JUDGMENT

%

1. Impugned order of 06th July 2015 dismisses appellant’s probate petition in respect of the Will dated 14th March, 2011 by holding that the Will produced by the appellant/petitioner does not inspire confidence.

2. The factual backdrop, as noticed in the impugned order, is that appellant is Executor of the Will of 14th March, 2011 executed by late Sh. Lalit Mohan Gupta who had passed away on 05th January, 2013. The parents of the Testator had pre-deceased him and the Testator was survived by his wife Mrs. Constance Gupta and daughter, namely Ms.Charu. The appellant/petitioner was appointed as Executor of the Will in question as he was a neighbour and the close friend of the Testator. The Will in question pertains to various amounts lying in the banks in fixed deposits, shares etc. and immovable property i.e. First floor of the property No.174-Golf Links, New Delhi which is under lease to M/s.

Desaico Consulting Pvt. Ltd. for a period of 20 years.

3. The contents of operative portion of the Will in question (paragraph Nos.7 to 9 thereof) have been reproduced by Trial Court in the impugned order. A bare perusal of the Will in question reveals that the aforesaid immovable property shall devolve upon wife and children of the appellant. So far as the two only heirs of the Testator are concerned, as per the Will in question, they get assets of the Testator which are in United States of America.

4. The death certificate of the Testator and the original Will in question running into 4 pages was tendered in evidence. The valuation report as well as publication in the newspaper was also tendered in evidence. The daughter of the Testator had filed her evidence by way of an affidavit before the Trial Court in which she had given no objection to the grant of probate of the Will. The Testator’s daughter had also made a verification and she filed Affidavit of 11th November, 2013 to this effect. The original Will produced before the Court was laminated. The LRs of the deceased resides in USA and they had sent self-attested signatures of theirs which were tabulated by the Trial Court in paragraph 12.2 of the impugned order. It is noted in the impugned order that last page of the Will filed in the Court contained 2 sets of signatures of the LRs of the Testator.

5. The Trial Court found that signatures of Testator’s daughter on the left side of the Will did not match with her signatures on the right side of the Will and the copy of the said Will is on appeal record as Annexure A-5. It is noted in the impugned order that the explanation of petitioner to the variation of signatures on the Will in question was that the signatures on the right side on the Will were affixed on 27th January 2013 before the Notary to get the Will attested, which has been done after the death of the Testator. Trial Court concluded that this explanation raised further doubts which were expressed in the impugned order in the following manner:-

“(a) How for the purposes of self attestation done in USA when the original was with the petitioner/Executor.

(b) What circumstances necessitated self attestation of Will (unregistered) by a Notary after the death of Testator.

(c) The entire evidence of the petitioner has claimed that the Will of the Testator has been duly notarized.”

6. Trial Court has relied upon the Supreme Court’s decision in Niranjan Umesh Chandra Joshi Vs. Mridula Jyoti Rao: 2007 (1) AD SC 477 and Surinder Pal Vs. Saraswati Arora (1974) 2 SCC 600 to observe that where the propounder takes prominent part in the execution of the Will which confers on him a substantial benefit, that is itself one of the suspicious circumstances, which must be removed by clear evidence. The Trial Court concluded that by disowning fourth page of the notarized Will, petitioner has defeated his entire case which was built on the alleged notarized Will and that by the Will in question, substantial benefit stood conferred upon the wife of the Executor and this by itself created susp