KANCHANA RAI vs STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS.

2023-11-20 Information

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment reserved on: 24 August 2023
Judgment pronounced on: 20 November 2023

+ TEST.CAS. 1/2022

KANCHANA RAI ….. Petitioner
Through: Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Adv. with Mr. D. Abhinav, Adv.

versus

STATE OF NCT OF DELHI & ORS. ….. Respondents
Through: Mr. Divyam Nandrajog and Mr.
Mayank Kamra, Advs. for R-1.
Mr. Mahesh Jethmalani, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Ravi Sharma, Mr. Anjani Kumar, Ms. Madhulika, Advs. for R-2.
Mr. K.K. Rai, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Anshul Rai, Ms. Medha Tandon and Mr. Ujjwal Sharma, Advs. for R-3b.
Mr. B. Shravanth Shankar, Adv. for R-4.
Mr. Rajeev Nayar, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Rishi, Ms. Niyati, Mr. Pratham, Ms. Manavi, Advs. for R-5 & 6.
Ms. Aparna Jha, Adv. for R-7. Mr. Vikas Singh, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Varun, Ms. Kajal S. Gupta, Ms. Alankriti, Advs. for Applicant in IA No. 12353/2022.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE YASHWANT VARMA

J U D G M E N T
YASHWANT VARMA, J.
I.A. 12353/2022
1. The present application has been moved by the third respondent (as per the amended memo of parties submitted on 5 April 2023) for the appointment of an Administrator pendente lite and pending disposal of the probate case in question. For purposes of uniformity and consistency with the judgments rendered in the previous rounds of litigation as well as to protect the identity of personages, the parties shall, hereinafter, be referred to as:
Party
Abbreviation
Testator
DMP
Applicant
(Respondent No.3)
RS
Petitioner
KR
Erstwhile wife of the Testator
SD
Late son of the Testator/ Husband of the Petitioner
DR
Brother of the Petitioner
US
Respondent No. 2
RA
Respondent No. 4
UD
Respondent No. 5
AR
Respondent No.6
AC
Respondent No. 7
MB

2. The probate petition came to be instituted in respect of the last Will and Testament of DMP stated to have been executed on 18 July 20111. The said Will stands duly registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar-VII, New, Delhi at Registration No. 111 in Book no. 3, Vol No. 533 at pages 156-166. It is stated to be attested by two independent witnesses. The testator, DMP, and the late SD are stated to have been married and bore three children out of wedlock- RA, the respondent no.2 stated to be the eldest son, the late DR who pre-deceased the testator and was the husband of the petitioner, and the late RS, the applicant herein, whose interest is now represented by Respondent nos. 3(a), 3(b) and 3(c) being his wife and two sons.
3. It is further borne out from the record that the fourth respondent, UD, was shown as the wife of the testator in various official documents including his passport and Aadhar card. There is a dispute between parties with respect to the actual status of UD with it being claimed by one side that she was the wife whereas some parties contend that it was the late SD who was the legally wedded wife of the testator. It is, however, not disputed that UD was a companion of the testator for many decades. The testator was elected as a Member of Parliament to the Lok Sabha for the first time in 1980. He was thereafter elected and nominated to the Rajya Sabha on multiple occasions commencing from 1986 till upto his sixth term as a Member of that House in 2018.
4. The petitioner, who is the named executor under the last Will of DMP, married the late DR on 21 May 1998. Two children, AR and AC, were born out of that union and are arrayed in these proceedings as respondent nos. 5 & 6. The husband of the petitioner is stated to have passed away on 21 May 2011. It is the case of the petitioner that the testator officially disowned his two sons, RA and RS, by way of sworn affidavits and newspaper publications which date back to 2016 and 2017. It is asserted by the respondents that in September, 2019 the testator was for the first time diagnosed with fronto-temporal dementia and thus liable to recognised as being mentally incapacitated for many years.
5. The institution of the present probate proceedings was preceded by litigation instituted by parties both before this Court as well as in terms of proceedings lodged before different Metropolitan Magistrates in terms of numerous criminal complaints filed in different parts of the country. The record would further bear out that prior to the filing of the present application, the late SD had also filed IA No. 577/2022 seeking appointment of an interim Administrator over the estate of the testator. The aforesaid application ultimately came to be dismissed as having abated upon the demise of late SD on 12 June 2022. The third and youngest son of DMP, who is the applicant herein, and who was arrayed as respondent no.3 passed away on 2 March 2023 and thus evidently during the pendency of the instant application. As noted hereinbefore, his legal heirs stand duly impleaded on the record.
6. The reliefs which are claimed in the instant application are fundamentally premised on the following allegations. It is firstly submitted that the Division Bench while seized of a habeas corpus petition, being W.P. (Crl.) 2255/2019, had an occasion to notice in some detail the disputes and discord amongst various family members of DMP. The habeas corpus petition had been instituted by the late RS alleging illegal and wrongful confinement of the late SD by DMP as well as UD. During the consideration of the aforenoted habeas corpus petition, the Division Bench of the Court had an occasion to interact with parties including DMP as well as SD. On 19 August 2019 the Court after holding personal interactions proceeded to pass the following order:
Though the present matter was mentioned in the morning by Mr. Amit Sibal, learned senior counsel for Smt. Satula Devi seeking dispensation of her personal appearance, yet keeping in view the categorical direction in our last order dated 14th August, 2019, Mr. Amit Sibal agreed that Smt. Satula Devi shall be personally present post lunch. He, however, prayed that Ms. Satula Devi be examined by the Court in Chambers, to which we agreed.
On our oral direction, petitioner, respondent no. 2 and Smt. Satula Devi personally appeared in Court at about 3.30 p.m. We spoke to the aforesaid three individuals in our Chambers.
While Smt. Satula Devi was hard of hearing and it was difficult to communicate with her, we found that respondent no. 2 (Dr. Mahendra Prasad) did not recognize either the petitioner (his son) or Smt. Satula Devi (his wife). He, in fact, told us that Smt. Satula Devi was his mother and the petitioners name was Aradhya and not Ranjit. Respondent no. 2 repeated ad nauseam that he had travelled to all the countries of the world.
Enquiry from the staff who accompanied Smt. Satula Devi and respondent no. 2 revealed that respondent no. 2s younger brother was managing the business empire.
Keeping in view the gravity of the situation, we requested the three learned senior counsel, Mr. Sidharth Luthra, Mr. K.K. Rai and Mr. Amit Sibal as well as learned standing counsel, Mr. Rahul Mehra to suggest to this Court a mutually agreed future course of action.

