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

2023 Supreme(Del) 3356

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Najmi Waziri, Vikas Mahajan, JJ.
Ajit Singh & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
State & Ors. – Respondents
FAO(OS) 347 of 2012 & CM APPLs. 15602 of 2013, 20920 of 2022, 47492 of 2022, FAO(OS) 348 of 2012, CM APPLs. 46546-47 of 2022 & 3579 of 2023 & FAO(OS) 211 of 2013
Decided On : 11-07-2023

Advocates appeared:
Mr. T.K. Ganju and Dr. Manish Singhvi, Sr. Advocates with Mr. Prateek K. Chadha, AAG, State of Rajasthan, Mr. Sreekar Aechuri, Mr. Arpit Prakash and Mr. Vrishank Singhania, Advocates for State of Rajasthan.
Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Fareha A. Khan, Ms. Niyati Kohli and Mr. Rishabh Parikh, Advocates, for the Appellant in FAO(OS) 348/2012, CM APPLs. 46546-47/2022 & 3579/2023 and for the Respondent in FAO(OS) 211/2013.
Mr. Paras Kuhad, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Manu Aggarwal, Mr. Jitin Chaturvedi, Mr. Shouib Hussain and Mr. Shubham Budhiraja, Advocates, for the Appellants in FAO(OS) 347/2012.
Mr. Kirtiman Singh and Ms. Shreya Mehra, Advocates for the Trustee in in FAO(OS) 347/2012.
Mr. Rishikesh Kumar, ASC GNCTD with Mr. Aditya Raj, Mr. Muhammad Zaid, Mr. Sudhir Kumar Shukla and Ms. Sheenu Priya, Advocates, for the Respondents in FAO(OS) 347/2012.
Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Fareha A. Khan, Ms. Niyati Kohli and Mr. Rishabh Parikh, Advocates for R-3 in FAO(OS) 347/2012.
Mr. Tushar Sannu, ASC for GNCTD in FAO(OS) 347/2012.
Mr. Devendra Raghav and Ms. Rajeshwavi, Advocates for interveners in FAO(OS) 348/2012.
Mr. Tushar Sannu, ASC for GNCTD in FAO(OS) 348/2012.

Headnote:(A) Indian Succession Act, 1925 - Section 63 - Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 68 - Probate of the Will - The appellants challenged the dismissal of Probate Case No. 26/1987 for the last Will dating 30.10.1985 of the Testator, claiming testamentary capacity and formalities were met. The Court found the Will executed in accordance with the statutory requirements and that the objections raised lacked merit noting that testimony from attesting witnesses went unrebutted. (Paras 1, 15, 97)

(B) Requirements for Execution of Wills - The validity depends on the presence of two witnesses at signing and their attestation under Section 63. (Para 20)

(C) Suspicious circumstances - Non-attendance of certain witnesses including the Testator's PA was insufficient ground to negate the Will. (Para 54)

Facts of the case:
The appeals involved attempts to challenge a probate petition for the testamentary bequest to a trust set up by the Testator, contested by various parties claiming entitlement. The Testator had executed the Will in the presence of witnesses.

Findings of Court:
The Will was proven validly attested and executed as required by law, dismissing the objections raised by respondents about the formalities.

Issues: The main issues included whether the Will was executed in conformity with the law and if suspicions surrounding its execution were valid.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court upheld that the execution met the legal standards and the proposed witnesses' testimonies were sufficient to establish the Will and Codicil; objections regarding validity based on alleged suspicious circumstances were overruled.

Result: Probate granted in favor of Lord Northbrook.

