The main legal point established in the judgment is the mandatory nature of Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act, which requires the execution of a will according to specific rules, including attestation by two or more witnesses. The court also emphasized the importance of proving the intention to attest the will and the need to dispel suspicions surrounding the execution of the will.

V.K. Shali, J.

1. This is an appeal filed by the appellant against the judgment dated 15.5.2007 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi by virtue of which the letter of administration was granted in favour of respondent No.2, Jagdish Chand (hereinafter referred to as Jagdish Chand) in respect of Will dated 22.10.1973 exhibit A-1 purported to have been made by deceased Nathu Singh.

2. Briefly stated the facts as given in the impugned judgment of the learned Additional District Judge are as under :-

“The respondent No.2, Jagdish Chand Sharma, filed a petition under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 for grant of letter of administration with regard to the will of late Nathu Singh executed in his favour on 22.10.1973. Nathu Singh died at Delhi on 2.8.1980. After his death this case was filed on 30.10.1980. Nathu Singh was the owner of property number A-152 to A-162/1, situated in Sukhdev Nagar, Kotla Mubarakpur, New Delhi. He had allegedly great love and affection for the petitioner. He always treated him as his son during his lifetime. He bequeathed some part of his property in favour of the petitioner more specifically described in the will itself. The will was duly registered in the office of Sub Registrar, Delhi on 24.10.1973. The will was kept with Harswaroop Sharma for safe custody who, after the death of Nathu Singh delivered the will to the petitioner. He was survived by the sons, daughters and grand children who are made respondents in this petition. The petition was verified by G.C.Kumar, advocate.

Notice of the petition was issued to the respondents. The objections were filed by Jaswant Singh, son of the deceased. A preliminary objection was raised that :

i) The property was ancestral joint Hindu family property and Nathu Singh had no power to execute the will in favour of the petitioner. It was also denied that Nathu Singh had any love and affection for the petitioner. On the other hand it was submitted that Nathu Singh appointed the petitioner as his rent collector on 11.5.1973 and executed a Power of Attorney in his favour. The said Power of Attorney was duly registered. The petitioner was authorised to collect rent from the tenants of Nathu Singh and to issue rent receipts. The petitioner failed to render his duties with due sincerity therefore the Power of Attorney was revoked on 2.2.1974. Petitioner created tenancy in favour of his wife Smt. Santosh Kumari Sharma in respect of shop number F-16 belonging to Nathu Singh without the knowledge of Nathu Singh. Nathu Singh filed a suit against the present petitioner in the year 1975 for recovery of damages for use and occupation.

ii) The deceased was not satisfied with the services of the petitioner and he also made complaints against the petitioner to his employer i.e. MCD. Execution of any will in favour of the petitioner is denied. Signature and thumb impression of Nathu Singh on the will dated 22.10.1973 is also denied. Further it was alleged that the contents of the will were never read over and explained to the testator who knew only Hindi language. Additional pleas were also taken that there were various civil and criminal cases pending between the petitioner and Nathu Singh and his family members. Petitioner misused his powers and created tenancy in favour of other persons without any knowledge of Nathu Singh. He misappropriated the rents realized by him. He also appeared as a witness in a criminal case against Nathu Singh on the complaint of Nathu Singh. Petitioner was also placed under suspension by the MCD where he was a teacher.

iii) An additional plea was taken that Nathu Singh sold one house area about 45 sq.yds, to one Kishan Lal and Bimla Devi. General Power of Attorney was executed by Nathu Singh in favour of Kishan Lal and Bimla Devi during his own lifetime. Nathu Singh told the respondent Jaswant Singh and his brothers that he had executed two wills in favour of Kishan Lal and Bimla Devi as they wanted two separa