Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Navin Chawla, J.
Mahendra Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State & Ors. – Respondents
TEST.CAS. 29 of 2015
Decided On : 04-07-2023
Indian Succession Act - Probate of Will - Section 276 - The court discussed the nature of proof and the principles to be applied to petitions seeking grant of the Letters of Administration with Will annexed. The court emphasized the need to remove all legitimate suspicions before a document can be accepted as the last will of the testator. The court found that the petitioner failed to prove the Will dated 11.04.2013, as it was surrounded by suspicious circumstances and the petitioner was unable to discharge the burden of proof to dispel the same.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a petition seeking grant of Probate of a Will dated 11.04.2013 allegedly left behind by the petitioner's father. The respondent nos. 2 and 3 contested the petition, claiming that the Subject Will is forged and fabricated, and the Testator was not in a mental condition to execute any document.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Subject Will dated 11.04.2013 is surrounded with suspicious circumstances and the petitioner has been unable to discharge the burden of proof to dispel the same. The court concluded that the petitioner failed to prove the Will dated 11.04.2013 and dismissed the petition.
Issues: The issues framed were: (i) Whether the deceased left behind a duly executed Will dated 11.4.2013? (ii) Whether the Will is a forged and fabricated Will? (iii) Relief.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need to remove all legitimate suspicions before a document can be accepted as the last will of the testator. The court found that the petitioner failed to prove the Will dated 11.04.2013, as it was surrounded by suspicious circumstances and the petitioner was unable to discharge the burden of proof to dispel the same.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the petition seeking grant of Probate of the Will dated 11.04.2013, with no order as to costs.
JUDGMENT
Navin Chawla, J.
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 seeking grant of Probate of Will dated 11.04.2013 allegedly left behind by the petitioner's father Sh. Karan Singh (hereinafter referred to as the `Testator'), who died on 28.04.2013 in Gurgaon.
2. It is the case of the petitioner that the Testator left behind the following Legal Heirs:
i. Sh. Mahendra Kumar, son of the Testator, the petitioner herein.
ii. Sh. Rajesh Kumar, son of the Testator, the respondent no.2 herein.
iii. Smt. Savita Chauhan, daughter of the Testator, the respondent no.3 herein.
3. The petitioner states that the Testator, before his death, executed a Will dated 11.04.2013 (hereinafter referred to as the `Subject Will'), bequeathing the following assets in equal share between his two sons, that is, the petitioner and the respondent no.2 herein:-
"i. Farm House Fh-10, Bijwasan, Main Bamnoli Bus Stand, New Delhi-110027, Measuring 1100 sq.yds.
ii. Land measuring 2500 sq. yds., Village Chomma, Gurgaon, Haryana"
4. The petitioner herein has filed a civil suit, bearing No. 63/2014 titled Mahendra Kumar v. Rajesh Kumar & Anr., before the Learned District Judge, Dwarka Courts, New Delhi, which was adjourned sine die for want of probate of the Will, which is the subject matter of this case.
Preliminary proceedings in the petition:
5. Notice of the petition was issued to the State and the Chief Revenue Controlling Officer vide order dated 16.04.2015, with a direction to file a valuation report with respect to the subject properties. Notice was also issued to the respondents and citations were directed to be published in the "Times of India" Delhi and Rajasthan Edition. Thereafter, by an order dated 28.04.2015, the above order was modified to the limited extent that citation was directed to be published in the `Times of India' Gurgaon and Rajasthan edition instead of Delhi edition. Vide order dated 10.08.2015, fresh notices were issued on the respondents and the State, along with direction for the citation to be published in the `Indian Express' (English Edition) and `Jansatta' (Hindi Edition). I must note herein that there is nothing on record to show that the publication was made in compliance with this order, though in compliance with the order dated 16.04.2015, publication had been made in the `Times of India' Delhi and Rajasthan Edition.
Objections of respondent nos. 2 and 3:
6. The petition is contested by the respondent nos. 2 and 3, who in their Written Statement/Objections submits that the Subject Will is forged, fabricated, and even the execution of the alleged Will is surrounded by suspicious circumstances.
7. The respondent no.2, son of the Testator, in his Objections asserts that the Testator in 2013 was confined to his bed and had lost his mental faculty. The Testator was also completely dependent on the respondent no.2 as he was not of sound mind in the last months of his life. The Testator during his lifetime had signed all his documents and never inscribed his thumb impressions on any document. He submits that, therefore, the Subject Will that allegedly bears the thumb impressions of the Testator, is a forged and fabricated document.
8. It is further asserted that the petitioner never cared for the Testator. The Testator was residing with the respondent no.2, who had taken care of and looked after him.
9. It is further asserted in the Objections that the verification of Sh. Ram Narain, an alleged witness of the Subject Will in the amended petition is false and fabricated. Sh. Ram Narain changed his statement on oath and even the signatures of Sh. Ram Narain on the original petition and the amended petition are different. It is asserted that the petitioner forged the Witness Clause in the petition to make the petition maintainable.
10. The respondent no.3, the daughter of the Testator, in her Objections also states that the Subject Will is forged and fabricated. Sh
The need to remove all legitimate suspicions before a document can be accepted as the last will of the testator.
The propounder of a Will must satisfactorily dispel all suspicious circumstances regarding its validity, particularly when substantial benefits accrue to them, or the Will may be deemed invalid.
The propounder of a will bears the burden of proving its validity, particularly when suspicious circumstances exist, and failure to do so results in the dismissal of the probate application.
The validity of a Will hinges on proving sound mind and proper execution, with the propounder bearing the burden of proof against any suspicious circumstances.
Point of Law : It has to consider relevant materials instead of adopting an ethical reasoning. It was further observed that a mere exclusion of either a brother or sister per-se would not create a su....
The law is well settled that conscience of Court must be satisfied that Will in question was not only executed and attested in manner required under Act, 1925 but should also be found that said Will ....
The propounders have the onus to prove due execution of a Will as per the requirements of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. When there are suspicious circumstances, a greater onus lies o....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
