The central legal point established in the judgment is the scrutiny of Will execution, consideration of suspicious circumstances, and the burden of proof on the propounder.

JUDGMENT :

Manoj Kumar Ohri, J.

1. By way of the present appeal filed under Section 384 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (hereinafter, referred to as the 'Act'), the appellants seek setting aside of judgment dated 22.07.2011 passed by the learned Additional District Judge-II, Rohini Courts, Delhi in Probate Case No. 21/2009, whereby petition of respondent No.2/S. Baldev Singh was allowed and letter of administration with respect to Will dated 10.11.1998 granted in his favor.

2. The parties to the present appeal have their common ancestor in Late S. Harbans Singh who was the perpetual lessee of property bearing plot No. 164 (land area measuring 60 sq. mtrs.), Pocket-22, Sector-24, MIG Category, Rohini, Delhi (hereinafter, referred to as the ‘subject property’).

3. For the sake of convenience, details of the family members of Late S. Harbans Singh and his wife/Smt. Harjeet Kaur/appellant No.1 are reproduced hereunder:-

4. Late S. Harbans Singh (hereinafter, referred to as the ‘testator’) executed a Will on 10.11.1998. The Will was duly registered in the office of Sub-Registrar-II, Janakpuri, Delhi on 10.11.1998 in the presence of two attesting witnesses namely, Sardar Hardev Singh and Sh. J.B. Malik, Advocate. By way of the said Will, the testator bequeathed the subject property in favour of S. Baldev Singh (respondent No.2), who propounded it by way of filing the underlying probate case.

5. During the pendency of the proceedings before the Trial Court, a public notice was given by publishing the citation in the newspaper "The Statesman" on 11.08.2009 and it was also affixed on the notice board of the Court on 02.07.2009. The appellants, i.e. wife and son of the testator, were the only objectors, as the other legal heirs (the daughters of the testator), gave no-objection in favour of respondent No.2. The third son i.e., S. Harpinder Singh had already predeceased the testator on 24.04.1989, having died issueless, and his widow having remarried.

6. The Trial Court framed the following issues:-

"i. Whether the deceased Sardar Harbans Singh executed a valid and enforceable Will? OPP

ii. Whether plaintiff is entitled for Will Probate as claimed? OPP

iii. Relief, if any?

iv. Whether the petition is barred by limitation? OPR”

7. To prove his case, the propounder examined himself (PW-3), one of the attesting witnesses to the Will namely, S. Hardev Singh (PW-2), and Sh. Chitranjan, LDC (PW-1) from the Office of Sub-Registrar.

8. In turn, the appellants, besides examining themselves, examined one Sh. Rahul Massey, the Medical Record Executive from Moolchand Hospital, Lajpat Nagar, Delhi who produced the medical records of the testator. Additionally, the appellants examined one Smt. Gurmeet Kaur, i.e. wife of appellant No.2 (RW-3).

9. Eventually, vide the impugned judgment, a letter of administration was granted in favour of respondent No.2. Aggrieved with the same, the appellants preferred the present appeal.

10. During the pendency of the present appeal, appellant No.1 had expired. Her legal heirs were already on record, being the remaining parties. The appeal continued to be contested by appellant No.2 (hereinafter, the ‘appellant’).

11. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the execution of the alleged Will is surrounded by suspicious circumstances, inasmuch as the testator was not in a fit state of mind at the time of execution of the Will. In this regard, reference was made to the testator's past medical records to submit that he had suffered an accident in the year 1991 because of which he went in coma. In support of the afo