2012 Supreme(Del) 548
188 (2012) DLT 332
HIGH COURT OF DELHI, NEW DELHI
MANMOHAN SINGH, J.
PAWAN JOLLY & ANR - Petitioners
Versus
STATE - Respondent
TEST. CAS. No.21/1995
Decided On : 22.02.2012
Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Harpreet Singh, Adv.
Mr. Raman Kapur, Adv. for the Objector, Shri Anil Jolly.
Headnote:
Succession Act, 1925 - Section 276 - Application for grant of probate - Registered Will - Execution of the Will proved by the sister of objector (son of the deceased) - The other attesting witness i.e. An advocate also proved execution of the Will - Reason of non-cordial relation with the son given the Will for divesting him of the property - No evidence to show mental incapacity - Objector failed to discharge the burden of proving suspicious circumstances - Probate granted.
1. The petitioners filed the above-mentioned petition under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 for grant of probate in respect of the registered Will dated 05.02.1991 executed by deceased Shri Brij Bhushan Jolly with regard to his estate. The said Shri B.B. Jolly died on 21.01.1995.
2. The particulars of legal heirs of the deceased Shri B.B.Jolly are given as under:-
(i) Mr. Pawan Jolly – Son (Petitioner No.1)
(ii) Mrs. Nirmal Jolly – Widow (Petitioner No.2)
(iii) Mr. Anil Jolly – Son (Objector)
(iv) Mrs. Beena Mehra – daughter
(v) Mr. Rakesh Jolly – Son
3. The above said Will and testament of the deceased Shri B.B.Jolly was duly executed and registered with the Registrar vide Book No.606, Volume No.III, Addl. Book No.588, Pages 153-157 on 05.02.1991. The petitioner No.2 who was the widow of the deceased, died on 07.05.2007 during the pendency of the present proceedings.
4. It is alleged that a plot was purchased on 08.09.1969 by the deceased Shri B.B.Jolly and subsequently constructed a building thereon in the year 1971. The property consists of 1.1/2 storey building at that point of time and later on, the first floor of the said property was sold in the year 1984 to Mr. O.P. Hasija and the Barsati Floor of the property was sold in the year 1989 to Mrs. Mala Sahgal.
5. It is also submitted that later Shri B.B.Jolly and petitioners No.1 & 2 have been residing on the ground floor and the terrace rights of the building are also with the beneficiary of the aforesaid Will.
6. The particulars of the immovable and movable properties left by the deceased Shri B.B.Jolly are mentioned in Schedule-A filed along with the petition. The details of the same are given as under:-
Sr. No. Particulars Amount 1. Immovable property bearing ----- No.J-38, New Delhi South Extension Part-I, New Delhi. 2. Movable Property Rs.10,00,000/-
7. As per the petitioners, the deceased Shri B.B.Jolly had executed his last Will and testament dated 05.02.1991 in the presence of the following two witnesses:-
(i) Shri A.K.Bajpai, Advocate, 40/3, Kidwai Nagar (East), New Delhi-110023.
(ii) Smt. Beena Mehra, A-40, Defence Colony, New Delhi-110024.
8. The suit property as mentioned in the Will as property No.J-38, New Delhi South Extension Part-I, New Delhi was transferred in favour of the petitioners.
9. The petition is contested by the Objector, Shri Anil Jolly, who in his written statement, has inter-alia challenged the petition on the following grounds:-
(a) Shri B.B.Jolly died intestate and he had not made any Will and much less a conscious one and of his free consent.
(b) Purported Will has been fraudulently brought into existence in conspiracy with the witnesses and was not a conscious exercise of Shri B.B.Jolly.
(c) Shri B.B.Jolly much prior to the purported date of Will was suffering from mental disorder, imbalance and paralysis and had been confined to bed and was at a mercy of petitioner No.1.
10. Citations of these proceedings were effected in the newspapers “The Statesman” (New Delhi Edition) and “Hindustan” (Hindi Edition). The valuation was also received and placed on record.
11. Vide order dated 27.10.1998, the following issues were framed:-
1. Whether the testatrix at the relevant time was mentally infirm and was not at all in a disposing state of mind?
2. Whether the Will dated 05.02.1991 is a forged document?
3. Relief and costs.
12. In order to prove their case, the petitioners examined three witnesses, namely, Mrs. Beena Mehra (daughter of the deceased) as PW.1, Shri L.S. Rawat, Upper Division Clerk in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi as PW.2, Shri A.K.Bajpai, Advocate as PW.3. Besides them, petitioner No.1 examined himself as PW.4.
13. On the other hand, the objector Anil Jolly filed his own affidavit only as RW-1.
ISSUES NO.1 & 2
14. Mrs. Beena Mehra (PW.1) has deposed that she was an attesting witness to the Will in question dated 05.02.1991, marked as Exh.PW-1/1. She proved the execution