7. The petition thereafter came to be finally heard and disposed of by the Court in terms of an order dated 20 September 2019. Since the aforesaid order would have some bearing on the issues which were canvassed even on this application and also compendiously records the various proceedings which were taken thereon, we deem it expedient to extract the aforesaid order in its entirety hereinbelow:
1. Present writ of habeas corpus had been filed by the petitioner-son Mr. R.S. seeking a declaration that his mother- Mrs. S.D. had been detained/confined by respondent no.2-father D.M.P. as well as respondent no.3-Ms. U.D. and by their agents/representatives. The petitioner-son also sought custody of his mother-Mrs. S.D.
2. On 14th August, 2019, this Court had directed petitioners mother- Mrs. S.D.to be personally present before this Court on 19th August, 2019.
3. On the said date, petitioner-son Mr. R.S. as well as his mother-Mrs. S.D. and respondent no.2-father D.M.P. appeared before this Court. During our meeting with the parties in our chamber, we realised that both respondent no.2-father D.M.P. as well as petitioners mother-Mrs. S.D. needed care and protection. However, keeping in view the status as well as close relationship of the parties and the lack of clarity with regard to the medical problems of the parties, we requested the three learned senior counsel to suggest a future course of action. The order dated 19th August, 2019 reads as under:-
Though the present matter was mentioned in the morning by Mr. Amit Sibal, learned senior counsel for Smt. S.D. seeking dispensation of her personal appearance, yet keeping in view the categorical direction in our last order dated 14th August, 2019, Mr. Amit Sibal agreed that Smt. S.D. shall be personally present post lunch. He, however, prayed that Ms. S.D. be examined by the Court in Chambers, to which we agreed.
On our oral direction, petitioner, respondent no.2 and Smt. S.D. personally appeared in Court at about 3.30 p.m. We spoke to the aforesaid three individuals in our Chambers.
While Smt. S.D. was hard of hearing and it was difficult to communicate with her, we found that respondent no.2 (D.M.P.) did not recognize either the petitioner (his son) or Smt. S.D. (his wife). He, in fact, told us that Smt. S.D. was his mother and the petitioners name was A. and not R.S. Respondent no. 2 repeated ad nauseam that he had travelled to all the countries of the world.
Enquiry from the staff who accompanied Smt. S.D. and respondent no. 2 revealed that respondent no. 2s younger brother was managing the business empire.
Keeping in view the gravity of the situation, we requested the three learned senior counsel, Mr. Sidharth Luthra, Mr. K.K. Rai and Mr. Amit Sibal as well as learned standing counsel, Mr. Rahul Mehra to suggest to this Court a mutually agreed future
course of action.
At the request of learned senior counsel for parties, list on 27th August, 2019 at 4.00 p.m.

