PARUL GUPTA Vs. SIDHARTHA SAREEN AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IA Nos. 16210/2015, 17920/2015

(2.) Mr. Parag P. Tripathi, the learned Senior Advocate for the plaintiffdaughter, submits that the relations between the testator and his daughters were cordial and that there is no reason why he should have excluded them through the disputed Will. According to the learned counsel, the fact that the Will bequeaths nearly the entire estate of the testator to the son, i.e., Defendant No.1 only, to the exclusion of his two daughters, casts suspicion on the veracity of the Will and shows that the Will was prepared and executed under the overbearing influence of Defendant No. 1. He submits that the testator was suffering from certain medical infirmities when the Will was executed especially as an Income Tax raid had been conducted on the testator's residential premises in 2007 and in 2009 by the Enforcement Directorate. He contends that the testator was depressed and therefore was vulnerable to persuasion and undue influence to the detriment of the interests of the plaintiff.

(3.) The learned Senior Advocate would contend that the stated reason in the disputed Will for the testator to have excluded his daughters from his estate is that he had already "given sufficient" to both his daughters and that this raises suspicion, because during his lifetime, the testator had gifted the plaintiff only one movable property in Okhla worth around Rs. 11 crores along with the shares of M/s. Oriole Exports Private Limited, which constitutes a negligible share of the testators estate; that the claim of defendant No.1, that the testator was living an active life till December, 2012, is belied by the testator's own supporting affidavit to an application to the Income Tax Tribunal dated 13th November, 2013 seeking condonation of delay of 855 days in filing cross-objection, which states that the Late Mr. Sudhir Sareen, since July, 2011, had reduced his foreign visits due to ill-health.