Sri. G.R.Balaraj vs Smt. Rajamma on 10 August, 2018
33. The learned Advocate appearing for defendant No.4
has contended that the examination of the porpounder is not
essential and the Will has to be marked in evidence of attesting
witness. He has further contended that propounder need not
be examined if she is not present at the time of execution of the
Will. It is not the case of the defendant No.4 that she was
present at the time of execution of the Will. The learned
Advocate appearing for the defendant No.4 has placed reliance
on the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of
Narendra Nath Nanda vs. State and Others in FAO (OS)2/2011
dated 15.2.2017, wherein it is held that, "the propounder of the
Will need not examine himsef, and especially if it is not the
case of the propounder that he was present when the deceased
executed the Will". In view of the ratio laid down in the
aforesaid decision, the contention of the plaintiff that defendant
No.4 has not entered the witness box and Will is not marked
through her is mis-conceived.