SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2011 Supreme(Del) 802

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Mool Chand Garg, J.
Ratan Mani - Appellant
Versus
State - Respondent
AO. No. 115/1996
Decided On : 04-01-2011

Advocates Appeared:
Mr. Rajeev Sharma, Mr. Chandan Sharma, Advocates for the Appellant.
Mr. J.C. Mahendru, Advocate for the Respondents.

Headnote:

Succession Act, 1925-Section 278 – Will – Nothing unnatural for a person to get his Will attested by his close friends and if the Will is attested by his close friends, it cannot be considered as a suspicious circumstance – Objector despite her marriage with the appellant was not residing with the appellant but had been keeping herself busy in her studies which furnishes a good ground to dis-inherit her as this shows that she had no interest in the family of the deceased testator – When the evidence adduced in support of the will is disinterested, satisfactory and sufficient to prove the sound and disposing state of the testator's mind and his signature as required by law, courts would be justified in making a finding in favour of the propounder – Appeal dismissed.

Mool Chand Garg, J.

1. The appellant by this appeal assails the order passed by learned Additional District Judge in a probate case bearing No. 114/1994 whereby the learned ADJ allowed the said petition instituted by Smt. Krishna Batra, mother of the deceased testator, Sh. Vijay Kumar Batra for the grant of letters of administration of Will dated 15.04.1984 alleged to have been executed by her deceased son whereby he bequeathed his entire moveable and immoveable estate in favour of his mother, propounder of the Will.

2. There is no dispute that the testator Sh. Vijay Kumar Batra died in Delhi on 25.06.1984. On the date of his death, he was survived by his parents, 3 brothers and 2 married sisters besides his widow, Smt. Rajni Batra @ Ratan Mani. Nobody contested the probate petition except the widow of the testator, namely, Smt. Rajni Batra @ Ratan Mani, the appellant in this case. During the pendency of the probate petition Smt. Krishna Batra, the propounder of the Will expired but before that, she also executed a Will dated 30.11.1985 bequeathing the estate of Late Sh. Vijay Kumar Batra which devolved upon her on the basis of Will dated 15.04.1984 of Late Sh. Vijay Kumar Batra in favour of her 3 sons, namely, Sh. Satish Batra, Sh. D.K. Batra and Sh. H.K. Batra, who are now respondents No. 2(1) to 2(3) representing the estate of Late Smt. Krishna Batra, the propounder in the probate petition.

3. In her objections to the grant of letters of administration, the appellant had questioned the factum of the validity of the Will dated 15.04.1984 and also alleged that the said Will was forged by her mother-in-law Smt. Krishna Batra in collusion with her husband so as to deprive her of her right in the estate of the deceased Sh. Vijay Kumar Batra. It was also her case that Smt. Krishna Batra had not disclosed all the estates left by the deceased testator. Accordingly, she prayed for dismissal of the probate petition.

4. While adjudicating the probate petition, the learned ADJ framed following issues:

"(i)

Whether the petition is not maintainable for the reasons mentioned in the objections petition?

(ii)

Whether the Will dated 15.4.84 propounded by the petitioner was duly executed by Shri Vijay Kumar Batra (deceased) while possessed of sound disposing mind?

(iii)

Relief."

5. Evidence led on behalf of the propounder of the Will comprised of five witnesses in all. PW-1, Sh. Arvind Kumar Singhal and PW-2, Dr. Govind Pershad are the two attesting witnesses to the Will Ex. PW1/1 left by late Sh. Vijay Kumar Batra. PW-3, Sh. Jai Gopal Sikka and PW-4, Dr. D.K. Gupta are the attesting witnesses of the Will left by Smt. Krishna Batra, mother of Late Sh. Vijay Kumar Batra while PW-5, Sh. Harish Kumar Batra is the younger brother of Late Sh. Vijay Kumar Batra.

6. In defence the appellant only examined herself as RW-1. It may be mentioned here that no handwriting expert to prove that the signatures of Sh. Vijay Kumar Batra were fabricated or forged was examined on behalf of the appellant/objector.

7. In these circumstances, the learned ADJ decided all the issues in favour of the deceased propounder of the Will and dismissed the objections filed by the appellant by the impugned order. Letters of administration with copies of the Will Ex. PW1/1 and Ex. PW3/1 annexed thereto were granted in favour of respondents No. 2(1) to 2(3) representing Late Smt. Krishna Batra empowering them to administer the estate of deceased Late Sh. Vijay Kumar Batra as mentioned in para-8 of the probate petition. Of course, they were burdened with complying with other formalities.

8. It may be observed here that while deciding issue No. 1, it has been observed that since it was for the objector/appellant to show as to how the petition filed by Late Smt. Krishna Batra was not maintainable, she having failed to lead any evidence in this regard, the said issue was decided against the objector. It was also held that after the death of Smt. Krishna Batra, the 3 sons being her representatives

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top