The burden of proof rests on the propounder of a Will to demonstrate its validity; the existence of suspicious circumstances increases this burden significantly.

JUDGMENT

Gaurang Kanth, J.

1. The challenge in both these Appeals arises from the common Judgment & Decree dated 28.11.2005 passed by the learned ADJ-06, Central, Tis Hazari District Courts, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "impugned judgment"). Vide the said impugned Judgment, the learned Trial Court was pleased to allow the Probate case no. 124/06 titled as Inder Mohan Nagpal & Ors. vs. State & Ors. filed by Mr. Inder Mohan Nagpal (hereinafter referred to as "Respondent No.1") and dismissed the Civil suit no. 158/06 titled as Promila Kapoor Vs Inder Mohan Nagpal & Ors filed by Ms.Promila Kapoor (hereinafter referred to as "Appellant") for declaration, injunction and possession.

Facts relevant for the consideration of the present Appeals are as follows:

2. The factual matrix which emerges out of a perusal of the records is that Late Mr. Dina Nath Arora ("the testator"), who was the father of the Appellant, was born in Lahore on 24.12.1901 out of the wedlock of Late Sh.Charan Das Arora and Smt. Ganga Devi. The testator had a sister namely Smt. Jamuna Devi (grandmother of the Respondent No.1). The testator was working with Northwest Railway, Lahore. Post partition of India and Pakistan, he migrated to India and started working with Northern Railway and eventually retired from the Railway Board as a stenographer in the year 1963.

3. The testator married Smt. Malka Devi (the mother of the Appellant) in the year 1928. The couple had two issues out of the said wedlock, the first one being Late Shri Pran Nath Arora and the second one being the Appellant herself.

4. There was personality conflict between the testator and his wife (the mother of the Appellant). These conflicts led to marital discord between the testator and his wife. Hence, the Appellant was taken to her maternal home at Amritsar by her mother. However, the testator continued to live in Delhi in the official accommodation provided to him by the Railway Board. It is the case of the Appellant that the estranged relations between her parents did not affect the relationship between the testator and his children.

5. In lieu of the properties left behind by the testator in West Pakistan, a property no. 2930, Hamilton Road, Delhi, admeasuring about 180-200 square yards with shops on ground floor and residence above was allotted to the testator. The said property was purchased by the testator partly out of his own funds and partly out of the funds of original Defendant No. 2 (father of Respondent No.1).

6. Around the year 1960, EPRRR Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. came up with a scheme, wherein they started allotting plots to the people who were displaced from Pakistan. In order to become the member of the said scheme, the testator was required to swear an Affidavit stating that he or his relatives or any HUF to which he is a member does not own any property in Delhi. Hence, the testator transferred his share in the property No.2939, Hamilton Road, Delhi in favour of Original Defendant No.2. The testator applied for a plot under EPRRR Cooperative Housing Society Ltd and since he fulfilled all the eligibility criteria, he was allotted a piece of land admeasuring approx. 623 Square yard bearing No. BB - 8, Greater Kailash - II, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to