The propounder of a Will must prove its validity by showing due execution and testamentary capacity, with the burden of proof shifting if suspicious circumstances arise.

ORDER

Chandra Dhari Singh, J. (Oral)--The present petition has been filed under Sections 276, 279, 289, and 300 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 for grant of probate or letter of administration in respect of the Will dated 25th August 1999 of the deceased Gobind Ram Maidasani S/o Melha Ram Maidasani.

2. It is submitted by learned counsel for the Petitioner that during his lifetime before his death on 10.10.2007, Late Sh. Gobind Ram Maidasani had bequeathed his estate in the manner specified in his last and final testament which was made by him in a sound and deposing state of mind by his Will dated 25th April 1999 in the presence of witnesses.

3. It is further submitted that the deceased by way of the said Will bequeathed his entire estate in favour of his wife Vidya G. Maidasani, for the lifetime and after her death the estate was to devolve upon the Petitioner.

4. It is stated that the petitioner is the only beneficiary of the last and final Will of the deceased, to the exclusion of his other children viz. 1 son and 3 daughters. It is further sated that the petitioner remains the sole beneficiary after the death of the widow on 17th July 2011. The details of the legal heirs and close relatives of the deceased are given in Schedule A to the Petition.

5. It is stated that objections to the present petition were raised by Mr. Sunil Maidasani, the son of the deceased/Relation no.2 but the same were withdrawn vide IA. no. 9552 of 2018 after a mutual settlement. The same was allowed and recorded in order dated 23.07.2018 passed by this Court.

6. It is also submitted that the objections to the present petition were also raised on 06.03.2012 by Ms. Aashima Gurnani, Mr. Rahul Gurnani and Smt. Neeta Chugh (Relation no.s 3 to 5) but the same was not pursued by them. It is important to mention that Relation no.s 3 to 5 also stopped appearing in the matter since 05.05.2016. Even they opted not to lead any evidence and their right to lead evidence was closed on 14.01.2019 by this Court.

7. It is also submitted that Relation no.2 had also filed a partition suit baring no. CS (OS) 1918 of 2011 praying for partition of House no. 73, Nimri Colony, Phase-1, Near Ashok Vihar Phase-IV, New Delhi-110052 (only immovable property of the deceased) amongst the legal heirs on the ground that the deceased died intestate but the aforesaid suit was dismissed as withdrawn in terms of order dated 19.07.2018 passed by this Court recording a mutual settlement between the parties.

8. It is stated that the partition suit no. CS (OS) 1918 of 2011 and Test Case no. 63/2011 were consolidated vide order dated 05.08.2014 for the purposes of evidence and common issues to be framed. The following issues were framed vide order dated 05.08.2014:

1. Whether the Will dated 25.08.1999 propounded by Dinesh Maidasani is genuine and valid WILLL of late sh. Gobind Ram Maidasani and was executed by him voluntarily in a sound and disposing mind? (Onus of proof on Dinesh Maidasani)

2. Whether CS (OS) 1918/2011 has not been properly valued for the purpose of court fee and jurisdiction?

3. Whether the Plaintiff is entitled to partition of the suit property?

4. Relief

9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that for the purpose of adjudication of the instant petition, issue no. 1 is be decided. Issues no. 2 and 3 are qua the partition suit CS (OS) 1918 of 2011 are not required to be adjudicated, in view of the said suit being dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 19.07.2018.

10. It is submitted that the petitioner in order to prove his case led