JUDGMENT :

Manoj Kumar Ohri, J.

1. By way of present appeal filed under Section 299 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (hereinafter, referred to as ‘the Act’), the appellant/respondent No. 8 seeks setting aside of the order dated 03.11.2016 passed by the learned ADJ-02 (West), Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi in Probate Case No. 133/10/06 (New P.C. No. 16002/2016), whereby Letter of Administration in respect of property bearing No. 2/101, Geeta Colony, Delhi - 110031 was granted in favour of respondent No. 2.

2. Before proceeding further, it is relevant to note that respondent No. 2 is the only contesting respondent in the present appeal as the other respondents i.e., respondent Nos. 3-9 have filed their ‘No-Objection’ affidavits in favor of the present appellant. For the sake of felicity, respondent No. 2 is hereinafter referred to as ‘the respondent’.

3. In probate petition, the respondent claimed that her father Ram Chand was the original lessee of property bearing No. 2/101, Block No. 2, Quarter No. 10, measuring 100 sq. yds. alongwith structure thereon situated at Jheel Khuranja, Geeta Colony, Delhi - 110031 (hereinafter, referred to as the ‘subject property’). Ram Chand had executed a Will dated 07.02.1971 in favor of Talian Bai @ Talia Bai who, after the death of Ram Chand, became the absolute owner of the subject property as both her daughters, namely, Shello Bai and the respondent had executed a joint relinquishment deed in her favor. Talian Bai passed away on 27.06.2004, leaving behind her two daughters i.e., the respondent and Shello Bai as the only legal heirs. During her life time, Talian Bai had executed a registered Will dated 31.12.1990 (hereinafter, referred to as ‘the Will’) bequeathing the subject property in favor of the respondent to the exclusion of all others.

4. In probate proceedings, to prove the Will, the respondent examined herself (as PW-1) and the scribe/attesting witness of the Will, namely, Ramesh Vashisth (as PW-6). Additionally, the concerned persons from the office(s) of L&DO, Sub-Registrar, Seelampur and the Election Commission were examined to prove mutation in favor of Talian Bai; the relinquishment deed; and the residential record of the appellant respectively. The appellant’s objections came to be dismissed vide the impugned order.

5. Appellant’s contentions stem from the assertion that he is the adopted son of the testatrix and Ram Chander @ Ram Chand. He contended that the Trial Court ignored the following suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will:

(i) the sole beneficiary had participated in the execution of the Will,

(ii) the Will not only failed to mention anything about the appellant (the adopted son of the testatrix), but also did not provide any explanation for his exclusion,

(iii) the Will was written in English and neither the testatrix (being old and illiterate) nor the accompanying persons viz. Rao Ram (the attesting witness) and Wanti Bai (the sole beneficiary/respondent) were well- versed with the language,

(iv) instead of the right-thumb, left-thumb impression of the testatrix was put on the Will,

(v) neither at the time of execution nor at the time of registration of the Will, any identification document was sought,

(vi) the photograph of the testatrix on the Will was not pasted but stapled,

(vii) the Will was executed on 31.12.1990 and registered on 02.01.1991, however, evidence has come on record to the effect that the propounder, the testatrix and the attesting witness had gone for the execution and registration of the Will only once, and

(viii) the Will surfaced after two years of its execution when the appellant preferred a suit seeking relief of declaration, partition, possession, injunction etc., being Suit No. 374/06/2012 (New No. 8746/2016), which is statedly pending consideration before the learned SCJ-cum-RC (East District), Karkardooma Courts, Delhi.

6. Appellant further contended that the respondent failed to prove the execution of the Will, as the testimonies of the responden