Jayant Nath, J.

1. The present probate petition is filed under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act seeking probate for the last Will and testament dated 29.08.1997 of the deceased late Sh.Pritam Das. The present petition is filed by Sh.Rajendra Motwani, the son of the Testator and the sole executor of the Will. The said Testator-Late Sh.Pritam Das expired on 12.04.2000. His last place of residence is stated to be A-1/33, Janak Puri, New Delhi.

2. As per the memo of parties, the said Testator-Late Sh.Pritam Das is survived by four daughters, namely, respondents No.2 to 5 and four sons, namely, the petitioner and respondents No. 6 to 8.

3. The notices were issued on 05.11.2008 and publication was also ordered in Hindustan Times (English) and Nav Bharat Times (Hindi). The necessary citations were published.

4. Respondents No. 2 to 5 separately filed their response to the petition stating that they have no objection to grant of the present probate petition. Respondent No.7- Mr.Madhavdas Motwani filed reply/written statement objecting to the grant of the present probate petition on 31.03.2009. Subsequently another reply/written statement was filed on behalf of respondents No.6, 7 and 8 which was filed on 16.01.2010. This Court on 18.11.2010 noted that respondent No.7 has already filed objections which are on record. It was further noted that the objections which were then filed were only signed by respondent No.6 and were supported by his affidavit only. Similarly, respondent No.8-Sh.Shyam Lal Motwani had also not signed the said objections which were filed on 16.01.2010. Hence, this Court directed that the objections filed on 16.01.2010 be considered as only objections on behalf of respondent No.6-Mr.Virumal Motwani and the same be taken on record accordingly. Respondents No.6 and 7 have separately taken somewhat the same objections in their reply/written statement. It is claimed that the Will dated 29.08.1997 has been set up mala fide by the petitioner and the same is false, fabricated and forged. It is further stated that the Will mentions that the sons of the deceased were settled in USA and have properties and that this statement is factually incorrect and could not have been made by the Testator. It is further stated that without waiting to get probate of the Will, the petitioner sought to apply to DDA for mutation in respect of the Janak Puri house. Hence, respondent No.6 had written to DDA to withhold the mutation of the property. DDA in response to the said letter of respondent No. 6 on 24.02.2006 wrote that mutation would not be finalised until either the family settlement is arrived at or the Will is probated by a competent court of law. It is further stated that the Will dated 29.08.1997 which is being propounded by the petitioner also refers to number of other Wills said to have been executed by the Testator. It is stated that the frequency of making Wills is not usual. Further, the testator would not have the record of the earlier Wills yet Will dated 29.08.1997 mentions the said Will. Reliance is also placed on letter dated 17.06.1982 which has been written to the petitioner by a Chartered Accountant. It is stated that this letter unequivocally shows that the petitioner was trying to forge and fabricate the Will of the Testator. It is further averred that the alleged Will is false and unreasonable as it seeks to disinherit completely some of the children of the deceased including respondents No.6 and 7. Respondent No.6 in his objections apart from repeating the above contention has claimed that the present petition is barred under Article 137 of the Limitation Act. He has also relied upon last Will and testament dated 25.03.2000 which he states was the actual last Will and testament of the Testator. Copy of the said Will is filed along with the objections.

5. Subsequently, the said respondent No.6 has also filed a separate probate petition being No.47/2011 pertaining to the said Will dated 25.03.2000, on 26