Table of Content
1. background of testator and will's execution (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. execution and codicil details (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10)
3. compliance with legal requirements and objections (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14)
4. grounds for dismissal of probate petition (Para 15 , 16)
5. state's arguments against the probate (Para 17 , 18 , 19)
6. execution and proving the will requirements (Para 20 , 21 , 22 , 24)
7. reliability of witness testimonies (Para 30 , 31 , 32)
8. clarification of suspended witness roles (Para 46 , 48 , 54)
9. danial latifi's potential signing issue resolved (Para 57 , 58 , 59 , 64)
10. original vs duplicate will paradox (Para 70 , 71)
11. objectors’ withdrawal significance and implications (Para 76 , 80)
12. court's order on granting probate (Para 93 , 99 , 100)
13. finalization of court's conclusions and order (Para 101 , 102)

JUDGMENT

Najmi Waziri, J.

Facts:

1. These three appeals impugn the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge on 03.07.2012 dismissing the appellant's Testamentary Case No. 26/1987 seeking probate of the last Will and Testament dated 30.10.1985, executed by Late Raja Bahadur Sardar Singh of Khetri (`Testator'). While FAO(OS) 347/2012 has been filed by the Trustees of the Khetri Trust, the beneficiary under the Will, FAO(OS) 348/2012 has been filed by the sole surviving Executor of the Will, both of whom challenge the dismissal of the petition. FAO(OS) 349/2012 filed by the State of Rajasthan impugns the judgement to the limited extent that the Trustees of the Khetri Trust (Appellants in FAO(OS)(347/2012)) were permitted to be impleaded.

Background to the dispute

2. The Testator was a well educated man, having studied at Cambridge University and completed his Bar-at-Law from England. He was a Member of Parliament (Rajya Sabha) as well as India.s Ambassador to Laos. Being conscious of the fact that he had no Legal Heirs (`LRs'), the Testator deliberated with qualified persons from the fields of finance and law, about the treatment of his estate after his demise. Two such professionals were Mr. P.N. Khanna, who was the Testator.s Chartered Accountant for many years and the other was Mr. Danial Latifi, Senior Advocate, a personal friend of the Testator. His Will was drafted by Mr. Danial Latifi and was executed in two identical counterparts at Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi on 30.10.1985 in the presence of two attesting witnesses, namely, Mr. P.N. Khanna (PW1) and Mr. R.K. Singh (RW8), who put their hands to the Will and the same was presented in a sealed envelope to the Registrar. On the sealed envelope, the following text was inscribed with the signatures of the Testator, Mr. P.N. Khanna, Mr. R.K. Singh and Registrar, Delhi. Its photocopy is reproduced as under:

[IMG]

[IMG]

    Typed Copy of the sealed envelope: (to be replaced)

    "Will of Raja Bahadur Sardar Singh of Khetri S/o Raja Bahadur Amar Singh of Khetri, 5, Sardar Patel Road, Khetri House, New Delhi.

    The Sealed cover of Will deposited by Raja Bahadur Sardar Singh is identified by Sh. P.N. Khanna S/o L. Bharat Ram R/o 14/15, Connaught Place, N. Delhi & Sh. R.K. Singh, Advocate. The sealed cover of Will only and no monogram.

    Sd/-

Sd/- 30.10.11

    (Raja Bahadur Sardar Singh)

(G.K. Dikshit)

    Sd/-

    (P.N. Khanna)

    Sd/-

    (R.K. Singh)

    Advocate.

3. The last Will and Testament dated 30.10.1985 as retrieved from envelope reads as under:

[IMG]

[IMG]

[IMG]

4. The Testator willed his entire estate, movable and immovable assets as appeared from his Wealth Tax Returns, upon a Trust called `Khetri Trust., created by the Will and Testament dated 30.10.1985 itself, for which he appointed four Executors and Trustees, namely: (i) Lady Olga Manning of Hampton Court Palace, East Molesey, Surrey; (ii) Mr. Danial Latifi, Senior Advocate, A-20, Neeti Bagh, New Delhi; (iii) Mr. Romesh Thapar, Kautilya Marg, New Delhi; and (iv) Mr. Parmeshwar Prashad, Manager Khetri Investment Corporation (P) Ltd., 1/9 Rani Jhansi Road, New Delhi. The bequeathed assets were to vest in the Khetri Trust and




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
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top