Saturday, July 6, 2024
Latest:
delhihighcourt

DEEPAK DUGGAL vs STATE & ORS

Information

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Reserved on: 10th April, 2024
Pronounced on: 28th June, 2024

+ TEST.CAS. 29/2010

DEEPAK DUGGAL
S/o Late Sh. Panna Lal Duggal,
C-147, Nirman Vihar,
New Delhi-110092 ….. Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sanjeev Sindhwani, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sanjay Dua, Advocate.

versus
1. STATE
2. Manju Khuller
W/o Sh. Surendra Kumar Khuller,
R/o Projects Engineering Division,
PO Box No. 177,
Safat-13002, Kuwait

3. Mrs. Ranjana Kohli
W/o Sh. Hitesh Kohli,
R/o 90/83A, Malviya Nagar,
Delhi ….. Respondents
Through: Proxy counsel (Appearance not given).
CORAM:
HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA

J U D G M E N T

NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.
1. The Petition under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 has been filed by the petitioner seeking grant of Probate in respect of the Will dated 07.12.1985 of his father, late Sh. Panna Lal Duggal.
2. Briefly stated, the petitioner, who is the son of deceased Sh. Panna Lal Duggal, the testator, has asserted that his father had executed a Will dated 07.12.1985, in which he was named as the Executor. His two sisters, who along with him were the only class-I heirs but were excluded from any benefit under the Will. Smt. Padmavati, the wife of Late Sh. Panna Lal Duggal, had predeceased him on 24.11.1984 at the age of 64 years.
3. It is submitted that the deceased had executed the Will dated 07.12.1985, in sound disposing mind and out of his own free will and volition, without any force, coercion or undue influence. The Will was duly attested by two witnesses namely, Mr. P.S. Kaicker r/o C-148, Nirman Vihar and Mr. V.C. Sarna r/o C-154, Nirman Vihar. Mr. P.S. Kaicker has since expired. The petitioner being the named executor thus sought the Probate of the Will dated 07.12.1985 of late Sh. Panna Lal Duggal.
4. The publication of the citation was duly issued in the ‘Statesman’ Delhi Edition on 04.05.2010.
5. Ms. Manju Khuller and Ms. Ranjana Kohli, respondent No. 2 and 3 respectively, who are the two sisters of the petitioner, filed their objections in which they took preliminary objections that the Will dated 07.12.1985 of their father, is malafide, unsustainable and not tenable in law. The petitioner has suppressed material and true facts in the petition. The respondents allege that their father late Sh. Panna Lal Duggal was a government servant and had number of bank accounts in which his salary and later pension and income from ancestral property was credited from time to time, during his lifetime. In addition, the money earned by both the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, during the period they remained unmarried, was also being credited to the bank accounts. Respondent No. 2 was working as a Primary Teacher in NDMC School while respondent No. 3 worked as TGT Science Teacher, before her marriage. The salaries so earned by them, were being credited in the accounts of their father.
6. The respondents have further asserted that their father, late Sh. Panna Lal Duggal, had Demat account and had shares worth fortune, which have been either siphoned or suppressed by the petitioner. The petitioner has further suppressed the fact that their father owned two plots in Greenfields Colony at Faridabad, which do not find any mention either in the Will or in the Petition. Furthermore, the property bearing No.C-147, Nirman Vihar, Vikas Marg, Delhi, has been wrongly valued at the lower side with the obvious intention of the petitioner, to cheat on the statutory duties to be paid on the valuation of the property.
7. It is further submitted that late Sh. Panna Lal Duggal and his wife Smt. Padma Duggal, were blessed with three children, namely, the petitioner and the two daughters, who are respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Their mother expired at the age of 64 on 24.11.1984, after a prolonged struggle with diabetes, which had led to amputation of her leg below the knee, just a year prior to her death, and because of the amputation she had become immobile in her last days. The testator was not in sound disposing mind at the time of executing the Will as he was under severe depression because of the demise of his wife in the near past and so, could not have executed the Will voluntarily, without force, coercion or undue influence.
8. In this manner, their father was not of sound disposing mind capable of taking decisions, in 1985, with regard to disposing off the property by virtue of the alleged Will. It is alleged by the respondents that late Sh. Panna Lal Duggal expired on 05.08.2003 and before his demise, he had met the respondent nos. 2 and 3 a few times and had discussed with them about disposing off the property bearing No. C-147, Nirman Vihar, Vikas Marg, Delhi and/or giving rights to the two respondents, in the aforesaid property.
9. Moreover, the petitioner was posted at Kotdwar, while the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 were married, so late Sh. Panna Lal Duggal was left with nobody to support him other than his two cousins, namely, Mr. Raj Kumar Duggal and Mr. Prakash Kumar Duggal. It is further submitted that the testator after the demise of his wife, had no option but to live with the petitioner since he had no other person to support him. It was only a compromise with the realities of life that he stayed with the petitioner and not out of love and affection.
10. The execution of the Will dated 07.12.1985 is further challenged on the ground that though the petitioner had got married in the year 1980 but had no child till 1997, which made late Sh. Panna Lal Duggal sceptical about writing a Will in the year 1985. On many occasions he expressed his intention, in the presence of the petitioner as well as the respondents, to divide the property and all his assets equally amongst his three children. This is more so as the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, had also contributed towards the development of the house at C-147, Nirman Vihar, Vikas Marg, Delhi. Further, they allege that neither the respondents nor any of their relatives were aware of the Will, which also points out that in all probability, the Will has been doctored, manipulated, and forged for or on behalf of the petitioner. The alleged Will is, therefore, claimed to be a forged document as is also evident from its wordings.
11. Further, it is challenged that the Will is attested by the two witnesses, namely, Mr. Mr. P.S. Kaicker and Mr. V.C. Sarna, though it is admitted that Mr. P.S. Kaicker has died. In the end, it is submitted that the petition is hopelessly time barred and is liable to be dismissed on that ground itself.
12. The petitioner in his Rejoinder has denied all the objections made to the Will by the respondent No.2 &3. It has been clarified that the deceased was in sound mental health and during the period from 1981 to 1989; deceased was elected as Treasurer as well as the Honorary Secretary a number of times of the Ministry of Works, Housing & Supply House Building Society, Nirman Vihar.
13. The petitioner further explained that even though he was posted at Kotdwar at the time of demise of his mother, but his wife always continued to stay with the father to take care of him. He also used to frequently come and visit the father. It is denied that there was no one left to support the father after the demise of the mother.
14. It is reaffirmed that the entire movable and immovable properties have been bequeathed by the father in favour of the petitioner.
15. The issues were framed on 15.11.2010, which are as under: –
1. Does the plaintiff prove that the Will dated 7.12.1985 of Shri Panna Lal Duggal is genuine, valid, enforceable and was validly executed? OPP
2. Do the respondents establish that the Testator was not of a sound disposing mind as alleged in the reply/objection? OPR
3. Do the respondents establish that the Will was executed by exercising fraud or under any suspicious circumstance? OPR
4.Relief.”

