IMPORTANT POINT
S. 263, Explanation (b) empowers court to revoke or annul grant of probate in cases, where it obtained fraudulently by making false suggestions or concealing material particulars of case.

Background:

Rajiv Shakdher, J.—This is a statutory appeal filed against the judgment of the District Judge dated 11.08.2006. The learned District Judge vide the impugned judgment has dismissed the appellant’s petition under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (in short the Act) for grant of probate of Will dated 14.03.1996 [in short the Will (Ex.PW4/A)] said to be executed by Late Ms. Vidya Revachand Hingorani (in short the testatrix).

1.1. The testatrix expired on 11.09.1997. Upon the testatrix’s death, the appellant instituted the petition under Section 276 of the Act, on 24.12.1999. Apart from the State, which was impleaded as respondent no.1 to the said petition, there were 9, other respondents, who were arrayed as parties to the probate action. While respondent no.2 to 8 are the siblings of the deceased testatrix, respondent no.9 is the purchaser of the Property Bearing no.101, G Block, Saket, New Delhi, admeasuring 250.8 sq. meters (in short the Saket property), which is a subject matter of the aforementioned Will. Respondent no. 10 is the daughter of respondent no.9.

1.2. The appellant is the wife of the elder brother of the deceased testatrix and is a resident of New York, USA.

2. The learned District Judge has dismissed the appellant’s petition on two grounds. First, that the appellant has not been able to discharge the onus placed on her with regard to the execution of the Will. This, conclusion, has been reached by the learned District Judge based on the testimony of one, Mr. Shailender Bhardwaj (PW2), who was one of the persons who had attested the Will. Second, the petitioner had not impleaded the brother of the deceased testatrix. This conclusion has been reached in paragraph 16 of the impugned judgment. Though, the name of the brother is not given in the impugned judgment, one can safely assume, it could only allude to the husband of the appellant, who was not formally impleaded as a respondent along with other siblings in the probate action.

2.1. It is common ground that the Will dealt with only one asset of the deceased testatrix, which is, the Saket property. Furthermore, it is also a common ground between contesting parties, that is, the appellant and Mrs. Kavita Hingorani (i.e. respondent no.8 in the present appeal), that the, Saket property was sold to respondent no.9, one, Mrs. Santosh Singh, also known as Mrs. Santosh Rani. Respondent no.10, as noticed above, is the daughter of respondent no.9. Before me, respondent no.9 and 10, though represented by counsel, did not address any arguments in the matter.

3. In this context, the following brief facts are required to be noticed :-

3.1. The deceased testatrix was a spinster. According to the appellant, the testatrix executed the aforementioned Will on 14.03.1996 in presence of two witnesses. These being: one, Ms. Dhaneshwari Devi, advocate and, as indicated above, Mr. Shailender Bhardwaj (PW2).

3.2. The Will was registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar.

3.3. Even according to the appellant, the testatrix during her life time, entered into an agreement to sell with regard to the Saket property and, consequent thereto, received a sum of Rs.55 Lakhs from the buyer. In the probate petition, the appellant further averred that the said sum of Rs.55 Lakhs was kept in a bank account with one, Mr. G.V. Hingorani; the husband of respondent no.8.

3.4. The testatrix, as noticed above, died, on 11.09.1997, in Rishikesh, in the State of U.P.

3.5. It is, in these circumstances, that the probate petition was filed on 24.12.1999, as indicated above. Citation was issued to general public, which was published in the National Herald. Consequent thereto, objections to the probate petition were filed by respondent no.8.

3.6. It appears that upon impleadment of respondent no.9 and 10, they filed their objection in the form of replies to the petition.

3.7. In support of the probate petition, the appellant, besides herself, cited three witnesses. The first witness was: Ms