The burden of proving the validity of a contested Will lies with the propounder, and suspicious circumstances surrounding its execution must be satisfactorily explained.

JUDGMENT :

DHARMESH SHARMA, J.

1. This First Appeal has been preferred under Section 299 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 [“The Act”] by three sisters, the third one now being represented through her legal heirs, assailing the impugned judgment dated 24.05.2007 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi [“Probate Court”], whereby the second Will propounded by them dated 16.06.1992 executed by their late father, Shri Jagdish Chander Mehra [“testator”] has been found to be forged and fabricated, and on the other hand, the first Will dated 31.01.1989 propounded by respondent No.2, Smt. Savita Malhotra, the daughter-in-law of the deceased testator, in favour of respondents No. 3 to 6 has been probated and held to be the last legally executed Will of the testator.

FACTUAL MATRIX:

2. Briefly stated, the testator was admittedly the owner of the property bearing No. D-1/24-25, Lajpat Nagar-I, New Delhi-110049 [“subject property”] who passed away on 20.01.1993 leaving behind his one son, namely respondent No.4 Mr. Ashok Malhotra, widow of his second son viz., respondent No.5 Savita Malhotra and her children, besides three daughters, namely appellant No.1, Smt. Rama Alagh, appellant No.2 Smt. Sharda Kapoor and appellant No.3, Smt. Usha Rani (who has since died and is now represented through her legal heirs). It is pertinent to mention here that the second son Mr. Krishan Gopal Mehra predeceased the testator and his widow Smt. Savita Malhotra also died on 14.07.2022 during the course of proceedings. It also appears that the whereabouts of respondent No.4, Mr. Ashok Malhotra are not known for more than 10 years now.

3. In the aforesaid backdrop, on the demise of the testator on 20.01.1993, the chronology of the events and broad facts are not in dispute. It is borne out from the record that appellant No.1 Smt. Rama Alagh filed a suit for injunction, [Suit No. 100/1993] against Smt. Savita Malhotra, daughter-in-law of the testator and her children, besides other siblings including her sisters, to restrain them for selling, alienating or parting with the subject property after the demise of her father, claiming that he had died intestate. It is also borne out from the record that on issuance and service of summons for settlement of issues, the defendant No.1 Smt. Savita Malhotra, the daughter-in-law of the testator, filed her written statement on 15.07.1993 for herself and her two minor children and she propounded the first Will dated 31.01.1989, purportedly executed by her deceased father-in-law i.e. the testator. A replication was filed by the plaintiff i.e., appellant No.1 Smt. Rama Alagh, in the said Suit, thereby denying the execution of the Will dated 31.01.1989 and its validity.

4. It is also a matter of record that the defendant No.4/appellant No.2 Smt. Sharda Kapoor filed her written statement on 15.12.1993, wherein she propounded the second Will dated 16.06.1992 according to which right, title and interest in the subject property had been bequeathed to each of the five children equally by the testator i.e. to the extent of 1/5^th each. It is an admitted fact that during the pendency of the said suit, the appellants/sisters filed the instant petition under Section 276 of the Act bearing PC No. 180/2006 on 25.04.1994, seeking probate of the second Will dated 16.06.1992 purportedly executed by their father. The suit was dismissed as withdrawn by the plaintiff/appellant No.1 on 16.09.1994.

5. As a counter-blast to the aforesaid probate petition, Smt. Savita Malhotra and her two children too filed a probate petition bearing PC No. 181/2006 on 14.01.1997 and both the petitions were consolidated vide order dated 05.01.2001 by the Probate Court. The parties led their evidence on the matters in issue. Needless to state, the only issue framed was as to which of the Wills was executed by the testator in a sound disposing state of mind and was his last Will and testament?

6. Insofar as respondent No.1 Smt. Savita Malhotra is concerned, sh