4. Thereafter an application being Crl.M.A.No.33943/2019 was filed by respondent no.2-father D.M.P. seeking recall of the order dated 19th August, 2019 to the extent we had recorded the conduct of the parties after meeting them in our chamber. In the said application it was averred that the thyroid levels of respondent-2-father D.M.P. had shot up and the sodium levels were highly depleted due to which there was inaccuracy in his speech and diction. A copy of the medical report dated 01st July, 2019 was enclosed. However, when the application was listed for hearing before the Court, learned counsel for respondent no.2-father D.M.P. sought an adjournment.
5. On 27th August, 2019, there was no consensus with regard to the future course of action. Consequently, this Court transferred the investigation to the Crime Branch and parties were directed to maintain confidentiality. The order dated 27th August, 2019 is reproduced hereinbelow:-
Keeping in view the nature of the allegations in the present petition as well as the earlier order dated 19.08.2019, the investigation of the present case is transferred to Crime Branch forthwith.
Let a status report be filed on or before the next date of hearing under the signature of Mr. Joy Tirkey, DCP (Crime). The parties are directed not to publicise or disclose either the order or the proceedings to any third party.
List on 05.09.2019. The registry is directed not to upload the present order on the portal of Delhi High Court till the next date of hearing.
Order dasti under the signature of the Court Master.

6. Thereafter, a status report dated 03rd September, 2019 was filed by the DCP, Crime Branch. The relevant portion of the said status report reads as under:-

Discussion of evidence
In the enquiry conducted so far, the following issues have emerged.
1. That Smt. S.D. is the lawfully wedded wife of D.M.P., whereas, Smt U.D. has been living with D.M.P. as his wife since 1973. Smt. S.D. is an illiterate lady while Smt. U.D. is a Science Graduate from Maitreyi College, Delhi University.
2. That Smt. S.D. and Smt. R.D. have been living together since long. They were staying at Harit Nilaya Farm House, Dera Village, New Delhi for about the past one year and had shifted to Kothi No.4, Safdarjung Lane, Delhi about a month ago.
3. That Smt. S.D. had not been able to meet her son, Sh. R.S. (petitioner) for quite some time. She desired to meet her son R.S., her daughter in law G. and her grandson A.
4. That D.M.P. calls Smt. U.D. as his wife but does not accord the same status to his lawfully wedded wife Smt. S.D. 5. That D.M.P. has disowned his son Sh. R.S. in the year 2016 and does not want to either talk to him or to let him enter his house.
6. That Smt. U.D. holds a Diplomatic Passport stating that she is .DM.P.s wife.
7. That two ex-employees have stated that Smt. S.D. and Smt. R.D. were kept in confinement and not allowed to go out.
8. That neither Smt. S.D. nor Smt. R.D. have stated that they had been confined or beaten by anyone.
9. That none of the servants who are presently employed with D.M.P. have corroborated the allegation of confinement or physical torture.
Findings
During the enquiry conducted so far, it is apparent that both Smt. S.D. and Smt. R.D. are estranged from their husbands. They live together and are totally dependent on D.M.P. and Smt. U.D. for everything. Due to old age, D.M.P. is also suffering from some memory loss. During enquiry, no female attendant was found to be looking after the two ladies.
7. Keeping in view the aforesaid report which revealed that even petitioners aunt (Chachi)-Mrs. R.D. needed care and protection as well as Mr. Rahul Mehra learned standing counsel for the States allegation that investigation was being sought to be impeded by representatives of the respondents, this Court vide order dated 05th September, 2019 directed petitioners mother-Mrs. S.D.as well as petitioners aunt-Mrs. R.D. to shift to C-1/21, Vasant Vihar, the property owned by respondent no.2-father D.M.P. On the said date, Mr.Siddharth Luthra, learned senior counsel for respondent no.2-father D.M.P. voluntarily stated that respondent no. 2 would get himself admitted in AIIMS. The said order reads as under:-
Today Mr.Rahul Mehra, learned standing counsel for the State has handed over a detailed status report. The same is taken on record. A photocopy of the same has been supplied to learned counsel for the parties.
After hearing the matter at some length, Mr.Siddharth Luthra, learned senior counsel for respondent no.2 D.M.P. states that his client would move an application before Mr.Joy Tirkey, DCP (Crime) today itself to get himself admitted in AIIMS. Mr.Siddharth
Luthra states that D.M.P. would abide by any directions given by the doctors. The Director, AIIMS is directed to constitute a medical board to examine and take care of D.M.P. A status report is directed to be filed by AIIMS in a sealed cover, at least one day
prior to the next date of hearing. Copies of the orders passed today as well as on 19th August, 2019 and the status report filed by the DCP (Crime) shall be forwarded to the Director, AIIMS.
It is further agreed between the parties that Smt. S.D. as well as Smt. R.D. shall be shifted tomorrow i.e. 06th September, 2019 to Bungalow No.C-1/21, Vasant Vihar the property owned by D.M.P. Before Smt. S.D. and Smt. R.D. are shifted to the said house, the Police shall sanitise the house and ensure that neither the petitioner nor his family members or the family members of D.M.P. have access to the said house or to Smt. S.D. as well as Smt. R.D. The existing staff of Smt. S.D. as well as Smt. R.D. would abide by any directions given by Mr.Joy Tirkey, DCP (Crime).
Mr.Luthra further agrees that, as recommended by Mr.Joy Tirkey, DCP (Crime), two lady nurses shall be employed at D.M.P.s expense either from a hospital or any reputed agency.
The Police is directed to continue its investigation and file a fresh status report a day prior to the next date of hearing.
The interim order dated 27th August, 2019 with regard to confidentiality and non-uploading of the order on the official website of this Court shall continue till the next date of hearing.
List on 19th September, 2019.
Order dasti under the signature of the Court Master.

