THAKUR DASS VIRMANI Vs. RAJ MINOCHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Aggrieved by an order of grant of letter of administration, the Objectors/appellants have filed the present appeal.

(2.) It has been contended by Mr. Chopra, learned counsel for the appellants that a suit for partition is pending in the High Court in relation to the property in question. and, therefore, the Probate Court ought to have stayed the proceedings till the decision in the partition suit pending in the High Court. He has further contended that; the Will did not inspire any confidence as the circumstances in which the Will was executed were doubtful. It has further been contended by learned counsel for the appellants that the mere fact that both the attesting witnesses were beneficiaries of the Will would create doubt about the genuineness of the Will. It has been further contended by Mr. Chopra that a material witness, advocate Tuteja was not brought in the witness box although he was an independent witness and allegedly drafted the Will and got the same registered in the office of the Sub Registrar.

(3.) It has been further contended by learned counsel for the appellants that even Chander Bhan was deliberately withheld by the respondents as he could have thrown light on the genuineness of the Will. Lastly, it has been contended by learned counsel for the appellants that the Testatrix being a lady of old age was not of sound disposing mind and no evidence of doctor has been brought on record in support of contention by the respondents that the Testatrix was of sound disposing mind.