The burden of proving a Will resides with the propounder, who must affirmatively dispel all suspicious circumstances. Failure to strictly comply with mandatory attestation requirements or to provide satisfactory explanations for significant doubts regarding the testator's intent and document execution renders the Will invalid.

JUDGMENT

CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA, J.

1. This is an appeal under Section 299 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (the ISA) filed by respondent no. 4, 10 & 11 in Probate Case no. 20 of 2003 on the file of Learned ADJ, Central District, Delhi aggrieved by the order dated 29.10.2013 by which the probate petition was allowed and a letter of administration granted to the petitioner. Respondent no. 4 and 10 died during the pendency of the proceedings and hence their legal representatives/heirs have been brought on record.

2. In this appeal, unless otherwise specified, the parties will be referred to as described in the original petition.

3. The facts relevant to the present appeal are as follow: Late Jugal Kishore, son of late Lajja Ram, was the owner of property bearing no. 2271, Gali No. 69, Naiwala, Karol Bagh, New Delhi. He died on 04.01.1997. Jugal Kishore was survived by four sons, i.e., respondents 3 to 5 and the original petitioner, namely, Ajudhya Prakash and three daughters, that is, respondents 6 to 8.

3.1. The probate petition was instituted on 02.06.1998 by one of his sons, Ajudhya Prakash, alleging that his father had executed a Will dated 18.09.1995, which was registered on 05.02.1996 before the Sub-Registrar Office, Delhi. He claimed to be a beneficiary under the aforesaid Will and asserted that the Will had been executed by the testator in a sound and disposing state of mind and in accordance with law.

3.2. During the pendency of the proceedings, the original petitioner, Ajudhya Prakash, died and hence by order dated 20.01.2001, respondent no. 9, his son, was ordered to be transposed as the petitioner by the trial court.

4. Respondent no. 4 along with his sons respondent nos. 10 and 11, vide their reply contended that the Will dated 18.09.1995 was forged and fabricated and that it had not been executed by late Jugal Kishore, who was about 90 years of age, suffering from several ailments, and was not in a sound and disposing state of mind at the relevant time. The respondents further contended that late Jugal Kishore had earlier executed a registered Will dated 22.04.1994 in favour of Prem Lata, wife of respondent no. 4 and their sons, which represented the true testamentary intention of the former. It was contended that the property bequeathed to them had been mutated in their favour.

4.1. It was further contended that execution of the Will dated 18.09.1995 was surrounded by several suspicious circumstances, including the strained relations between Jugal Kishore and the petitioner when the Will is alleged to have come into existence. Jugal Kishore had issued a “Pharkhati” disowning the petitioner, which was published in a daily newspaper on 29.05.1987. Jugal Kishore had issued a legal notice dated 12.10.1987 to the petitioner calling upon him to vacate the portion of the property in his occupation. It was also contended that Jugal Kishore had moved applications dated 28.09.1995 and 07.08.1996 in a civil suit pending before the court of a Civil Judge at Delhi, alleging violation of an injunction order by the petitioner and his son Madan Mohan and that the former had also lodged a complaint dated 16.07.1996 with the Station House Officer, Karol Bagh, against the latter.

4.2 It was further contended that on 02.12.1996, Jugal Kishore had instituted a civil suit against t