8. In pursuance to the order dated 05th September, 2019, the medical report dated 12th September, 2019 has been received from the AIIMS. A copy of the same has been handed over to Mr.Siddharth Luthra, learned senior counsel for respondent no.2-father D.M.P. The said medical report dated 12th September, 2019 reads as under:-
Subject: Report of the Medical Board/ Committee at AIIMS (CNC) constituted for medical examination and status report of D.M.P., an existing Honble M.P. (Rajya Sabha) as directed by the Honble Delhi High Court Order dated 05.09.2019 in Writ Petition Criminal No. 2255/2019 in the matter of R.S. Versus State.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
The meeting of the medical board held under the Chairmanship of Dr. Achal Kumar Srivastava, Professor, Deptt. of Neurology on 12.09.2019 (Thursday) at 3:00 PM in Room No. 13 (VIP Room), MS Office wing, Old Pvt. Ward, AIIMS, New Delhi. The following members were present in the meeting:
1. Dr. Achal Kumar Srivastava Chairperson
Professor, Deptt. of Neurology
2. Dr. Sanjay Wadhwa Co-opted Member
Professor, Deptt. of PMR
3. Dr. Vinay Goyal Co-opted Member
Professor, Deptt. of Neurology
4. Dr. Mamta Sood Co-opted Member
Professor, Psychiatry
5. Dr. Biraj Chandra paul Member Secretary
Duty Officer, CNC
6. Dr. Ashok Chauhan Observer
Duty Officer, CNC

Report: D.M.P., an existing Honble M.P. (Rajya Sabha) was examined in detail. His all available relevant investigation reports were evaluated. The Medical Board is of the opinion that D.M.P. is suffering from dementia (frontotemporal dementia).