16. The petitioner in support of his case examined PW-1, Mr. V.C. Sarna, the attesting witness and examined himself as PW-2.
17. PW-3, Mr. Praveen Kumar, Senior General Manager, Urban Improvement Company Private Limited, had produced the files pertaining to Plots bearing No. B-984 (Old No. N-129, Sector B) and A-1869 (Old No. K-358, Block-A), Green Fields Residential Colony, Faridabad, to depose that these two properties had been transferred in the name of the petitioner, on 22.05.2009 on the application moved by the petitioner and on payment of some incidental charges.
18. The respondent No. 2 Ms. Manju Khuller appeared as RW-1 and deposed in support of her objections. The detailed testimony of the witnesses shall be considered subsequently.
19. Learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner has argued and also submitted written arguments to state that the objections taken by the respondent Nos. 2 and 3, his sisters, are totally unsubstantiated, vague and general in nature. There is no cogent evidence produced to show that the father was not in a sound disposing mind rather he had complete control of his faculties and had signed the Will out of his own free will. This is fully substantiated by the testimony of PW-1, Mr. V.C. Sarna, the attesting witness who has proved the execution of Will by the Late father in accordance with Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act 1925 and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872.
20. It is further argued that the attesting witness, Mr. V.C. Sarna, was about 90 years old when he came to depose in the court, and because of his advanced age and medical condition coupled with the fact that he was deposing after about 25 years of the execution of the Will, he did express his confusion about recalling certain dates but there was a ring of truth, which was clearly and palpably evident in his testimony. For this, reliance has been placed on Jatinder Singh Bhatia vs. State, MANU/DE/2304/2018.

