Delhi High Court Upholds Registered Will Over Later Unregistered Will Citing Suspicious Circumstances and Lack of Corroboration - 2025-03-26

Delhi High Court Declares Registered 1989 Will as Last Testament, Dismissing Claims of Forged 1992 Will

New Delhi, March 25, 2025 – The Delhi High Court, presided over by Justice DharmeshSharma , has delivered a significant judgment in a protracted family dispute concerning the validity of two competing wills. The court dismissed an appeal challenging a lower court's decision that probated a registered will from 1989, while declaring a later, unregistered will from 1992 as forged and fabricated.

Case Overview: Battle of the Wills

The case, FAO 319/2007, Rama Alagh & Ors. v. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) & Ors. , arose from a dispute over the estate of the late Shri Jagdish Chander Mehra . Following his death in 1993, two wills surfaced. The first, dated January 31, 1989, and duly registered, was propounded by Smt. Savita Malhotra , the testator's daughter-in-law, in favour of herself and her children. The second will, dated June 16, 1992, presented by the testator's three daughters, purportedly bequeathed the property equally among all five children (including the deceased son).

The daughters initially filed an injunction suit claiming intestacy, then later a probate petition for the 1992 will. Savita Malhotra also filed a probate petition for the 1989 will. The Probate Court consolidated the petitions and ultimately ruled in favor of the 1989 will, finding the 1992 will to be forged. This appeal challenged that decision.

Arguments Presented

Appellants (Daughters): Represented by Mr. Rakesh Saini, argued that the 1989 will's probate petition was time-barred under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963. They also contended that the 1989 will was not properly proven under Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, as attesting witnesses were not examined. They emphasized that the 1992 will explicitly revoked the earlier one, reflecting the testator's changed intentions.

Respondents (Daughter-in-law & Children): Represented by Mr. Deepak Tyagi and Mr. Ishan Seth, countered that the limitation period started when the daughters propounded the 1992 will. They highlighted the suspicious circumstances surrounding the 1992 will and pointed to the Probate Court's observations regarding the lack of credible evidence from the daughters. They argued that the execution of the registered 1989 will was admitted and duly proven.

Court's Reasoning: Suspicious Circumstances Surround 1992 Will

Justice Sharma meticulously examined the evidence and the Probate Court's judgment. The High Court concurred with the lower court's findings, emphasizing several "suspicious circumstances" that undermined the credibility of the 1992 will.

The judgment highlighted:

• Initial Suit for Intestacy: The daughters initially filed a suit claiming their father died intestate, contradicting their later claim of possessing the 1992 will at the time of his death. The court noted: "In fact, a bare perusal of the narrative of the plaint filed by appellant No.1 Rama Alagh would show that she had neither disclosed the execution of the first Will nor the second Will and her claim was based on the assertion that her father died intestate..."
• Delayed Disclosure: The 1992 will was allegedly handed over to a nephew, Ram Kapoor , who disclosed it to the daughters a year after the testator’s death. The court found this timeline implausible and lacking corroboration. "There is no evidence as to when Ram Kapoor acquired the Will from PW-1 I.S. Rekhi and why he chose to remain silent for more than a year, before disclosing the execution of such Will i.e. second Will to her aunts..."
• Non-Registration of Second Will: The testator had registered the 1989 will but not the 1992 will, despite being educated and having access to legal advice through his sons-in-law. The court reasoned, "If he was revoking his first will he would have got the second will registered so as to effectively revoke the first will. Non registration of the second will and not propounding the second will at the earliest possible opportunity by the daughters points to only one thing..."
• Witness Credibility: The daughters did not testify personally, relying on a power of attorney holder who lacked direct knowledge. Key witnesses to the 1992 will, including Ram Kapoor and Sharda Kapoor , were not examined, weakening the daughters' case.

While acknowledging the appellants' arguments regarding Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act and the Limitation Act, the court found these arguments unpersuasive in light of the admission of the 1989 will's execution in the 1992 will and the overall suspicious context surrounding the latter document. The court stated, "Although, by virtue of Section 31 of the IEA, an admission may not be conclusive proof of the matters admitted, but admission if made may operate as estoppel. The estoppel here is that once the appellants have admitted that the first Will dated 31.01.1989 Ex.PW-3/1 was executed by their father but it was revoked, the burden of proving the same was upon their shoulders, which the appellants have woefully failed to discharge."

Decision Upheld: 1989 Will Stands

Ultimately, the Delhi High Court found no "illegality, perversity, or incorrect approach in law" in the Probate Court's judgment. The appeal was dismissed, thus affirming the validity of the registered 1989 will as the last testament of Shri Jagdish Chander Mehra . The decision underscores the importance of clear and credible evidence in will disputes, particularly when challenging a prior registered will with a later unregistered one amidst suspicious circumstances. ```