The judgment emphasizes the applicability of the Limitation Act to probate petitions and the requirements for proving a Will under Section 63 of The Indian Succession Act, 1925 and Section 68 of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

V.K. Shali, J.

1. This is an appeal against the judgment dated 4.4.2008 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi in a probate case bearing No.377/06/00 granting probate in favour of the respondent No.2/Vidhya Devi on the basis of the Will dated 13.5.1986.

2. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that respondent No.2/Vidhya Devi filed a probate petition on the basis of the Will dated 13.5.1986 purported to have been made by one Mangu Ram Pahuja claiming him to be her grandfather. It was alleged that Mangu Ram Pahuja had died on 6.6.1987. He was survived by three sons namely Ram Chander Pahuja, Trilok Chand Pahuja and Krishan Kumar Pahuja. The pedigree showing the legal heirs of late Mangu Ram Pahuja is as follows:

“TABLE”

3. It was alleged that by virtue of the aforesaid Will late Mangu Ram Pahuja had bequeathed property No.F-132, Mansarover Garden, Delhi in favour of respondent No.2/Vidhya Devi as it was his self-acquired property. Appellant Nos.1 to 3, that is, Vijay Sethi, Joginder and Anju respectively being the step sister and brothers of the respondent No.2/Vidhya Devi and Krishan Kumar Pahuja being the real cousin of respondent No.2/Vidhya Devi filed their objections challenging the genuineness of the Will of late Mangu Ram Pahuja.

4. The main objection which was raised with regard to the grant of probate was that the Will had surfaced after the expiry of fourteen years and that in itself caused suspicion regarding genuineness of the Will. Further late Mangu Ram Pahuja was in the habit of putting signatures apart from putting thumb impression while as the Will which was set up by the respondent No.2/Vidhya Devi was only bearing thumb impression and not signatures. In addition to this, late Mangu Ram Pahuja had made a Will on 3.4.1978 which was duly registered on which he had put his signatures apart from thumb impression while as the Will dated 13.5.1986 only bore the thumb impression. The Will dated 13.5.1986 in respect of which the probate was granted, was allegedly executed by him at Faridabad and not in Delhi while as he was a man of 100 years of age and was not in a sound state of mind to execute the Will.

5. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed:

i) Whether the Will dated 13.05.1986 as propounded by the petitioner was executed by the deceased Sh.Mangu Ram Pahuja in his sound disposing mind and with free consent and same is his last Will and testament? OPP.

ii) Relief.

6. Respondent No.2/Vidhya Devi examined PW-1, Sukh Ram Jakkar, an advocate who was one of the attesting witnesses of the Will, PW-2, Subhash Grover, who drafted the Will and herself as PW-3.

7. The respondents in the probate petition in support of their case examined RW-1, Jag Narain, Record Clerk form the Office of the Sub Registrar, Kashmiri Gate in order to prove the registration of the Will dated 3.4.1978. Vijay Sethi, the respondent No.3 in the probate petition, examined himself as RW-2 and RW-3, R.S. Rawat, an official of the Passport Office, who produced the record regarding the issuance of the passport to the deceased to show his address and age. RW-4, Ghasi Ram, was from the Punjab National Bank, who produced the record pertaining to one joint account of the deceased and his son Ram Chander Pahuja. The respondent No.8 in the probate petition also stepped into the witness box as RW-5.

8. The learned trial court held the Will to be genuine and brushed aside the objections. So far as the question of limitation is concerned, it was observed that there is no application of the Limitation Act, 1963 to the probate petition.

9. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and also gone through the record. The first contention which has been raised by the learned counsel for the appellants is that the learned trial court has fallen into a grave error by observing that the provisions of the Limitation act, 1963 are not applicable to the probate petition. In this regard, the learned counsel for the appellants