$~

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Judgment reserved on: 20.11.2025

Judgment pronounced on: 27.11.2025

+ FAO(OS) 113/2023 and CM APPL. 55662/2023

SUNIL MADAN MANDHAN .....Appellant

Through: Mr. S.N. Choudhri, Mr. K.N. Singh, Ms. Shruti Choudhary and Mr. Prabnoor, Advs.

versus

THE STATE GNCT OF DELHI & ANR. .....Respondents

Through: Mr. A.K. Singla, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Rahul Shukla, Ms. Bachita Karuah Shukla, Ms. Sayantani Baskar and Mr. Sahil Kumar, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR

J U D G M E N T

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J.

1. The Appellant [Respondent No.2 before the learned Single Judge] assails the correctness of the Judgment dated 23.08.2023 [hereinafter referred to as ‘Impugned Judgment’] passed by the learned Single Judge in TEST.CAS. 83/2015, whereby probate of the Will dated 22.10.2013, executed by late Shri Manohar Lal [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Testator’], was granted in favour of, Ms. Sunita Kakkar @ Baby, the daughter of the Testator and the named Executrix, the Respondent No.2 herein [Petitioner before the learned Single Judge].

FACTUAL MATRIX

2. In order to comprehend issues involved in the present case, the relevant facts in brief are required to be noticed.

3. The Testator, late Shri Manohar Lal, expired on 25.03.2015, leaving behind two children, the Appellant (son) and the Respondent No.2 (daughter). Under the Will dated 22.10.2013 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Will’], the Testator bequeathed his entire self-acquired property, namely Property No. C-35, East of Kailash, New Delhi, comprising the basement, ground floor, second floor and terrace rights [herein after referred to as ‘the Suit Property’], exclusively to Respondent No.2. The Will records the Testator’s estrangement from the Appellant since 1989, his consistent neglect by the Appellant, and the care and support received from Respondent No.2.

4. During the probate proceedings, Respondent No.2 examined herself as PW-1 and produced Lt. Col. (Retd.) Prem Nath, the attesting witness, as PW-2 who proved due execution of the Will in terms of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 [hereinafter referred to as ‘ISA’]. The Appellant/Objector entered appearance as DW-1 and disputed the genuineness of the Will, alleging (i) forgery of the testator’s signature; (ii) improper attestation; and (iii) existence of suspicious circumstances. The Appellant/Objector relied upon a bank signature form of 1982 and further examined the Notary Public who notarised the Will as DW-2 and a bank official from Canara Bank as DW-3, to support his objection regarding alleged forgery and improper attestation.

5. The learned Single Judge, after a detailed appraisal of the oral and documentary evidence including the attesting witness’s testimony, contemporaneous public notices dated 22.10.2013 published in the Indian Express (English) and Jan Satta (Hindi) by the Testator disowning the Appellant and a handwritten note dated 15.10.2012 reflecting the same intention, found the Will to be duly proved. The learned Single Judge rejected the objections regarding signature comparison, held that minor inconsistencies did not undermine the core attestation and concluded that the propounder had discharged the burden of dispelling all suspicious circumstances.

6. Aggrieved by the grant of probate, the Appellant has preferred the present Intra-Court Appeal.

CONTENTIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT

7. Learned counsel for the Appellant contends that the learned Single Judge erred in holding the Will to be genuine. Learned counsel contends that the Will is surrounded by several suspicious circumstances and that Respondent No.2, on whom the initial burden lies, has not proved that the document was voluntarily executed or reflects the true last wishes of the testator.

8. Learned counsel further contends that the genuineness of the Testator’s signature has not been established. Learned counsel alle