* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment reserved on : 16 April 2025 Judgment pronounced on: 06 May 2025 + FAO 250/2013 SMT. BIMLA DEVI .....Appellant Through: Mr. Alok Kumar, Sr. Adv.

with Ms. Manisha A. Narain, Mr. Amit Kr. Singh and Mr.

Manan Soni, Advs.

versus THE STATE & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Mr. Pankaj Batra, Adv. for R-

2 along with R-2 in person CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DHARMESH SHARMA

J U D G M E N T

1. The appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 299 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 [“the Act”] against the judgment and order dated 28.02.2013 passed by learned Additional District Judge- 02, West District, Tis Hazari Courts, Delhi [“Probate Court”] whereby the probate has been granted to the respondent No. 2/Smt.

Saraswati Devi of the will dated 24.04.2001.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

2. Shorn of unnecessary details, the appellant, Smt. Bimla Devi, is the widow of Mr. Jai Kumar, who was the son of the deceased testator, Mr. Fal Chand. The deceased testator died on 02.12.2002 at Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRAMFOADO 250/2013 Page 1 of 22 his residence bearing DDA Janta Flat No. A-5/B-58B, DDA Janta Flats, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi-110063 [“subject property”].

3. The Family Tree of the testator/Mr. Fal Chand is as hereunder:

4. During his lifetime, Sh. Fal Chand/deceased testator was allotted the subject property and the deceased made and executed the Will dated 24.04.2001, which was duly notarized. The deceased testator had bequeathed all his rights in respect of the aforesaid property in favour of his wife Smt. Yashoda and after her demise, the subject property was to devolve in favour of the respondent No. 2/Saraswati Devi as sole legatee. It is stated that Smt. Yashoda died on

01.04.2006.

5. Eventually, the respondent No. 2/Sarswati Devi filed for probate of the Will vide Probate Petition 64/10/2008, asserting that there was no legal impediment in granting of the relief as prayed for in the petition and it has been prayed that the Probate/Letter of Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRAMFOADO 250/2013 Page 2 of 22 Administration in respect of the estate left by the deceased and mentioned in the Will dated 24.04.2001 may be granted in her favour. PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE LEARNED PROBATE COURT:

6. The learned Probate Court based on the pleadings of the parties, framed the following issues:

i. Whether Will dated 24.4.2008 executed by Sh. Fal Chand is genuine, legal and is his last Will executed in sound disposing mind? OPP.

ii. Whether petitioner is entitled for Probate/Letter of Administration, as prayed for? OPP.

iii. Relief.

7. During the course of trial, the respondent No.2/petitioner examined herself as PW-1. She has also examined PW-2/Sh. Dinesh and PW-3/Sh. Brijesh Kumar. On the contrary the appellant/Smt. Bimla has examined herself RW-1, thereafter, no witness was examined on behalf of the respondent.

8. PW-2 deposed that the deceased testator, his uncle, had called him on 24.04.2001 to witness the execution of the Will at his residence. He stated that the Will was executed in a sound state of mind and without any external pressure and that he signed the document in the presence of the deceased and the other attesting witness. He identified his and the deceased’s signatures on the Will and affirmed that the execution was voluntary. His credibility remained intact despite cross-examination by respondents No. 3 to 5.

9. PW-3/Brijesh Kumar, the second attesting witness, corroborated PW-2’s testimony. He affirmed through an affidavit (Ex. PW-3/1) and Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:PRAMFOADO 250/2013 Page 3 of 22 oral deposition that he too was called by the deceased to witness the Will’s execution. Along with PW-2 and the deceased, he went to the Sub-Registrar’s office, where the Will was executed. PW-3 confirmed the mental soundness and free will of the deceased at the time of execution and denied all allegations of forgery during cross- examination. He also stated that he read t