9. Yesterday, a fresh status report dated 19th September, 2019 was handed over by learned standing counsel for the State. The relevant portion of the said status report reads as under:-
Discussion of evidence
In the further enquiry conducted in the matter, the following issues have emerged.
1. That Smt. S.D. and Smt. R.D. have alleged beating and confinement by Smt. U.D. and some servants on her behest. Both the ladies do not remember dates but shared their experience as per incidents.
2. That Smt. S.D. and Smt. R.D. want to live at C-1/21, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi.
3. That they do not want to meet D.M.P. and Smt. U.D. but Smt. S.D. wants to meet her son R.S., her daughter in law and her grandson. Smt. R.D. wants to meet and live with her husband.
4. That Smt. R.D. has alleged that when she was living at the farm house, one servant named S. used to make obscene gestures at her and made fun of her. He would also lock her up inside the bathroom and not let her come outside and would keep standing outside the bathroom.
5. That Smt. R.D. has alleged that Smt. U.D. has taken away all the gold items belonging to her and S.D.
6. That two ex-employees of the Company have stated that D.M.P. has been having memory related issues and that the company is now being controlled by his erstwhile Secretary, Smt. U.D.
7. That Director, AIIMS had been directed by the Honble Court to constitute a Medical Board to examine and take care of D.M.P.and file a Status Report in this regard a day before the next date of hearing i.e. 19.9.19. Request in this regard was sent to the Medical Superintendent, AIIMS on 06.09.19.
Findings
1. During the enquiry conducted so far, both Smt. S.D. and Smt. R.D. have alleged confinement and physical abuse.
2. Smt. R.D. has alleged that a servant S. used to make obscene gestures at her and used to lock her up in the bathroom at the farm house.
3. Smt. R.D. has further alleged that Smt. U.D. has taken away gold items belonging to her and Smt. S.D.
In view of the above submission made therein, the undersigned is ready and willing to abide by any directions of this Honble Court.
Dr. Joy N. Tirkey
Dy. Commissioner of Police
AHTU, Crime Branch, Delhi.

