RAJNISH TULI Vs. GENERAL PUBLIC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is against the judgment dated 14.12.2010, whereby the petition filed by Rajnish Tuli-appellant (hereinafter referred as 'the appellant') for grant of letter of Administration in respect of the Estate mentioned in the will executed by his father namely Madan Lal Tuli, has been dismissed. The prime question for determination in this case is, "whether unregistered will (Holograph) dated 02.04.2000 executed by Madan Lal Tuli (expired on 09.06.2003) in favour of Rajnish Tuli-appellant, is a valid testament conferring rights upon him and entitling him to the probate regarding the property left by late Madan Lal Tuli?"

(2.) Madan Lal Tuli had two sons namely Sandeep Tuli-respondent No. 3 and appellant. Naresh Tuli-respondent No. 2 is the wife of late Madan Lal Tuli. He was working as Assistant Registrar in the Punjab University, Chandigarh, and residing at House No. 2214, Sector 15-C, Chandigarh. It was pleaded that the said Madan Lal Tuli, while in sound disposing mind, executed a valid will on 02.04.2000, bequeathing the aforesaid house along with the bank deposits and deposits made in the Post Office and other deposits, in favour of the appellant, therefore, the latter was entitled to the grant of letter of Administration in respect of the estate of late Madan Lal Tuli.

(3.) Upon notice, respondent No. 1 was proceeded against ex parte, whereas, respondent No. 2 (wife of the deceased) accepted the will while admitting the claim of the appellant. However, respondent No. 3 contested the petition. In his written statement, he denied the said will and claimed natural succession. It was further stated that the alleged unregistered document ignoring the natural heirs of the deceased, who were otherwise entitled to succeed to the said property, was shrouded by suspicious circumstances. The appellant kept it concealed for two years. It was further averred that the language, the text and the spelling mistakes with regard to the said will bear ample testimony to the irresistible fact that the same is a bogus and manufactured document prepared by the appellant to usurp his rights. The witnesses to the will being bosom friends of the appellant were supposed to support the cause of the appellant.