A will must meet strict legal requirements for execution and attestation; the validity of subsequent wills can be challenged based on suspicious circumstances and lack of credible witnesses.

JUDGMENT

Sanjeev Sachdeva, J. Appellant impugns judgment dated 13.12.2019, whereby the petition filed by respondent No.2 Inder Pal Singh seeking grant of probate of the registered Will dated 10.03.1999 executed by late Sh. Hazara Singh has been dismissed.

2. Appellant is one of the sons of late Sh. Hazara Singh and had filed objections to the petition filed by respondent No.2 Sh. Inder Pal Singh. One of the grounds taken in the objection was that late Sh. Hazara Singh had subsequently executed a Will dated 12.09.2011 (registered on 14.09.2011) and cancelled the earlier Will dated 10.03.1999.

3. Respondent No.2 had filed the subject petition seeking probate of the Will dated 10.03.1999 and appellant had set up a second Will dated 12.09.2011 (registered on 14.09.2011).

4. Trial Court held that the Will dated 10.03.1999 had not been duly attested by two witnesses and as such could not be treated as the last Will of late Sh. Hazara Singh and could not be acted upon.

5. With regard to the Will dated 12.09.2011 (registered on 14.09.2011) the Trial Court has held that the same was full of suspicious circumstances and had also not been proved in accordance with law to be the legal, valid and genuine Will executed by the deceased of sound disposition of mind and of his free volition.

6. Appellant who had set up the Will dated 12.09.2011 (registered on 14.09.2011) seeks to impugn the order to the extent that letter of administration has not been granted in respect of the Will dated 12.09.2011 (registered on 14.09.2011).

7. In so far as the Will dated 10.03.1999 is concerned, respondent No.2, who was the petitioner before the Trial Court, has not impugned the said order whereby it has been held that Will dated 10.03.1999 has not been duly executed.

8. Even during the submissions before this Court it was conceded by counsel for respondent No.2 that respondent No.2 was not insisting upon grant of probate/letter of administration and was not seeking any rights there under. Consequently, no arguments were addressed before this Court with regard to the Will dated 10.03.1999, its validity or otherwise.

9. Late Sh. Hazara Singh died on 06.05.2012. His wife i.e. the mother of the parties had pre-deceased him. On his death late Sh. Hazara Singh left behind two sons and four daughters.

10. By alleged Will dated 10.03.1999, Hazara Singh bequeathed his estate equally between his sons to the exclusion of his daughters. It is alleged by the appellant that late Sh. Hazara Singh executed a second Will dated 12.09.2011 (registered on 14.09.2011) cancelling his earlier Will dated 10.03.1999 and bequeathing everything in favour of the appellant Amrik Singh.

11. It is noticed that Amrik Singh was the only objector to the petition seeking grant of probate/letter of administration. His sisters had supported the Will dated 10.03.1999. Even Amrik Singh has admitted the execution of the Will dated 10.03.1999 but claims that said Will was superseded/revoked by a subsequent Will dated 12.09.2011 (registered on 14.09.2011).

12. Sh. Hazara Singh for several years prior to his death was residing with Inder Pal Singh in United Kingdom. It is alleged by Amrik Singh that Inder Pal Singh turned out Hazara Singh from his house on 03.09.2011 and consequently he flew to Delhi and executed the Will dated 12.09.2011 (registered on 14.09.2011).

13. The Trial Court has observed that original Will dated 12.09.2011 (registered on 14.09.2011) was not filed during trial but was only produced at the time of final arguments that also at the directions of the Court.

14. With regard to the Will dated 10.03.1999 the Trial Court has held that the Will was attested by only one witness. Perusal of the Will though shows that it bears the signatures also of one Sh. J.V. Malik, Advocate who as per the endorsement of the Sub Registrar has signed as witness No.2, however, since respondent No.2 has not sought to impugn the subject order and has during arguments not pres