10. We met the parties once again yesterday. The petitioners mother- Mrs. S.D. and petitioners aunt-Mrs. R.D. expressed satisfaction at the arrangement made by this Court for their stay vide order dated 05th September, 2019. We found that in comparison to the previous meetings, petitioners mother-Mrs. S.D. was far more confident, self-assured, relaxed, calm and composed.
11. When we met respondent no.3-Ms. U.D. in our chamber, she vehemently denied the allegations made by petitioners mother-Mrs. S.D.as well as by her former employeesas detailed in the status reports. She emphasised that respondent no.2-D.M.P. had shown her as his legally wedded wife in the official records. She stated that she had been taking care of respondent no.2-D.M.P. and his family for the last 45 years. She also stated that she had brought up petitioner-Mr. R.S. as her own son. She contended that allegations had been made against her in pursuance to a well orchestrated conspiracy.
12. The respondent no.2-father D.M.P. could still not recollect the names of any of his family members except respondent no.3-Ms.U.D. He kept on repeating ad nauseam that he had travelled to all the countries of the world except Somalia.
13. Mr. Siddharth Luthra, submitted yesterday that by virtue of Section 3(5) of the Mental Healthcare Act, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as the Act, 2017), the determination of a persons mental illness shall alone not imply or be taken to mean that the person is of unsound mind unless he has been declared as such by a competent court. We agree with this submission.
14. While Mr. Rahul Mehra, learned standing counsel for the State, on instructions of the DCP Mr. Joy N. Tirkey, contended that it would be impossible to proceed further with the investigation into allegations of illegal confinement of petitioners mother and aunt if respondent no.3-Ms. U.D. continued to reside with respondent no.2-D.M.P., learned counsel for respondent no.3-Ms. U.D. stated that if she is directed to live separately from respondent no.2-D.M.P., her health as well as that of respondent no.2, shall deteriorate. Mr. Siddharth Luthra, learned senior counsel for respondent no.2-father D.M.P. suggested that respondent no.3-Ms. U.D. be allowed to meet respondent no.2 for a few hours every day. Mr. Rahul Mehra, learned standing counsel for the State also prayed that respondent no.3-Ms. U.D. be restrained from travelling abroad. As the hearing was inconclusive yesterday, the matter was adjourned.
15. Today, learned counsel for the parties voluntarily state that they are agreeable to the following consensual order:-
(a) The petitioners mother-Mrs. S.D. and petitioners aunt-Mrs. R.D. would continue to stay, as long as they want, at C-1/21, Vasant Vihar. Two lady nurses from Apollo Hospital employed at the expense of respondent no.2-father D.M.P. shall continue to look after them. In the event, the said nurses have to be replaced and/or are not available, the replacement shall be procured from the same hospital.
(b) The petitioners mother-Mrs. S.D. will be free to meet anyone she wants including the petitioner and his family members as well as the respondent no.2-D.M.P.
(c) Mr. Joy N. Tirkey, DCP, Crime Branch assures this Court that, after interrogating respondent no.3-Ms. U.D. and other relevant witnesses, he would conclude the investigation within four weeks.
(d) Mr. Siddharth Luthra, on instructions, undertakes that respondent no.2-father D.M.P. shall voluntarily undergo an assessment of his mental health by filing an appropriate application under Section 102(1)(a) read with Sections 3, 4 and 5 of the Act, 2017 before a Magistrate within a week.
(e) Learned counsel for respondent no.3-Ms. U.D. states that Ms. U.D. shall voluntarily deposit her passport with the Registry of this Court forthwith. He further states that respondent no.3-Ms. U.D. has no objection if the DCP issues a Look Out Circular (LOC) against her to prevent her from travelling.
16. The statements, undertakings and assurances given by Mr.Siddharth Luthra, learned senior counsel, on instructions of respondent no.2-father D.M.P. as well as Mr. B. Sharvanth Shanker, Advocate for respondent no.3- Ms. U.D., are accepted by this Court and their clients are held bound by the same. Respondent no.3-Ms. U.D. is directed to deposit her passport for a period of four weeks with the Registry of this Court on or before 24th September, 2019.
17. Further the statement made by DCP Joy N.Tirkey with regard to completion of the investigation is accepted by this Court. He is directed to take steps in accordance with the law upon conclusion of his investigation/enquiry. In fact, the consensual understanding between the parties is accepted by this Court and the same shall be treated as binding directions of this Court.
18. However, there is no consensus between the parties as to whether respondent no.3-Ms. U.D. should be allowed to meet and/or stay with respondent no.2-D.M.P. The parties pray that the said issue be decided by this Court.
19. Keeping in view the serious allegations of theft, physical abuse and illegal confinement against respondent no.3-Ms. U.D. by Mrs. S.D.-petitioners mother and the allegation by former employees and the police that respondent no.3-Ms. U.D. was using her proximity to respondent no.2-D.M.P. to control his entire house, staff and company as well as to get documents executed, this Court, erring on the side of caution, directs Ms. U.D. to live separately from respondent no.2-father till conclusion of investigation i.e. for a period of four weeks.
20. We are also of the prima facie view that an attempt was made to conceal the exact medical condition of respondent no.2-father D.M.P. till we accidently discovered it in our meeting on 19th August, 2019. Even the learned senior counsel for respondent no.2-father D.M.P. was surprised by the extent of the medical problem of his client. Further, till we received the report of AIIMS, we were being constantly told that respondent no.2-father D.M.P.s problem was minor, age related and easily treatable by medicines. Neither counsel for respondent no.3-Ms. U.D. nor respondent no.2s younger brother who interacted with us on 19th August, 2019 informed us that he was suffering from a serious ailment.
21. Till the conclusion of the investigation, respondent no.2-father D.M.P. is directed to be taken care of by the wife of deceased brother of the petitioner i.e. Ms. K.R. as well as two male nurses to be employed by DCP Joy N.Tirkey. In the event of any emergency, the DCP shall be at liberty to allow respondent no.3-Ms. U.D. to meet respondent no.2-father D.M.P.
22. Lastly, keeping in view the Right to Confidentiality and Restriction on release of information in respect of mental illness enshrined under Sections 23 and 24 of the Act, 2017, this Court directs the Registry to redact the name of the parties from this order as well as the quotations therein, while uploading the judgment. This Court may clarify that it has mentioned the full name of the parties in the order as certain directions have to be implemented by judicial officers and the police and if their full names are not mentioned in the order there is a possibility of confusion creeping in.
23. The parties are given liberty to mention the matter in the event of any necessity/emergency.
24. With the aforesaid directions, present criminal writ petition and pending applications stand disposed of.
25. Order dasti under the signature of the Court Master.