21. The petitioner had also deposed about the circumstances leading to the execution of the Will by his father. He has been cross-examined at length by the counsel for the two respondents, but they have not been able to shake his testimony. There is no suggestion given in regard to the veracity of the signatures of the Testator.
22. The petitioner has successfully discharged his onus in proving the documents for which reliance has been placed on Madhukar D. Shende vs. Tarabai Aba Shedage, MANU/SC/0016/2002.
23. Learned counsel on behalf of the petitioner has further argued that the disposition in the Will, even otherwise, is absolutely natural and exhibits are normal course of conduct. It has been stated in the Will itself that the two daughters are “both married and well settled.” The legacy can hardly be termed as unnatural; rather it is completely acceptable and normal.
24. Insofar as non-mentioning of the two plots of Faridabad is concerned, it has been explained that these two plots were transferred in the joint name of Testator and the petitioner on either or survivor basis by the Testator himself during his lifetime. There was no question of mentioning them specifically in the Will. Furthermore, the title of the properties is not relevant in the Probate proceedings. Even then to dispel any doubt, the petitioner had examined PW-3, to produce the records pertaining to the two plots and has provided letters dated 07.06.1989 and 14.06.1989, Ex.PW-3/1 and Ex.PW-3/2, addressed by the Testator, to the Company for including the name of the petitioner as a co-allottee in the two plots on either or survivor basis, which was done and informed about to the testator vide Letters dated 20/06/89, Ex.PW3/3 in reference to Plot No. N-129 and Ex.PW3/6 in reference to Plot No. K-358.
25. The non-mentioning of the details of the properties, cannot be termed as a suspicious circumstance for which reliance has been placed on G.S. Aggarwal vs. State, MANU/DE/3229/2019. Insofar as, the objection in regard to the limitation is concerned, it is asserted that the starting point for the limitation has to be reckoned from the period when the disputes arise inter se the parties. For this, reliance has been placed on Asha Mongia & Ors. vs. State & Ors., MANU/DE/2231/2019 and Amit & Ors. vs. State of NCT of Delhi and Ors., MANU/DE/6203/2017.
26. Furthermore, though the objector has stated about other bank accounts and demat account but the respondent No. 2, Ms. Manju Khullar in her cross-examination, has admitted her total ignorance about the details of bank accounts, shares, bank balances etc.
27. The petitioner has further explained that during the relevant period, the respondent No. 2, Ms. Manju Khuller was in Kuwait, a fact, which is admitted by her. In addition to that neither the Testator nor his wife ever visited her in Kuwait. In these circumstances, perhaps the testimony of respondent No. 3 would have been significant to corroborate the allegations made in the objections but for the reasons best known to her, she has failed to step into the witness-box.
28. Learned counsel has further explained that though the respondents had taken a plea that the Testator was depressed on account of illness of his wife and later after her demise, but no medical record whatsoever has been produced to even remotely indicate the mental condition of the Testator. There is no clinical evidence of depression resulting in impairment of soundness of mental faculties of the Testator.
29. The respondents have failed to mention any date on which they started disputing the existence of validity of the Will. It is, therefore, submitted that the Will is a genuine document, and the Probate Petition has been filed within the limitation.
30. No written submissions have been filed on behalf of the respondents. Learned counsel for the respondent was given an opportunity to submit the written submissions, which he has failed to do. None appeared on behalf of the respondent No. 3, at the stage of final arguments.
31. Arguments have been accordingly heard on behalf of the petitioner and opportunity given to the respondents. The issue wise findings are as under: –
Issue No.1: Does the plaintiff prove that the Will dated 07.12.1985 of Shri Panna Lal Duggal is genuine, valid, enforceable, and was validly executed? OPP
32. The petitioner as PW-2, has deposed that his father had executed the Will dated 07.12.1985, which is exhibited as Ex.PW-1/1. It is deposed by him that it was duly signed by the testator and was attested by the two witnesses, namely, Mr. V.C. Sarna and Mr. P.S. Kaicker. He has further deposed that it was executed by the testator in his sound mind, without any force or coercion and bears his signatures.
33. The petitioner in his cross-examination has admitted that he was not present at the time of execution of the Will since he was on his posting in Kotdwar, but he came to meet his father after about 15 days, and it is then that the father disclosed to him about the execution of the Will.
