The execution of a Will must satisfy statutory requirements; a lack of credible witnesses can invalidate it, as seen with the rejected Will dated 15.11.1994, while the valid Will dated 15.05.1994 was properly executed and supported by credible testimony.

JUDGMENT :

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.

1. The present two Appeals arise from a composite Judgment dated 03.07.2018 [hereinafter referred to as ‘Impugned Judgment’] passed in two connected (and specifically consolidated) Probate Petitions, in respect of the estate of the deceased Testator, late Shri Joginder Singh Bhatia [hereinafter referred to as ‘Sh. Joginder’], who happened to be the father of the parties.

2. Two separate Wills which were alleged to have been executed by the same person, i.e., Sh. Joginder, who unfortunately expired at Delhi on 01.12.1994, have been propounded, one by Sh. Jatinder Singh Bhatia [hereinafter referred to as ‘Sh. Jatinder] and the second by Smt. Manjit Khanna [hereinafter referred to as ‘Smt. Manjit’]. The parties to the said Probate Petitions were Class-I legal heirs of the said deceased Testator, comprising his 5 sons and one daughter.

3. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, both Appeals are heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

FACTUAL MATRIX:

4. At the time of the death of Sh. Joginder all his six children were alive. The genealogy of the family is extracted as under:

5. In Probate Petition 37/1995, Sh. Jatinder prays issuance of a probate on the strength of the registered Will dated 15.05.1994, executed by Sh. Joginder in his favour, which was attested by two attesting witnesses, namely, Sh. Ravinder Pal Singh [hereinafter referred to as ‘Sh. RP Singh’] and Sh. Yoginder Singh Bhatia [hereinafter referred to as ‘Sh. Yoginder’], who have been examined as PW-1 and PW-2.

6. On the other hand, Smt. Manjit, daughter of late Sh. Joginder, filed Probate Petition 42/1995 on the basis of the Will dated 15.11.1994, which was attested by two attesting witnesses, namely, Sh. Harjit Singh [hereinafter referred to as ‘Sh. Harjit’], who turned hostile and late Sh. M.P. Singh Ahluwalia [hereinafter referred to as ‘Sh. MP Singh’], who died before the evidence was recorded.

7. Learned Single Judge has allowed the Probate Petition 37/1995 and dismissed the Probate Petition 42/1995.

CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES:

8. Learned counsel for the Appellant, while criticizing the judgment of the learned Single Judge, has submitted that the Will dated 15.05.1994 is surrounded by the following suspicious circumstances:

i. Both the attesting witnesses to the Will dated 15.05.1994 were not known to the family of Sh. Joginder (the Testator). Both of them are made out to be friends of brother of the wife of Sh.

Jatinder, who is the beneficiary of the Will.

ii. The Will is contrary to the family settlement dated 22.09.1979. Moreover, the exclusion of all other heirs while executing a bequest in favour of one son is unnatural.

iii. The suit filed by the Appellant in the year 1990 was only with respect to the dissolution of the partnership firm, and the testator was no longer the owner of the subject property in view of the aforesaid settlement.

iv. The settlement deed dated 29.08.2011 is in line with the family settlement dated 22.09.1979. But the Appellant has been excluded. It is contended that in the Will dated 15.05.1994, a description of as many as eight properties has been given, whereas, Sh. Joginder, in the Will dated 15.11.1994, has disclosed that he was the owner of ten properties. Hence, the Will dated 15.05.1994 is surrounded by suspicious circumstances.

v. The Will dated