The genuineness of a Will can be proved by examining one attesting witness, as required by Section 68 of the Evidence Act, and the principle of res judicata applies in the context of not challenging the genuineness or validity of the Will.

JUDGMENT

Manoj Kumar Ohri, J.

1. By way of the present petition filed under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act, the petitioner seeks grant of probate of registered Will dated 22.03.2012 (hereinafter, referred to as the `Will') executed by her deceased husband viz. late Sh.Narinder Dev Relan.

2. Out of the petitioner's wedlock with late Sh.Narinder Dev Relan, two sons i.e., Respondents No.2 and 3 were born. While respondent No.3 filed his affidavit of no-objection to the petition, respondent No.2 filed objections. In pursuance of the directions for citation to be published in the newspaper, no member of public filed any objections.

3. Petitioner states that the deceased was a citizen of India and permanently residing at 25, Sardar Patel Marg, New Delhi at the time of his death. He was Hindu by faith and left behind petitioner and respondent Nos.2 and 3 as his only legal heirs.

4. It has been further averred that the deceased in his lifetime had executed the Will with respect to all his assets. Along with the petition, a list of immovable and movable assets of deceased testator has been placed on the record. The Will was registered in the office of Sub Registrar VII on 22.03.2012 vide Registration No.51 in Book No.3 Vol. No.535 at pages 162 164.

5. This court on 29.05.2018, after considering the pleadings of parties passed the following order:

"1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking probate of the document dated 22nd March, 2012 as the validly executed last Will of her husband Sh. N.D. Relan. The two sons of the deceased N.D. Relan have been impleaded as respondents no.2 and 3. On enquiry, it is stated that there are no other natural heirs.

2. The senior counsel for the petitioner states that the respondent no.3 Ajay Relan has already filed a reply by way of no objection and only the respondent no.2 Rohit Relan has filed objections. It is further stated that objections of respondent no.2 Rohit Relan are also not such which require the pleas raised therein to be decided in this testamentary case, though the respondent no.2 has denied the Will.

3. A unilateral application for adjournment has been filed on behalf of counsel for the respondent no.2 Rohit Relan and Mr. Anuj Shah, Advocate appearing for the respondent no.2 Rohit Relan seeks adjournment on the ground of non-availability of the counsel for the respondent no.2 Rohit Relan.

4. Considering that the proceedings are at the stage of framing of issues, the non-availability of the counsel is no ground for adjournment and the counsel should have through Mr. Anuj Shah, Advocate, sent the proposed issues and which has not been done.

5. Mr. Anuj Shah, Advocate, on being given opportunity, has not made any submissions for framing of issues.

6. I have perused the objections filed by respondent no.2 Rohit Relan and find the respondent no.2 to have inter alia pleaded i) that when the deceased N.D. Relan was alive, there was an understanding arrived at in the Relan Family that after the demise of the parents, all their properties including the shareholding in various Relan Family Group Companies would devolve equally on respondents no.2 and 3; ii) that the Will of late N.D. Relan also clearly contemplates that after the demise of the petitioner and the deceased N.D. Relan, all the properties of the parents would devolve equally on the respondents no.2 and 3; iii) that however respondent no.3 has persuaded the petitioner to act contrary to the terms of the Will; iv) that as per the understanding of the respondent no.2, the petitioner also, at the same time as the subject Will of deceased N.D. Relan, had executed a Will on the same lines and the two Wills have to be given effect to as mutual Wills; v) that upon the demise of deceased N.D. Relan, the petitioner cannot in any way transfer, dispose of, alienate, or gift any of her properties that have devolved on the petitioner upon the demise of deceased N.D. Relan; and, vi) that this Court ought to direct the petitioner and