PRADEEP NANDRAJOG, J.

( 1 ) PETITIONER, who is the son of the brother of late Sh. Sudershan Lal, seeks probate of a Will dated 15. 6. 1984 alleging that the Will is the last legal and valid testament of Sh. Sudershan Lal. Opposition to the Will is by the sisters of the deceased. Admitted position between the parties is that the deceased was a bachelor. He died on 1. 2. 1987.

( 2 ) THE Will purports to be registered with the Sub-Registrar as Document no. 1975, Volume No. 399 at page No. 26; registration being after the death of Sh. Sudershan Lal. Date of registration is 8. 5. 1987.

( 3 ) THE Will, Ex. PW-1/2 purports to be witnessed by one Sh. Kulbhushan and one Sh. Pehlad.

( 4 ) TO prove the Will, Kulbushan has been examined as PW-2. Pehlad, having died before evidence was recorded, could obviously be not examined as a witness. However, petitioner has filed certified copies of deposition of Pehlad recorded in a civil proceeding in the court of Smt. Sunita Rani, Civil Judge, Delhi.

( 5 ) DEPOSITION of Pehlad in the suit aforesaid was sought to be brought on record in the present proceedings by and under I. A. No. 331/05. Certified copy of the deposition by Pehlad has been filed alongwith the said application. Vide order dated 1. 11. 2004, deposition of Pehlad was permitted to be tendered in evidence. It was however, recorded that its evidenciary value would be determined when the occasion arises. The occasion has arisen now as final judgment is being pronounced.

( 6 ) ACCORDING to the sisters of the deceased, the Will relied upon by the petitioner is stated to be a fabricated document.

( 7 ) ON 18. 9. 1995, following issues were framed:-

1. Whether the deceased had executed a valid Will on 15-6-1984? OPP 2. Whether the properties mentioned in the Will are Joint Hindu Properties? If so, to what effect? OPD 3. Whether the Will dated 15-6-1984 is forged and fabricated and as a result of a conspiracy as alleged in para 8 of the preliminary objections in the written statement? opd 4. Whether the petition is not in accordance with Sections 276, 280 and 281 of the Indian Succession Act? If so, to what effect? OPD 5. Whether the registration of the Will is in accordance with law? OPD 6. Whether the schedule of properties filed alongwith the petition is not in accordance with the contents of the Will? If so, to what effect? OPD

( 8 ) COUNSEL for the parties agree that the probate proceedings have a limited jurisdiction, being whether the testament relied upon is the last, legal and valid testament of the executor and therefore, issue No. 2 need not be decided.

( 9 ) I was informed at the Bar that the issue of title to the properties bequeathed by the deceased is a subject matter of civil proceedings. Sisters have taken up the stand that the properties belonged to the Joint Hindu Family. This issue would accordingly be decided in the civil suit.

( 10 ) SINCE the Will purports to be registered after the death of the deceased, counsel agreed that issue No. 5 is of no consequence and accordingly need not be decided. A caveat; counsel for the petitioner made limited reliance on the issue of registration, reliance being to the effect that the document in question existed as on 8. 5. 1987. This submission was made by counsel for the petitioner, in light of the argument of Dr. K. S. Sidhu, learned senior counsel for the objectors that the conduct of the petitioner shows that the Will was brought into existence much later, somewhere around May, 1988. Issue Nos. 1 and 3

( 11 ) BEING inter-related, the two issues may be decided together.

( 12 ) PROBATE petition was filed in the registry of this Court on 1. 12. 1987. Registry recorded certain objections to the petition as filed and accordingly returned the petition to the petitioner for removing the objections. Petitioner took back the petition for removing the objections and refiled the same on 26. 5. 1988. Petitioner did not prosecute the petition. He neither filed the process for issuing notices to

Click Here to Read the rest of this document