HARI SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellants have filed this appeal to assail the Order of the Additional District Judge Delhi in having dismissed their probate case No. 344/1995 filed by them for seeking Letters of Administration of the Will allegedly executed by deceased/testator Shri Laik Ram on 01.05.1991. Vide impugned order the petition was dismissed by holding that the said will besides being shrouded with suspicious circumstances was also not proved under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act to have been executed by the deceased in view of the Contradictions noticed in the deposition of the two attesting witnesses examined by the appellants. It is this finding which has been assailed in this appeal. Even though the objectors to the aforesaid will had set up another will but they have also failed to prove the same. However they have not filed any cross appeal though are opposing the prayers made in the Appeal and have even filed written submissions in this regard.

(2.) Briefly stating the facts of this case are; that the appellants No. 1 & 2 are the nephews of the deceased/testator while appellants No. 3(a) to 3(f) are the legal heirs of their nephew, since deceased during the Course of hearing. They are the beneficiaries under the Will dated 1.5.91 propounded by them. The deceased also left behind three daughters but they are not the beneficiaries. After the citations were published and notices were issued to the near relatives, the daughters filed objections to the grant of probate. It is there case that the appellants have no locus-standie to file the probate petition, which is even otherwise bad for mis-joinder and non-joinder of necessary parties. The petition has also not been verified in accordance with law.

(3.) On the basis of a separate application filed under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC Azad Singh, Ranbir Singh and Angrezo were impleaded as respondents No. 5, 9 & 10. Azad Singh filed separate objections and propounded another will dated 09.01.1995 stated to have been executed by the deceased in his favor thereby bequeathing his entire property to him. He denied the execution of the Will propounded by the appellants and has stated that on the basis of the Will dated 09.01.1995 he has even got the property mutated in his name. It is also the case of Shri Azad Singh that probate petition filed by the appellants was also not maintainable in view of various provisions of Delhi Land Reforms Act. It has been also stated by him that the petitioners have no right, title or interest in the land left by deceased Laiq Ram as they were neither the Bhumidars nor in any way interested in the same and therefore after the death of the deceased, they being the sons of Shri Kehar Singh, real brother of the deceased, were entitled only to succeed to the extent of half share under Section 50 of the Delhi Land Reforms Act whereas the remaining half share is to be inherited by the objectors. It is stated that the very fact that Laiq Ram himself filed a suit for partition against the appellants and objectors goes a long way to show that he never executed any Will in favor of the appellants, rather he wanted his share to be separated from the objectors so that he becomes the exclusive Bhumidar thereof and enjoy its fruits. It has been further stated that the Will does not disclose the factum of filing the partition suit against them and the objectors. In fact the Will is a manufactured document and got scribed by the appellants for their advantage. Moreover the deceased was an illiterate person and could only sign in urdu whereas, the Will has been scribed in English. It is further stated that the deceased was being looked after by the objectors during his life time and therefore he could not have made the Will of the land in favor of the appellants. It has been further stated that proceedings under Section 145 Cr.PC were initiated between Laiq Ram and his daughters and a civil suit for permanent injunction was filed by Laiq Ram against his daughters. It is also stated that during his lifetime, deceased did not disclose about the factum of executing the Will to anyone. It is stated that these are the suspicious circumstances which casts clouds over the genuineness and authentication of the will. Separate objections were filed by Ranbir Singh and Angrezo etc. According to Ranbir the will is not in accordance with Section 281 of the Indian Succession Act. Moreover the appellants have not been named as executor of the Will and as such have no locus standi to file the probate petition. He also pleaded that the will propounded by the appellants appears to have been procured by way of undue influence and coercion exercised by the appellants for their unlawful gains and motives. Moreover the witnesses to the Will are unreliable and unworthy of credit since they are the relatives and interested persons and have been procured for material gain by the appellants. Same is the case set up by Respondent No.10, Smt. Angrezo in her separate objections. She has only added that the signatures/thumb impression on the Will are not that of Laiq Ram; registration of the Will is also not in accordance with law; it is vague; and has also not been validly executed or attested as per the provisions of law. She also stated that the deceased was not in a state of sound disposing mind after the death of his wife Smt. Chhoto on 05.04.1991, with whom he had deep love, affection and attachment. His mental faculties were temporarily impaired and he was not in a position to discriminate what is good and bad for him.