference between the objector and his father by telling lies and poisoning the mind of the deceased. Even the petitioner on the basis of forged and fabricated and false evidence gone to the extent of garbing the property where a guest house was being run during the lifetime of deceased and after the demise of deceased the petitioner started harassing objector which led to litigation. It was stated that daughter of petitioner Ms Nicky PC-57/13/97 Page:-6/36 Kapoor herself filed affidavit before Hon'ble High Court where she has stated that her mother had forged the Will under objection. As stated even Ms Neena Kapoor admitted in tape conversation which will be produced before the court that why she was asked to sign the Will after the death of Sh. A.S. Khanna which clearly indicate that how in the manner the petitioner has manufactured the document with the intention to grab the most of the assets of deceased. It was stated that on account of act and conduct of the petitioner unfortunately Mr. Ajay Khanna died in young age as he was hardly 44 years old and he died on account of torture given by the petitioner and the family of late Mr. Ajay Khanna has been ruined. As stated the objector has already filed a complaint against the petitioner herein as well as so called witnesses on the basis of recorded telephonic conversation between the objector and Ms Neena Kapoor and the Ld. Court has already taken cognizance but the petitioner failed to appear and non bailable warrant was issued against the petitioner and the petitioner was admitted on bail. It was stated that it is the habit of the petitioner to manipulate/manufacture document not only against the applicant/objector but even she also started parallel telephone exchange whereby defrauded BSNL to the tune of Rs. 3 crores. Petitioner as stated also committed many PC-57/13/97 Page:-7/36 frauds in USA as most of time she was residing in USA. It was submitted that under the coercion/pressure of petitioner the deceased had to send money to USA number of times and arranged to pacify the petitioner so that she should not disturb the life of family of deceased. As stated petitioner has not disclosed before the court that on account of custom the deceased Sh. A.S. Khanna refused the proposal of petitioner as the petitioner wanted to marry a muslim but against the wish of deceased she married one Mr. Iqbal Sami with whom also she is not having good relations and her name was Mrs Anju Sami and if there would have been any wish of deceased the deceased would have not mentioned Anju Kapoor and he would have mentioned her by her actual muslim name/post 2nd marriage name. As stated when the petitioner came to know that she would not be able to succeed in her illegal design then she manufactured one letter and also filed the same in another petition filed by late husband of Mrs. Geeta Khanna namely Mr. Ajay Khanna during his lifetime which was registered as 157/99. As stated said letter was forged and fabricated as on the date of said letter the deceased Sh. A.S. Khanna was suffering from illness and was admitted in hospital and was unconscious and under the influence of medicines and no such letter could have been got typed which shows that PC-57/13/97 Page:-8/36 the same has been manufacture for the benefit of the petitioner. It was stated that deceased father of the objector during his lifetime voluntarily having sound state of mind executed his last and final Will dated 6.3.97 whereby he bequeathed his entire movable and immovable properties to his two sons namely Anil Khana objector and Mr. Ajay Khanna in equal share and as such the present petition is not maintainable. It was accordingly prayed that the present petition be dismissed.