Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Manmeet Pritam Singh Arora, J.
Surbhi Sharma - Petitioner
Versus
State of NCT of Delhi And Ors. - Respondents
TEST.CAS. 69 of 2024 & I.As. 37687-88 of 2024, 42337-39 of 2024
Decided On : 27-08-2025
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. introduction of the testamentary matter. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. petitioner's claims on property ownership. (Para 4 , 5 , 6) |
| 3. civil suit initiated by respondent no. 3. (Para 7 , 8) |
| 4. witness statements related to the will. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 5. legal provisions concerning probate. (Para 12 , 13 , 14) |
| 6. description of immovable properties involved. (Para 15 , 16 , 17) |
| 7. discrepancies related to the will. (Para 18 , 19 , 20) |
| 8. contradictions in claims about the will. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24) |
| 9. additional contradictions and claims. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28) |
| 10. suspicion around the will. (Para 29 , 30 , 31) |
| 11. suspicious circumstances surrounding the will. (Para 32 , 33 , 34) |
| 12. search efforts for the original will. (Para 35 , 36 , 37 , 38) |
| 13. judicial reluctance to grant probate. (Para 39 , 40 , 41 , 42) |
| 14. discussion of relevant judicial precedents. (Para 43 , 44 , 45) |
| 15. issues regarding signature validity. (Para 46 , 47 , 48) |
| 16. court's conclusions on the will's validity. (Para 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55) |
| 17. final decision to dismiss the petition. (Para 56) |
| 18. resolution of the matter. (Para 57) |
JUDGMENT :
MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA, J.
1. This testamentary petition is filed along with the applications which have been taken up altogether.
2. The Petitioner has filed the present petition under Section 237 and 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (‘Act of 1925’) for grant of Probate on a photocopy of an unregistered Will dated 01.11.2023 purported to have been executed by late Ms. Sangam Sharma (‘Testatrix’), aged about 30 years, residing at 121, Ground Floor, Shubham Apartment, Sector-12, Pocket-4, Dwarka, New Delhi-110077, at which address she was residing at the time of her death on 12.01.2024.
3. By this judgment, this Court shall now proceed to decide the present petition.
Submissions on behalf of the Petitioner
4. It is the case of the Petitioner that late Smt. Saroj Sharma, the mother of the Petitioner, Respondent No. 3, and the Testatrix, was the owner/lessee of the following properties:
A. Property 24-25 A, Sewak Park Extension, Rama Park, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi-110059, admeasuring a total area of 225 Sq. Yards having a built-up house consisting of Ground Floor and First Floor.
B. Property 30 A, Sewak Park Extension, Rama Park, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi-110059, admeasuring an area of 80 Sq. Meters consisting of 1st Floor, 4th Floor & Baccha Floor Flat.
C. Property F-58, situated at RIICO Industrial Area, Bhiwadi, District Alwar, Rajasthan.
D. Property Flat bearing No. 121, Ground Floor, Shubham Apartment, Sector-12, Pocket-4, Dwarka, New Delhi-110077, admeasuring area 91 Sq. Meters.
5. These properties were bequeathed equally amongst all three daughters of late Smt. Saroj Sharma i.e., Surbhi Sharma/Petitioner, Smt. Sulekha Sharma/Respondent No. 3 and late Ms. Sangam Sharma/Testatrix by a Will dated 27.07.2005.
6. The Petitioner stated in the petition that, the property listed above at serial no. ‘A’ (‘Property No. 24-25-A’), was mutually partitioned among the three sisters in June 2022 by executing relinquishment deeds. The three sisters agreed with Mr. Manoj Sharma (attesting witness no. 1) for the demolition of the existing super-structure and construction of a new building on the said property comprising of eight (8) flats. A General Power of Attorney (‘GPA’) was executed in favour of the Petitioner by Respondent No. 3 and the Testatrix, for managing the property.
6.1 It is stated that acting upon the said GPA, the Petitioner transferred all the eight flats in favour of the nominees of Mr. Manoj Sharma (attesting witness no. 1) and Mr. Vishnu Sharma (attesting witness no. 2) in January 2024.
6.2 It is stated in the petition that the Petitioner was unaware of the existence of the Will dated 01.11.2023 and discovered a photocopy of the said Will on 02.05.2024, while cleaning her apartment specifically underneath her quilts in her personal almirah. It is stated that the Petitioner has never seen the original Will and
AI
A photocopy of a Will cannot be admitted for probate unless credible evidence shows the original was not intentionally destroyed; significant suspicion surrounding its execution must be satisfactoril....
The propounder must prove the existence and loss of the original Will to obtain Letters of Administration; reliance on a photocopy alone is insufficient.
The propounder of a Will must satisfactorily dispel all suspicious circumstances regarding its validity, particularly when substantial benefits accrue to them, or the Will may be deemed invalid.
The court emphasized that the burden of proof lies on the propounder of a Will, especially when suspicious circumstances exist, necessitating clear evidence of its validity.
Secondary evidence – Neither mere admission of a document in evidence amounts to its proof nor mere making of an exhibit of a document dispense with its proof, which is otherwise required to be done ....
The need to remove all legitimate suspicions before a document can be accepted as the last will of the testator.
The court upheld the validity of a registered Will, ruling that the burden of proof for allegations of forgery lies with the defendants, which they failed to meet.
Important Point : A will can be proved through secondary evidence if the original is lost, and Letters of Administration can be granted when no executor is appointed.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