8. Subsequent thereto, SD came to petition this Court by way of WP(C) No. 1271/2020 for the appointment of a guardian of DMP based on various allegations including him having been kept captive by his long time companion UD. The Court while considering the aforesaid petition by a detailed judgment dated 29 October 2021 put in place a detailed mechanism for the care of DMP and for the preservation of his financial assets. In terms of the aforesaid judgment a Guardianship Committee headed by a Supervising Guardian, Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw, a retired Judge of this Court was appointed. The directions which came to be drawn and issued by the Court in terms of the said judgment are reproduced hereinbelow:
271. In the above legal and factual background, this Court holds that the present case is one which reveals exceptional circumstances for exercise of parens patriae jurisdiction as also jurisdiction under the RPWD-2016 and MHA-2017. Under Section 14(1) proviso of the RPWD-2016, total support would have to be provided considering that Mr.DMP is unable to take any decisions for his own welfare whatsoever. Under the MHA-2017, nominated representative has to also be appointed for taking decisions for medical care and treatment of Mr. DMP.
272. Moreover, the nominated representative or the guardian need not always be a single individual. Especially in the present case, the movable and immovable assets and financial affairs of Mr. DMP are vast; it would be physically impossible for any particular individual to be able to exercise control and judgment, or to take proper decisions in respect of Mr. DMPs healthcare. Accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that a Guardianship Committee would deserve to be appointed for the purpose of taking
care of Mr. DMP and his financial affairs. In the above circumstances, the following directions are issued:
a) A Guardianship Committee of Mrs. SD, Mr. RS and Mr. US, i.e. the wife, son and brother, related by blood and marriage (as given in the order of precedence under both the MHA-2017 and RPWD-2016), is constituted for the purposes for acting both as a nominated representative committee under the MHA-2017 and for providing total support under the RPWD-2016. The said Committee shall take unanimous decisions in respect of all affairs of Mr. DMP including medical treatment, healthcare decisions qua daily living, financial affairs dealing with movable and immovable assets, decisions qua the shareholding of Mr. DMP etc. The said Guardianship Committee shall consult with Mr. DMP to the extent possible. The said Guardianship Committee shall also be entitled to operate the bank accounts and deal with the investments of Mr. DMP. However, all decisions of the Guardianship Committee have to be unanimous.
b) If a unanimous decision is not possible on any aspect and there is disagreement among members of the Guardianship Committee, such aspects shall be referred to Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw (Retd.), who was already appointed as the interim guardian vide order of this Court dated 8th September, 2021, who shall now act as the `Supervising Guardian. On such aspects, where there is divergence or disagreement, the decisions of the Supervising Guardian, shall be final and binding on all parties.
c) All banks, financial institutions, companies, hospitals, doctors, etc. shall be bound by and shall give effect to the directions issued in paragraphs (a) and (b) above.
d) Insofar as medical treatment and daily living is concerned, Ms. UD and Mrs. KR can give their suggestions and recommendations to the Guardianship Committee. However, it would be for the Committee to take the final decision.
e) Mr. DMP shall continue to reside in his official residence. Mrs. SD and any one female family member i.e., Mr. DMPs daughter-in-law, are entitled to and are accordingly, permitted to reside in the official residence of Mr. DMP, if they choose to. The residence of Mr. DMP, shall be an open house for free ingress and egress of all close family members including both his sons, daughters-in-law, grandchildren and their families, brothers and his family and any other close relatives, as may be permitted by the Committee.
f) Ms. UD can continue to live in the official residence, if she so chooses, but shall not prevent any family member, as directed above, from visiting or residing in the said residence of Mr. DMP.
g) It is also directed that the DCP (Crime Branch), Mr. Joy Tirkey, who had earlier conducted the investigation pursuant to orders of the Ld. Division Bench in the Habeas Corpus petition, shall pay periodic visits at least once a week, to ensure Mr. DMP is comfortable at the residence, in the company of his family members. Any family member who causes any breach of peace and tranquillity can be barred, by the Committee by unanimous decision from visiting the residence of Mr. DMP. If the Supervising Guardian receives any complaint from any family member or Ms. UD or Mrs. KR regarding any commotion or breach of peace, at the residence, he would also be empowered to pass orders barring entry of any individual into the official residence.
h) The Guardianship Committee shall have access to all documents and records relating to the finances, properties, shareholding, investments, etc., of Mr. DMP to enable the Committee to take decisions, keeping in mind the will and preferences of Mr. DMP. To this end, access shall be provided by both Mr. T.R. Narayanan and Mr. Shrinath Banerjee Secretaries of Mr. DMP, to the accounts and all records of Mr. DMP.
i) The Medical Board constituted by this Court consisting of following three members:
i. Dr. M.V. Padma, Professor & HOD, Neurology, Chief Neuroscience Centre, AIIMS, New Delhi.
Email: vasanthapadma123@gmail.com (9810819167);
ii. Dr. Achal Srivastava, Professor Department of Neurology, AIIMS, New Delhi.
Email: achalsrivastava@hotmail.com (9811178784); and
iii. Dr. Nitish Naik, Professor, Department of Cardiology, AIIMS, New Delhi.
Email: nitishnaik@yahoo.co.in (9810416170);
would examine Mr. DMP every month at least once a month, which shall be facilitated by the Guardianship Committee. The chair of this Medical Board shall continue to be Dr. M.V. Padma. The monthly reports, after examination, shall be submitted to the Supervising Guardian. If any emergency medical decision is to be taken and all members of the Committee are not available, any one of the members of the Guardianship Committee would be entitled to take the decision of hospitalization, in consultation with the above doctor, which shall then be telephonically communicated to the other two members of the Committee.
j) The Committee would also be empowered to delegate everyday chores in the household to a person whom the Committee trusts, for a specific purpose, but who shall be accountable to the Guardianship Committee. The decisions taken by the Guardianship Committee shall be continuously informed to the Supervising Guardian – Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw (Retd.), on a fortnightly basis.
The above arrangement at this stage, shall continue at least, for a period of three years, which is also the time period contemplated under the RPWD (Delhi) Rules- 2018, for limited guardianship. A status report shall be submitted at the end of every six months, by the Supervising Guardian to the Court, to review the present arrangement of guardianship, if required. If there is any improvement of Mr. DMPs health condition, including his mental condition, modification of the above arrangement can be sought by moving an application in the present petition.
k) There are various videos and photographs etc., filed by the parties and by the Local Commissioner. All this electronic data shall be preserved and saved, along with the electronic record of this petition with a #hash value so that it is not tampered with, in any manner and is available for future reference. The IT Department, High Court of Delhi shall take requisite steps in this regard.

