2005 Supreme(P&H) 168
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Hemant Gupta, J.
Jyotsna Prabha Kohli
Versus
Reg: Estate Of (Dr.) Mrs.Sharda Jagdish W/o Late Dr.Jagdish
Probate Case No. 4 of 1991,
Decided On : FEBRUARY 1, 2005
The main legal point established is that the attesting witness is not required to be aware of the contents of the Will, and the mere fact of the testator's death shortly after executing the Will cannot be a ground for suspicion.
Headnote:
Probate - Indian Succession Act - Section 276 - 63
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a petition for grant of probate under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act regarding the validity of a Will executed by the deceased in favor of the petitioner, which was contested by the respondent.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioner had proved the revocation of a previous Will and the execution of the new Will, and that the execution of the new Will was not surrounded by any suspicious circumstances.
Issues: The main issue was whether the petitioner was entitled to the grant of probate based on the Will dated 4th December, 1990.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the attesting witness is not a witness of the contents of the document but of the signatures of the testator on the Will, and that the mere fact that the deceased died shortly after executing the Will cannot be a suspicious circumstance to discard the Will.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition and ordered the grant of letters of administration to the petitioner for the administration of the deceased's estate.
Hemant Gupta, J.
1. This is a petition for grant of probate under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act of the Will dated 4.12.1990 executed by Dr. (Mrs.) Sharda Jagdish w/o Late Dr. Jagdish Chander Khandpur.
2. It has been pleaded that the petitioner is the only daughter of the testator and the executor appointed under the Will. Earlier, the deceased executed a registered Will dated 20.7.1988 in favour of her brother Shri Anand Uma Nath @ Anant U. Basrur but subsequently this Will was revoked vide registered deed of revocation dated 4.12.1990 and thereafter the deceased executed a registered Will in favour of the petitioner on 4.12.1990. It is also pleaded that there is no other heir, next of kin or relation likely to claim the property left by the deceased.
3. Notice to the General Public was issued in "The Tribune" (English Edition) and "Dainik Tribune" (Hindi Edition). The said petition was contested by Shri Anant U. Basrur. It was the case of the said respondent that a duly registered Will, dated 20.7,1988 was executed by the deceased in his favour who is real brother of the deceased. The said respondent denied that the said Will was revoked at any stage. It was asserted that the said respondent is the only heir to claim the property left by the deceased. The following issues were framed on 17.1.1992:-
1. Whether the petitioner is entitled to the grant of probate on the basis of Will dated 4th December, 1990? OPP
2. Relief.
4. In support of proof of Will dated 4.12.1990 executed in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner examined PW1 Prof. D.N. Johar, Law Faculty, Punjab University, Chandigarh, one of the attesting witnesses of Will dated 4.12.1990, Exhibit P-1, as well as of Revocation deed dated 4.12.1990, Exhibit P-2, Apart from the said testimony, the petitioner herself appeared as PW5. In addition to the attesting witness, the petitioner has examined PW3 Pushpinder Singh, Tehsildar-cum-Sub Register, Union Territory, Chandigarh, who has deposed to the effect that Will dated 4.12.1990, Exhibit P-1, and Revocation deed dated 4.12.1990, Exhibit P-2, bears the signatures of the testator as well as the attesting witnesses. He has deposed that the testator and the attesting witnesses have signed in his presence and that he has gone to the PGI to register the documents Exhibits P-1 and P-2. PW2 is Baldev Krishan, Registration Clerk from the office of Sub Registrar, Union Territory, Chandigarh, who has brought the record from the office of Sub Registrar, Chandigarh, and deposed that the documents Exhibits P-1 and P-2 tally with the originals retained in the officials record. In addition thereto, the petitioner has examined PW4 Dr. Suresh Sharma, Registrar in Orthopedics Department, PGI, at the relevant time. He has proved the certificate Exhibit PW4/A to the effect that Mrs. Sharda Jagdish was in a fit condition to make statement.
5. To counter such evidence, the respondent has examined himself as RW1 and deposed that deceased Mrs. Sharda Jagdish was his elder sister and that he arranged the marriage of his sister with Dr. Jagdish Chandra. He financed Dr. Jagdish in his practice at Chandigarh and provided some money for constructing the house in Chandigarh. He also financed the education of his sisters. The respondent also examined RW2 Shri Suresh Sharma, who is tenant in the premises owned by Dr. Mrs. Sharda Jagdish, as well as RW3 Rajesh Kapur, another tenant inducted by Dr. Mrs. Sharda Jagdish in her premises in Sector 27.
6. A perusal of statement of PW1 Prof. D.N. Johar, attesting witness, and that of the statement of PW3 Pushpinder Singh, Sub Registrar, leaves no manner of doubt that Will dated 4.12.1990, Exhibit P-1, was executed by the deceased. Still further, before the execution of the said Will, deed of revocation Exhibit P2 was also executed by her. The testimony of PW4 Dr. Suresh Sharma alongwith certificate Exhibit PW4/A shows that the deceased was in fit state of mind so as to execute the Will which