34. The testimony of the petitioner is fully corroborated by that of PW1, Mr. V.C. Sarna, the attesting witness who has deposed that on 07.12.1985, he was informed by the testator that he wished to execute his Will and requested him to come to his residence. He accordingly went to the testator’s residence, where the testator produced the Will that he had already got prepared in respect of his movable and immovable properties. Upon reaching the house of the Testator, he found that another neighbour Mr. P.S. Kaicker was also present. Shri Panna Lal Duggal signed on the Will at point ‘X’ in his presence as well as the other attesting witness, Mr. P.S. Kaicker. Thereafter, on the asking of Sh. Panna Lal Duggal, he signed and wrote his name and address at point ‘A’ as the attesting witness, in the presence of the other attesting witness. Thereafter, Mr. P.S. Kaicker also signed and wrote his name and address at point ‘B’ as an attesting witness on the Will, which is exhibited as Ex.PW-1/1. The witness was cross-examined at length wherein he wavered at places in exactly giving the sequence of signing of the Will, by the Testator and by the witnesses and also about how and when Sh. Panna Lal Duggal had got the Will prepared.
35. It cannot be overlooked that the witness was about 90 years old at the time when he came to depose in the Court on 27.11.2010 about an event, i.e. execution of the Will, which had happened about 25 years back. His expression of confusion and inability to remember the exact sequence or the minute details of the signing of the Will by the Testator or the witnesses cannot be held against him; rather his conduct was natural and probable at his age and his testimony had a ‘ring of truth’ to it.
36. In Jitender Singh Bhatia (supra), it was observed that the inconsistencies noted in the testimony of the witnesses was in consonance with the testimony of a truthful untrained witness. The person not accustomed to the language and procedure of the court speaks in the same manner as they are used to speaking otherwise, which when seen with the microscope to find faults therein by the Judge before whom the witness has now deposed, may show and appear to be inconsistent. The testimony only of the witness who is trained before deposition in the Court may read perfectly and in harmony with the one which he has been made to read. When there was no challenge to the signatures of the Testator, having been put on the Will, in the presence of the witnesses, it satisfies the requirement of Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act.
37. In the present case, significantly, there is no challenge or suggestion at any point of time that the Will, Ex.PW-1/1, did not bear the signatures of the Testator. The signatures of the two witnesses have also not been challenged. Once there is no challenge to the signatures of any of the Testator or the witnesses and the execution of the Will has been deposed about by the attesting witness that is PW-1, Mr. V.C. Sarna, it is sufficient to prove that the Will was duly executed by the Testator. The execution of Will, in accordance with Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, stands duly proved.
38. Issue No. 1 is decided in favour of the petitioner.
Issue No. 2: – Do the respondents establish that the testator was not of a sound disposing mind as alleged in the reply/objection? OPR
39. The respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have taken an objection that their father/Testator, late Sh. Panna Lal Duggal was not in a right frame of mind and was suffering from depression at the time when the Will was executed. Pertinently, though a challenge has been made to the mental soundness of their father in the year 1985, but not a single medical document or any other cogent evidence led by the respondents in support of their assertions.
40. The respondents’ basis for claiming the unsoundness of mental health of their father was that their mother, who was suffering from diabetes, had undergone amputation of her leg below the knee about one year before her demise on 24.11.1984, which had led their father to depression and he was disturbed and not in sound mental health.
41. The suggestion was given to PW-1, Mr. V.C. Sarna during his cross-examination on behalf of the contesting respondents, about the depression of the Testator after the demise of his wife, to which the witness had responded that it is quite natural for any person to be depressed on the demise of his wife. Merely because a person gets upset does not imply that he suffered from any kind of clinical depression, which would make him incapable of the logical thinking or incapacitate him from executing the Will. The depression on account of demise of his wife cannot be equated with the unsoundness of mind.
42. It is also pertinent to observe that PW-2, Mr. Deepak Duggal in his testimony, had deposed that during the period from 1981 to 1989, the testator was elected as Treasurer as well as Honorary Secretary of the Housing Society Nirman Vihar, Delhi-92, on a number of occasions and he was actively involved in the affairs of the Society. These facts have also been admitted by respondent No. 2, in her cross-examination.
43. The very fact that the Testator was actively involved and was participating in all the social activities since 1981 till 1989 i.e. even after the demise of his wife in the year 1984, fully corroborates and establishes that the Testator was of sound mind at the time of execution of the Will.
44. The Issue No. 2 is decided in favour of the petitioner.
Issue No. 3: – Do the respondents establish that the Will was executed by exercising fraud or under any suspicious circumstance? OPR
45. The respondents have sought to challenge the Will on various grounds, namely:
(i) that the details of the properties owned by the deceased have not been mentioned specifically in the Will, including the plots situated in Faridabad and of all the bank accounts, shares, and other movable assets etc. which were owned by the testator;
