The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of proving the execution of a Will as per the provisions of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, and the need to remove any suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will.

JUDGMENT

Fateh Deep Singh, J. - Appellants Satish Gorowara and Sushma Sood have come up in this first appeal against order dated 17.12.2012 of the Court of learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh whereby the Court below on the petition by the then petitioner Rahul Arora under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (in short, 'the Act') had granted probate of the Will dated 22.07.1987.

2. Before venturing into the merits of the case of each of the parties, it is necessary to understand the factual background which has brought about this disenchantment between the family. In the light of arguments addressed before this Court by the counsel for the two sides and is well emancipated from the records, one Hans Raj out of his wedlock with Tara Rani gave birth to two sons namely Baldev Raj and Tilak Raj, and two daughters namely Kamal Malhotra and Parmodh Sarin. Baldev Raj is reported to have died on 16.07.1996 and left behind his widow Satish Gorowara present appellant. Tara Rani is stated to be the owner of the property in question on the strength of sale deed dated 12.02.1962 and is alleged to have, as per the claim of the original petitioner grandson Rahul Arora, executed an unregistered Will dated 22.07.1987. It needs to be mentioned here that earlier, over a gift-deed dated 17.04.1971 the income tax authorities vide order dated 15.12.1978 had set aside the same and which side of the litigation is not essential to be considered here. It is also not essential to bring about that Ramna Kohli grand-daughter had filed cases against her grandparents as well.

3. Petitioner Rahul Arora claimed that being grandson of Tara Rani out of love and affection she had made this bequeath before passing away on 23.07.1991 and being the sole legatee was entitled to inherit the bequeath and hence the relief in question.

4. The original respondents No.2 to 5 have vociferously agitated the claim of the petitioner. Though it is claimed that the petitioner was fugitive and there was litigation with his estranged wife in India but nothing comes in the way of the present decision on that score. The petition has been filed by Rahul Arora through his father Tilak Raj claiming to be the holder of General Power of Attorney of his son and which too is supposed to be supported by respondents No.6 to 8. The contesting respondents have alleged that the Will in question was neither legal, nor valid and operative and therefore, could not be put into operation and even denied right of Tara Rani to execute the Will and went to the extent of denying her ownership over the same and even contested the Will as well.

5. The lower Court framed the following issues:-

i) Whether the petition is filed by a duly authorized person on behalf of petitioner? OPP

ii) If issue no.1 is decided in favour of petitioner, whether petitioner is entitled for grant of probate in respect of property i.e. House No.230, Sector 21-A, Chandigarh? OPP

iii) Whether the petition is not maintainable in the present form? OPR

iv) Whether the petitioner has no locus standi to file the present petition? OPR

v) Whether the Will in question is a forged and fabricated document? OPR

vi) Whether the present petition is bad for non joinder and mis-joinder of necessary parties? OPR

vii) Relief.

6. On behalf of the petitioner, Tilak Raj testified as PW-1 and examined Yatinder Sharma, Advocate Scribe of the Will as PW-2; Sudhir Uppal attesting witness PW-3 and on the other hand respondent No.3 Ramna Kohli testified as RW-1 and examined Rajinder Malhotra Senior Assistant, Estate Office, UT Chandigarh as RW-2 while Amrit Lal Malhotra RW-3 testified on behalf of respondents No.7 and 8. It is consequent thereupon, the impugned findings were returned.

7. In view of the recent pronouncement in 'Kirodi (since deceased) through his LR vs. Ram Parkash & others' Civil appeal No.4988 of 2019; SLP(C) No.11527 of 2019 decided on 10.05.2019, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clearly held under Section 41 of the Punjab Courts Act