Delhi High Court Rejects Forged Will, Upholds Testator's Last Wishes

Background

The case involves a dispute over the last will and testament of the late Mr. S. Gyan Singh Vohra , a renowned Senior Advocate of the Delhi High Court. His two daughters, Amrit Kaur and Anita Juneja , filed a petition seeking letters of administration for a purported will dated November 7, 1994, which they claimed was the Testator's last will. However, the Testator's sons, Manmohan Singh Vohra and Jatinder Singh Vohra, objected to the validity of this will, alleging that it was a forged and fabricated document.

Arguments

The Petitioners argued that the Fourth Will dated November 7, 1994 was a valid and genuine testament, executed by the Testator in a sound state of mind. They claimed that the Testator's relationship with his son, Manmohan Singh Vohra , had deteriorated, leading him to revoke the previous wills and execute the Fourth Will, which divided the estate more equally among his children.

The Objectors, on the other hand, contended that the Fourth Will was a fabricated document and that the registered Will dated October 18, 1993, along with the handwritten Codicil dated August 21, 1994, were the Testator's last testamentary dispositions. They argued that the Testator had a cordial relationship with his son, Manmohan Singh Vohra , and that the Petitioners' allegations of ill-treatment were unfounded.

Court's Analysis and Reasoning

The Delhi High Court carefully examined the evidence, including the various wills, the Testator's personal diary, and the testimony of the witnesses. The court found that the Fourth Will dated November 7, 1994 was not a genuine document and was likely fabricated by the Petitioners to serve their own interests.

The court noted that the earlier wills and the Codicil were consistent in their bequests, with the Testator favoring his sons for the immovable property and allocating shares in the movable assets to his daughters. The court found the testimony of the Testator's court clerk, Mr. Ram Pershad Rohtagi , to be highly credible, as he provided detailed accounts of the Testator's personal and professional life, corroborating the Objectors' narrative.

The court also highlighted the significant emotional distress caused to the Testator by the Petitioners' actions, such as the publication of the first death anniversary notice of the Testator's wife, which excluded the Testator and his sons. This event was clearly reflected in the handwritten Codicil, which the court found to be genuine.

Decision

The Delhi High Court held that the Will dated October 18, 1993, read along with the Codicil dated August 21, 1994, was the Testator's last testamentary disposition. The court rejected the Fourth Will dated November 7, 1994 as a forged and fabricated document, and dismissed the Petitioners' claim for letters of administration.

This decision upholds the Testator's genuine intentions and ensures that his estate is distributed in accordance with his wishes, as expressed in the registered Will and the Codicil. The court's thorough analysis and reasoning in this case serve as a valuable precedent in addressing complex will disputes and safeguarding the sanctity of testamentary dispositions.