(ii) exclusion of the two daughters from any benefit under the Will;
(iii) that there are various interpolations in the Will, Ex.PW-1/1, which have not been explained; and
(iv) the delay in disclosing the Will in the year 2010 when the petition was filed even though the father had died in the year 2003.
46. The first ground of challenge is that the Will did not mention the details of all the movable and immovable properties but there was only a reference to property No. C-147, Nirman Vihar, Delhi. A Will is a document of expression of intention of the Testator about the devolution of his property whether movable or immovable after his demise. There is no legal Proforma on which the Will has to be prepared; so long as a document is clear and unambiguous in conveying the intention of the Testator, it cannot be said that the Will is invalid.
47. In the present case, the Testator was explicit in clearly indicating that all his movable and immovable properties, shall devolve upon his son. Merely because the details of all the properties have not been mentioned, would not invalidate the Will. This is more so because the Will had been executed by the Testator in the year 1985 while he died in the year 2003. It is not difficult to understand that during these 18 years there could have been sale or purchase of other assets in addition to what existed in the year 1985. Thus, merely because all the details of the properties were not mentioned is not a suspicious circumstance which would create suspicion in regard to the Will.
48. The second objection taken is the complete exclusion of the daughters from the Will. It is pertinent to observe that the intention of the Testator is clear and unambiguous and conveys clear intention to bequeath all his properties to his son, Mr. Deepak Duggal, because it specifically mentions that the two daughters, who are married and settled, would not be getting any benefit under the Will.
49. The respondents have sought to buttress this contention by asserting that after the marriage of the petitioner in the year 1980, he did not have any child till 1997, which made their father sceptical about bequeathing the properties to the petitioner and on various occasions, he discussed that he would be bequeathing the entire property equally to all the three siblings.
50. Again, it is not in dispute that in the year 1997, a child was adopted by the petitioner and there is nothing to reflect that the Testator ever had any reservation about bequeathing all his properties to the petitioner. Significantly, the child was adopted in 1997, while the Will got executed in 1985, and the testator died in 2003 i.e. after about six years of adoption. The respondents, aside from making these assertions, have not been able to substantiate these averments by any cogent evidence.
51. The respondents have further asserted that their father had no special love and affection for the petitioner and after the demise of the mother in the year 1984; he was being looked after by the two cousins, namely, Mr. Raj Kumar Duggal and Mr. Prakash Kumar Duggal, while the petitioner was posted in Kotdwar. However, this has been countered by the petitioner, who has submitted that even though he was in Kotdwar on posting, his wife had remained behind and had continued to live with the father and take care of him. This aspect has been admitted by the respondent No. 2 in the cross-examination. Moreover, the petitioner had deposed that he used to visit his father once in 15 days approximately, to take care of him which again has not been countered.
52. The respondent no. 2’s assertion that it was per force that the father had to stay with the petitioner, is nothing but a desperate attempt on their behalf to somehow discredit the petitioner. It is amply proved from the evidence on record that the petitioner and his wife had been residing with the father and taking care of him. For some time when the petitioner was posted in Kotdwar, his wife stayed back, and they continued to take care of the father.
53. The respondent No. 2 and 3 had further contended that they had contributed to the construction of the house at Nirman Vihar by their father. They have claimed that before their marriage they were working as a Primary Teacher and a TGT Science Teacher respectively and all their salaries were being put in the accounts of their father. The two daughters being unmarried, may have been giving their salaries to their father but that does not imply that they have contributed to the construction of the House No.C-147, Nirman Vihar, Delhi or that it makes them a co-owner in the said property. The petitioner has explained that the construction of the house commenced sometime in 1979 while the elder sister i.e. the respondent No. 2 had got married in the year 1976, after which she resigned from her job and shifted to Kuwait with her husband, from where she returned in November 2016.
54. Similarly, the younger sister i.e. the respondent No. 3 started working in the year 1982, but by then the construction of the house is said to have been complete, and therefore there is no question of her salary having been used in any manner for raising the construction of the house or in the acquisition of the property.
55. The petitioner has deposed that the construction of the house started in the year 1979 i.e. after the respondent No. 2 had got married and shifted to Kuwait while the younger sister had started working only after the construction of the house was complete.

