The court affirmed the validity of the later Will executed by the Testator under the Indian Succession Act, stating its testamentary intent supersedes earlier claims.

Headnote:(A) Indian Succession Act, 1925 - Section 278 - Appeal against grant of Letters of Administration under an unregistered Will - The Trial Court found the Will was properly attested and executed. The Appellant disputed the validity, citing a prior Will and alleged contradictions. The Court held that the 2008 Will was valid as it was executed in accordance with legal requirements and due process. (Paras 56-74)

(B) Probate Jurisdiction - The role of a Probate Court is limited to assessing whether the Will is genuine and duly executed. It does not adjudicate on questions of ownership or title, which fall outside its purview. (Paras 57-59)

Facts of the case:
The dispute involves a claim on a property following the deceased's Will, with the Appellant arguing the authenticity of an earlier Will while the Respondent professes the validity of the recent one.

Findings of Court:
The Court supported the Trial Court's finding of credibility regarding the 2008 Will being properly attested and executed in line with the Indian Succession Act.

Issues: The core issue was whether the later Will was executed validly over the claims of an earlier registered Will.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court reaffirmed the position that the 2008 Will demonstrated clear testamentary intent and was executed following lawful procedures, thus overriding the previous claims.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT

TEJAS KARIA, J

1. The present appeal has been preferred by Sanjeev Malhotra, the Appellant herein, assailing the judgment and order dated 09.03.2021 („Impugned Order‟) passed by the learned Additional District Judge- 02, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, New Delhi, in Probate Case No. 16006/2016 („Trial Court‟).

2. By way of the Impugned Order, the learned Trial Court granted Letters of Administration in favour of Respondent No. 2, pursuant to a petition filed under Section 278 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 , in respect of an unregistered Will dated 07.01.2008 („2008 Will‟), allegedly executed by Late Shri Devi Dass Malhotra („Testator‟). As per the 2008 Will, the entire property bearing municipal number 40/1A, Ashok Nagar, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi admeasuring approximately 100 square yards („Property‟) was bequeathed exclusively in favour of Respondent No. 2 to the exclusion of the other legal heirs.

FACTUAL MATRIX

3. The Testator passed away on 07.03.2008. The Parties to the present Appeal are the legal heirs of the Testator. The pedigree showing the legal heirs of the Testator is as under:

4. The Appellant is the younger son of the Testator and Respondent No. 2 is the elder son. Respondent Nos. 4, 5 and 6 are the daughters of the Testator. Respondent Nos.7 to 11 are the legal heirs of the predeceased daughter, Late Madhu Sharma, of the Testator. Respondent No.3 was the wife of the Testator and the mother of the Appellant and Respondent Nos. 2, 4, 5 and 6. Respondent No.3 passed away on 05.04.2016 during the pendency of the probate proceedings and was deleted from the array of parties vide order dated 26.03.2021 passed by this Court in this Appeal.

5. The Property was inherited by the Testator from his father, Shri Ram Lal Malhotra. The Property comprises both residential and commercial components, including a ground floor and a 1^st (first) floor. The ground floor originally consisted of 4 (four) shops and a residential portion.

6. During the lifetime of the Testator, 2 (two) of the 4 (four) shops were sold on 23.04.1997. At the time of filing the Probate Petition, 1 (one) of the remaining 2 (two) shops were in possession of Respondent No. 2, and the other was in possession of Respondent No. 3. The remaining residential portion of the ground floor was occupied by Respondent No. 2 and his family members. The entire 1^st (first) floor was in the possession of the Appellant.

7. The 2008 Will, as propounded by Respondent No. 2, allegedly bequeaths the shop measuring 7.6 feet x 8 feet on the ground floor and the entire first floor to Respondent No. 2, while the remaining ground floor portion was bequeathed to the Appellant. The said Will also provided that any future construction on the upper floors, namely the 2^nd (second) and 3^rd (third) floors, was to be undertaken jointly by the Appellant and Respondent No. 2 and was to be equally divided between them.

8. The Appellant disputes the authenticity and genuineness of the 2008 Will. It is the case of the Appellant that Respondent No. 2 was debarred by the Testator from his estate, as evidenced by a public notice published in the newspaper „Rashtriya Sahara‟ on 06.12.1998. This material fact was not disclosed by Respondent No. 2 in the Probate Petition filed before the learned Trial Court. The Appellant further relies upon a registered Will dated 19.02.2002 (“2002 Will”), under which the ground floor of the Property was allegedly bequeathed jointly to the Appellant and Respondent No. 3. In support of this claim, the Appellant has also placed reliance upon an Agreement to Sell, a General Power of Attorney, an Affidavit, and other supporting documents stated to have been executed by the Testator.

9. Prior to the filing of the Probate Petition on 11.01.2016, several registered Relinquishment Deeds were executed in favour of the Appellant. Respondent No.3 executed a Relinquishment Deed dated 09.01.2015, relinquishing her share in the Property in favour of the Appellant. Similarly, Re

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 3562

The court affirmed the validity of the later Will executed by the Testator under the Indian Succession Act, stating its testamentary intent supersedes earlier claims.

Cases Referred (3)