SURESH Vs. RAMESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The controversy in this case revolves around a Will executed by Smt. Mukhtiari Devi, Ex.PW-1/1, dated 4.1.1996 in favour of Ramesh, respondent No. 1, in respect of her service benefits with MCD and to the exclusion of the appellants and respondent No. 2 to 12, who are her children or their legal representatives. The learned ADJ vide his order dated 11.01.2007 found the Will to be valid and dismissed the objections raised by the appellants. The appellants in this appeal have questioned the order passed by the trial court.

(2.) The learned counsel for the appellant strenuously argued that the execution of Will wallows in suspicious circumstances and uncertainties. He enumerated the following points in support of his case. Firstly, Pratap Singh, Superintendent, CSE, Civil Lines Zone, Rajpur Road, stated that at the time of appointment of Smt. Mukhtiari Devi, who, was working as Sweeper in MCD department of Civil Lines had nominated first Bhartoo, her husband and after his death, she nominated Suresh Kumar, appellant, for her service benefits She also nominated Mr. Nav Raj, appellant for group insurance scheme only. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the fact that Smt. Mukhtiari Devi, mentioned the names of appellants, in her nomination form casts a film of doubt over the Will. The most telling argument, urged by learned counsel for the appellants, was that if Smt. Mukhtiari Devi, testatrix had sound disposing mind and had executed the above said Will, it is unfathomable as to why did not she change the nomination from her official record.

(3.) This fact must be read in conjunction with the other facts which are to be mentioned as hereunder. It must be borne in mind that events happening in the year 1982 or prior to that have got no connection with the execution of her Will which took place after the elapse of 14 years. Within the span of this much time, this is not necessary that the same position must prevail. Secondly, with the passage of time the human memory vicissitudes. There lies no rub in executing a Will in favour of respondent No. 1 against the nomination made by her 14 years' ago. Nomination has got exiguous value as against a valid Will. In the absence of Will, all the legal heirs of the testatrix could have legally made claims to her service benefits. The nomination form on its own does not demolish the claims of the remaining LRs. Nomination is usually made in respect of one or two persons so that there may not be any difficulty in getting the amount withdrawn. It must be borne in mind that when a person who executes his/her Will does not want to tom torn about the same. She wants to keep it a secret and it is generally done under the hat. The idea behind it is that her legal representatives should not know about it and be at logger heads during her lifetime. Change of nomination would have entailed enough time and chances of their coming to know by her others heirs about the same could not have been ruled out. They could have picked up cudgels with her on this knotty issue. To my mind, no tangible ground for suspicion exists.