56. As already mentioned above, merely because the salaries of the two girls before their marriage were taken by the father, even though there is no proof of the same, that itself does not create any right in favour of the two respondents as co-owners.
57. The respondents No. 2 and 3 have further asserted that the father always intended to give the properties to all the three siblings, but the exclusion of the two daughters casts doubt on the genuineness of the Will. However, the respondent No. 2 aside from making a bald assertion that the father had discussed with her about his intention to divide the property equally, has not been substantiated by any cogent evidence rather the Will specifically mentions that the two daughters were being excluded since they were married and well-settled.
58. In Uma Devi Nambiar vs T.C. Sidhan, (2004) 2 SCC 321 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that:
“16. A Will is executed to alter the ordinary mode of succession and by the very nature of things, it is bound to result in either reducing or depriving the share of natural heirs. If a person intends his property to pass to his natural heirs, there is no necessity at all of executing a Will. It is true that a propounder of the Will has to remove all suspicious circumstances. Suspicion means doubt, conjecture or mistrust. But the fact that natural heirs have either been excluded or a lesser share has been given to them, by itself without anything more, cannot be held to be a suspicious circumstance especially in a case where the bequest has been made in favour of an offspring. As held in P.P.K. Gopalan Nambiar v. P.P.K. Balakrishnan Nambiar, 1995 Supp (2) SCC 664; AIR 1972 SC 2492, it is the duty of the propounder of the Will to remove all the suspected features, but there must be real, germane and valid suspicious features and not fantasy of the doubting mind. It has been held that if the propounder succeeds in removing the suspicious circumstance, the court has to give effect to the Will, even if the Will might be unnatural in the sense that it has cut off wholly or in part near relations. (See Pushpavathi v. Chandraraja Kadamba, (1973) 3 SCC 291) In Rabindra Nath Mukherjee v. Panchanan Banerjee, (1995) 4 SCC 459, it was observed that the circumstance of deprivation of natural heirs should not raise any suspicion because the whole idea behind execution of the Will is to interfere with the normal line of succession and so, natural heirs would be debarred in every case of Will. Of course, it may be that in some cases they are fully debarred and, in some cases, partly.”
59. It is also pertinent to note that the father had died in the year 2003 and the two daughters never ever made a claim for a share in the properties or in the movable assets, till the filing of the present Petition in the year 2010. Even if it is accepted that they had no idea about the existence of the Will, then too, while non-agitation of their rights in immovable properties, is still understandable, but the movable assets would have required immediate allocation/transfer. The petitioner would have got all the bank accounts, shares and debentures etc. transferred in his account, to which no objection was ever taken by either of the two respondents. All the questions in regard to the devolution of properties have arisen only after filing of the present Petition, which is nothing but an attempt by the respondents to create artificial grounds for challenging the Will.
60. The respondents have taken a plea that there is an inordinate delay in presenting the Will, which also is a suspicious circumstance in regard to the genuineness of the Will. It has been explained by the petitioner that the disputes emerged when he thought of restructuring the property in Nirman Vihar and the need arose to get a Probate of the Will of the father. The respondents have not been able to explain any circumstance creating a suspicion around the genuineness of the Will.
61. In the end, it is also contended that the Petition is time-barred. However, the Article 137 of Schedule I of the Limitation Act, provides the period for filing of Probate as three years from the date when the cause of action arises. It is pertinent to observe that in Delhi, there is no mandatory requirement of obtaining a Probate of a Will. The petitioner has explained that because of the disputes, he was compelled to file the present Probate Petition in 2010. The Petition which has been filed within three years of the questioning of the Will by the respondents. The respondents have not been able to establish that the Petition has been filed beyond the limitation.
62. Pertinently, the respondents have asserted that they came to know about the existence of the Will only on filling of the present Petition, but they remained completely inactive from the year 2003 till 2010, in asserting their rights in any manner in the movable or the immovable properties.
63. To conclude, no suspicious circumstances have been proven on behalf of the respondents.
64. The Issue No. 3 is decided in favour of the petitioner.

Relief:
65. In view of the findings on the aforesaid issues, the petitioner, who is also the named Executor, is hereby granted Probate in respect of the Will dated 07.12.1985 of his father, Late Sh. Panna Lal Duggal.
66. Petitioner shall furnish Administrative Bond with one Surety to the satisfaction of the learned Joint Registrar General of this court.
67. On payment of the requisite court fee and other formalities noted above, the Probate in respect of the Will dated 07.12.1985 shall be issued by the Registry.
68. The petition stands allowed and accordingly disposed of in the aforesaid terms.

(NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA)
JUDGE

JUNE 28, 2024/RS

TEST.CAS. 29/2010 Page 1 of 20