IMPORTANT POINT
Will carries presumption of authenticity with it.

A.N. Jindal, J.— This appeal is against the judgment dated 14.12.2010, whereby the petition filed by Rajnish Tuli appellant (hereinafter referred as “the appellant”) for grant of letter of Administration in respect of the Estate mentioned in the Will executed by his father namely Madan Lal Tuli, has been dismissed.

2. The prime question for determination in this case is, “whether unregistered Will (Holograph) dated 2.4.2000 executed by Madan Lal Tuli (expired on 9.6.2003) in favour of Rajnish Tuli appellant, is a valid testament conferring rights upon him and entitling him to the probate regarding the property left by late Madan Lal Tuli?”

3. Madan Lal Tuli had two sons namely Sandeep Tuli respondent No.3 and appellant. Naresh Tuli respondent No.2 is the wife of late Madan Lal Tuli. He was working as Assistant Registrar in the Punjab University, Chandigarh, and residing at House No.2214, Sector 15C, Chandigarh. It was pleaded that the said Madan Lal Tuli, while in sound disposing mind, executed a valid Will on 2.4.2000, bequeathing the aforesaid house along with the bank deposits and deposits made in the Post Office and other deposits, in favour of the appellant, therefore, the latter was entitled to the grant of letter of Administration in respect of the estate of late Madan Lal Tuli.

4. Upon notice, respondent No.1 was proceeded against ex parte, whereas, respondent No.2 (wife of the deceased) accepted the Will while admitting the claim of the appellant However, respondent No.3 contested the petition. In his written statement, he denied the said Will and claimed natural succession. It was further stated that the alleged unregistered document ignoring the natural heirs of the deceased, who were otherwise entitled to succeed to the said property, was shrouded by suspicious circumstances. The appellant kept it concealed for two years. It was further averred that the language, the text and the spelling mistakes with regard to the said Will bear ample testimony to the irresistible fact that the same is a bogus and manufactured document prepared by the appellant to usurp his rights. The witnesses to the Will being bosom friends of the appellant were supposed to support the cause of the appellant ..

5. The rival pleas gave rise to the following issues:

“1. Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of letter of probate? OPP

2. Relief.”

6. In order to support the Will, the appellant himself appeared as PW1 and examined K.C. Nanda, U.D.C. Regional Passport Office, Chandigarh (PW1), Vineet Sayal (PW2), Ashwani Sharma (PW3), Maya Ram, Senior Assistant (PW4). Joginder Pal, Postal Assistant (PW5), Jasod Ram, CTO, Central Bank of India (PW6) and Aman Luthra (PW7).

7. On the other hand, respondent No.3 Sandeep Tuli himself appeared in the witness box as RWI and furnished his affidavit Ex. RW1A and thereafter, closed his evidence.

The trial Court refused to accept the Will. Arguments heard. Record perused.

8. The prominent witnesses to prove the case of the appellant were the witnesses to the Will namely Aman Luthra and Sumit Gupta, out of them, the appellant had examined Aman Luthra as PW7. He has duly established that Madan Lal Tuli scribed this Will himself while in sound disposing mind. He knew what he had scribed and there was no pressure upon him when he scribed it. Aman Luthra has further disclosed that on the day of scribing of the Will, he was called by the testator at his house, as he was on good visiting terms with him. Sumit Gupta also came there and they sat in the room of Madan Lal Tuli, who showed them a draft of the Will written in his own handwriting. Then Madan Lal Tuli had disclosed them that he had executed his last and final Will (Ex.PW7B). in favour of Rajnish Tuli appellant. The said Will was read over and explained to him as well as Sumit Gupta and both of them signed the said Will. That apart, Maya Ram (PW4) proved that the arms licence, which was in the name of Madan Lal Tuli, was transferred in the n