* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

% Judgment Reserved on: 08.12.2025

Judgment pronounced on: 12.12.2025

+ FAO 165/2012 & CM APPLs. 6680/2012, 1841/2013, 4447/2017,

4448/2017, 8796/2022, 8797/2022, 8798/2022 & 17973/2024

PRABHA DEVI .....Appellant

Through: Mr. Munish Kr. Singh, Advocate

versus

STATE & ORS .....Respondents

Through: Mr. Vidit Gupta, Mr. Rajesh Bansal,

Mr. Navin Bainsla and Mr. Trivesh Sharma, Advocates for LRs. of

Respondent No.2

CORAM:

HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA

JUDGMENT

CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA, J.

1. The present appeal under Section 299 of the Indian

Succession Act, 1925 (the ISA) has been filed by the objector/respondent no. 12 in the probate petition P.C. No. 69/2011 filed under Section 276 and 278 of the ISA on the file of the learned Additional District Judge, South District, Saket Courts,

Delhi, aggrieved by the order dated 30.11.2011 by which the petition was allowed.

2. In this appeal, the parties herein shall be referred to in the same rank as they were arrayed in the original probate petition.

3. Brief facts borne out by the record are: Late Ms. Lakhmi Devi (the testatrix), an unmarried Hindu woman, died on 29.04.1996 at her residence situated, at House No. 1/40498, Village Mochi Bagh, New Delhi. The property comprised of three rooms and appurtenant portions standing on a plot measuring 77 square yards. The testatrix was a teacher in a School of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi.

3.1. The petitioner, being the niece (bhanji) of the testatrix, alleged that the testatrix, being her mausi was in a sound disposing state of mind and of her own volition, had executed her last Will dated 30.03.1996 bequeathing her immovable property at Mochi Bagh, her savings account in Punjab National Bank, her General Provident Fund (GPF) account bearing no. T.T. 37680, and her National Savings Certificate exclusively in favour of the petitioner. The said Will has recorded that the testatrix had great love and affection for the petitioner and that the latter was the only one, who cared for her. The Will bears the signature of two attesting witnesses, namely, Sh. Mool Chand and Smt. Maimo Devi.

3.2. The petitioner also asserted that the testatrix had handed over the original copy of the Will in dispute to the petitioner along with the original documents of her property about 20 to 22 days prior to her death. According to the petitioner, after the death of the testatrix, the respondents, who are her close relatives, had no independent place to live and hence on their request, permitted their continued residence in the Mochi Bagh property. The petitioner permitted objectors/respondent nos. 11, 12, and 13 to remain therein as caretakers on humanitarian grounds.

Subsequently, disputes arose and hence the probate petition.

3.3. The objectors/respondents 6, 7, 12 and 13 raised objections that the petition was founded on concocted and distorted facts and that the Will dated 30.03.1996 was forged, fabricated and surrounded by suspicious circumstances. The Will does not disclose the place of its execution, and that the parentage and the addresses of the attesting witnesses were not mentioned. The petitioner, after remaining silent for nearly 15 years after the death of the testatrix, has forged and fabricated the Will. They also contended that the petitioner was acting in collusion with respondent nos. 2 to 5 to grab the property of the testatrix.

3.4. According to the objectors/respondents the petitioner has never been close to the testatrix and denied any sort of love and affection between them. It was contended by the objectors/respondents that, it was not the petitioner, who performed the last rites of the testatrix, rather it was respondent no. 13, Kishore, who had performed the kriya and the other ceremonies as he had been treated by the testatrix as her real son. It was also their case that respondent No. 13 had been orally adopted by the testatrix when the former was aged five years, with the permission of respondent nos. 6