The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove a will as per Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act and to remove all suspicious circumstances with cogent evidence.

JUDGMENT

Rekha Palli, J. The present petition under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 seeks grant of probate of the Will dated 22.10.2013, in respect of the movable and immovable properties left behind by Shri Manohar Lal (hereinafter referred to as the "Testator"), who expired on 25.03.2015.

2. Before dealing with the rival submissions of the parties, the brief factual matrix as is necessary for adjudication of the present petition may be noted.

3. The petitioner, who is the daughter of the Testator claims that the aforesaid Will, vide which the Testator had bequeathed all his movable and immovable assets in her favour was his last and only testament and was also attested by a Notary Public. It is further claimed that the Will was signed by the Testator in the presence of two attesting witnesses, who had signed the Will in his presence and in the presence of each other.

4. The Will specifically mentions the Testator's immovable assets as being the basement, ground/second floor and the terrace over the third floor of the property bearing House No. C-35, East of Kailash, New Delhi-110065. The Will also describes the said property to be a self-acquired property of the Testator, and specifically states that the Testator had severed all his relations with his son and his family by way of public notices dated 22.10.2013 published in the Indian Express (English) and `Jansatta' (Hindi).

5. It is the petitioner's further case that before the execution of the aforesaid Will, the Testator had on 15.10.2012, made a will on a stamp paper in his own handwriting clearly expressing his intention of bequeathing all his assets to his daughter, the petitioner, and the reasons for disinheriting his son. It is submitted that since this handwritten Will was not signed by any attesting witness, it is the subsequent typed Will dated 22.10.2013, which has to be treated as his only Will and testament.

6. Upon notice being issued in petition on 24.08.2015, citations were published in `Jansatta' (Hindi) and `The Statesman' (English) on 18.09.2015 and 19.09.2015, respectively. Objections were thereafter filed by the respondent No.2, the son of the testator, on 28.10.2015 to which a rejoinder was filed by the petitioner on 26.11.2015. A Valuation Report was thereafter filed by Respondent No.1 on 23.05.2016, according to which, the value of the property was assessed as Rs.2,86,63,120/-.

7. In support of the Petition, the petitioner filed her affidavit, as also of the two attesting Witnesses, namely, Lt. Col. (Retd) Sh. Prem Nath, and Sh. C.P. Batra. However, only the petitioner and Lt. Col. (Retd) Sh. Prem Nath, appeared in the Witness Box, as PW-1 and PW-2, respectively and were duly cross-examined. In her testimony, the Petitioner as PW-1 proved the Valuation Report, as also the two newspaper reports dated 22.10.2013, vide which public notices were issued by the Testator, disowning his son, the respondent No. 2, thereby severing all his relations with him. In her cross-examination, the petitioner specifically stated that the Testator was not on visiting terms with her brother, the respondent no.2 for the last more than 25 years, and was perceived by the Testator as a disobedient son, who was only permitted to conduct the last rites of his mother under pressure from relatives and friends.

8. The attesting witness Lt. Col. (Retd) Sh. Prem Nath, who was examined as PW-2, proved the Will dated 22.10.2013, and stated that the Testator was in sound disposing mind at the time of the execution of the Will. Furthermore, he had signed on the Will in the presence of the two attesting Witnesses, who had signed on the Will in the presence of the Testator and in the presence of each other. He specifically denied the suggestion that the Will bore the forged signatures of the Testator, and in fact, categorically stated that the Testator used to discuss about his strained relations with his son.

9. On the other hand, the respondent examined four witne