Back
High Court Of Delhi
PADMA BEDI - Appellant
Versus
JOGINDER SINGH - Respondent
First Appeal Order 145 of 1997
Decided On : 05/01/1998
Held:
While it is true that the appellant-widow has been excluded from the bequest in respect of the immovable property, viz. the house, there are several factors which reinforce the authenticity and genuineness of the Will. The entire Will is handwritten by the deceased testator. Its execution has been duly proved. One attesting witness was an Advocate and the other was the step-brother of the deceased, who have been cross-examined at length. Significantly, in the written statement filed, the appellant did not question or doubt the execution of the Will dated 15-1-1986. However, it was her case that due to the changed behavior of the sons of the deceased, viz. respondents 1 & 2 the deceased had revoked the said Will dated 15-1-1986 and had executed another Will dated 24-1-1987, in respect of which the probate was sought. No plea of suspicious circumstances surrounding execution of the Will dated 15-1-1986 was ever taken. On the other hand, as noticed above, appellant and her daughter Had filed affidavits and declarations, admitting the execution of the Will dated 15-1-1986 and giving their no-objection to the executor disposing of the assets in terms of the Will. The executor, or on the basis of the said no-objections, had even obtained mutation of the house in his favor as well as of Shri Jatinder Singh Bedi, the other son. Appellant has belatedly, after the period of nearly four years, filed the petition seeking probate of the Will dated 24-1-1987. The execution of the said Will could not be proved in accordance with law. In fact, one of the attesting witness, Shri M.K. Shrama, Advocate, deposed that the second witness had not signed the Will in his presence. Appellant herself stated that she does not remember about the Will and could not recall how the probate petition came to be filed and whether the Lawyer had given any paper to her or she had given any Will to the lawyer. She said that she never took interest in such matters and did not know how many Wills were written or revoked by her late husband.
Another aspect which may be noticed here is that the deceased is stated to have suffered a heart-attack and was hospitalised. He is stated to have been discharged on 23-1-1987. Learned Counsel for the respondent had, thereforee, submitted that it was highly improbable that after being discharged from the hospital the deceased would drive down to the District Courts at Tiz Hazari, get the Will typed and execute the same on 24-1-1987. Learned Counsel for the respondents 1 & 2 submitted that it was a fabricated Will. It was this second. Will dated 24-1-1987, which was shrouded with suspicion inasmuch as it purported to bequeath all the assets to the appellant to the exclusion of all the other heirs. However, in my view, it is not necessary to go into this aspect since appellant through her Counsel had withdrawn the petition seeking probate of the Will dated 24-1-1987. This leaves only the Will dated 15-1-1986. It would appear that after the recording of the statement of the appellant and the other witnesses in support of the Will dated 24-1-1987, the appellant perforce, Realizing the weaknesses in her case, had withdrawn the probate petition initiated by her. In any case, admittedly, the appellant has not sought to take any action against the Counsel who is alleged to have acted without her consent in withdrawing the probate petition. Not only this, the same Counsel continues to represent the appellant in other matters and the present appeal is also being argued by his son. Appellants contention, thereforee, that the said probate petition was withdrawn without her consent and the same not binding on her is without merit.
( 1 ) APPELLANT is aggrieved by the judgment of the learned additional District Judge, Delhi, dated 31-1-1997, granting probate in respect of the Will dated 15-1-1986 of the deceased Shri Gainda Singh Bedi, with a copy of the Will annexed thereto, which entitled respondent No. 1, Shri Joginder Singh Bedi, the executor under the Will, to administer the estate of the deceased.
( 2 ) THE deceased testator, Shri Gainda Singh Bedi, was a member of the Higher Judicial Service and retired as District and Sessions Judge, Hissar, in the year 1996. Appellant is the semi literate widow of the deceased. Appellant assails the impugned judgment primarily on the ground that the bequest made in the said Will was unnatural, inasmuch as, it made no provision for the residence of the appellant, who was having no source of income and the deceased bequeathed the only house he possessed to his sons, viz. respondents 1 and 2. Appellant urges that there was no evidence of any strained or embittered relations between the deceased testator and the appellant and there was no conceivable cause for exclusion of the appellant from inheritance of the house, which was the prime asset of the deceased. Learned Counsel urges that, in the normal course, wife would be the first beneficiary of the deceased s estate in the absence of strained relations.
( 3 ) LEARNED Counsel for the appellant also placed reliance on Kalyan Singh v. Chhoti, AIR 1990 SC 396, and Ram Pyari v. Bhagwant and Others, AIR 1990 SC 1742, in support of his contention that exclusion of the wife without disclosure of any reason or circumstance shrouded the bequest with suspicious circumstances and raised doubts on the authenticity of the Will.
( 4 ) THE submissions made by learned Counsel for the petitioner, on the first flush, appear to be attractive. However, upon an analysis of all the facts and circumstances and the conduct of the parties and the course of this litigation, the same is devoid of merit.
( 5 ) LET me notice the facts leading to the filing of the present appeal:
(I) Deceased Gainda Singh Bedi, a former District and Sessions Judge, passed away on 16-11-1988, leaving behind the appellant, one married daughters Ms. Usha Singh and two sons, viz. Joginder Singh Bedi, respondent No. 1 and Mr. Jatinder Singh Bedi, respondent No. 2.
(II) Respondent No. 1,. Joginder Singh Bedi, had filed a petition for grant of probate, viz. No. 76/89 titled J. S. Bedi v. State, in respect of the Will dated 15-1-1986. As per the said Will, house No. 9/11, Kalkaji Extension, New Delhi, was bequeathed in favour of Joginder Singh Bedi and Jatinder Singh Bedi, the two sons of the deceased testator. His movable estate was divided equally amongst his widow, two sons and the daughter and a grandson.
(III) Appellant Padma Bedi and respondent No. 4, Ms. Usha Singh, had filed the written statement in response to the said petition. The execution of the Will dated 15-1-1986 was not denied. However, it was claimed that the said Will stood revoked with the execution of a fresh Will dated 24-1-1987, purported to be executed by the testator.
(IV) Appellant, almost four years after the filing of the Petition No. 78/89 (new number 104/89) filed petition No. 268/94, titled Padma Bedi v. State , keeping probate in respect of the Will dated 24-1-1987.
(V) The hearing of the two petitions was consolidated and after framing of issues, evidence was led. Shri Joginder Singh Bedi, respondent No. 1 in the present appeal, in support of his petition for grant of probate in respect of the Will dated 15-1-1986, examined four witnesses, two of them being attesting witnesses to the Will, viz. Shri Rajesh Mahana, Advocate and Shri PNS Bedi, step-brother of the deceased. Petitioner also examined himself as well as Shri Jatinder Singh Bedi. The execution of the said Will was duly provided by the attesting witnesses in accordance with law. In addition, petitioners had also produced and proved on record the affidavits and
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