9. Post the aforesaid judgment being rendered, SD is stated to have moved applications seeking further directions with regard to the preservation of the assets of DMP consequent to his passing away on 27 December 2021. It was alleged by SD that despite the directions of the Court, crucial bank statements and documents were being withheld from the scrutiny of the Supervising Guardian and that the Guardianship Committee had also not been allowed access to the various bank accounts and financial records of DMP. On due consideration of the various contentious issues that were raised, the Court by way of a detailed order ultimately proceeded to frame the following operative directions:
18. In this view of the matter and the continuing animosity between the parties, to ensure that Mr. DMPs last rites are carried out in a dignified and peaceful manner, the following directions are issued in respect of the last rites of Mr. DMP:
(i) All the last rites, shradh ceremony and any other ceremonies which have to be conducted in accordance with the customs and traditions for Mr. DMP, shall be conducted by Mr. RS, being the eldest son of Mr. DMP, with the cooperation of all the family members concerned and in their presence. Further directions, if required, may be given by Justice Endlaw (Retd.), in this regard.
(ii) There shall be no impediment or obstacle created by anyone in any manner whatsoever in the entry and exit of the family members and grandchildren, near and dear ones and relatives of Mr. DMP. Family members, relatives, personal, professional and political acquaintances, employees and associates of Mr. DMP shall be permitted to attend and pay respects, in the ceremonies which are to conclude on 8th January 2022, in a dignified and graceful manner.
(iii) Mr. Joy Tirkey, DCP (Crime Branch), shall ensure that any third parties who have been engaged by any person/s, who are present at the Safdarjung house of Mr. DMP, shall not create any hindrance whatsoever in implementation of the above directions. Mr. Tirkey to also ensure that the last rites and all other ceremonies are conducted without any impediment, from anyone.
19. Insofar as the allegations relating to the medical treatment of Mr. DMP are concerned, considering the fact that Mr. DMP has passed away in Apollo Hospital where he was also being treated earlier, this Court is not inclined to go into the said allegations.
20. Insofar as the incidents of violence between the grandchildren and other family members are concerned, the Court has perused the photographs which have been placed on record which show an unfortunate situation where the young grandsons of Mr. DMP appear to have entered into a scuffle. Accordingly, the said allegations would be examined, if required, after a reply to this application, is filed by the Respondents.
21. In so far as the issue of assets, fixed deposits, bank accounts, immovable/movable assets, any investments, shares etc. are concerned, since Mr. DMP is no more, the Court has been informed that a probate petition being TEST. CAS. 1/2022 has been filed by Mrs. KR, who claims to be the executor of the Will stated to have been executed by Mr. DMP and whose children are claimed to be the beneficiaries of the Will. The same is stated to be pending before the Original Side of this Court.
22. Considering the fact that this Court had appointed the Guardianship Committee and Supervising Guardian vide its previous order dated 29th October, 2021, in order to safeguard the movable and immovable assets of Mr. DMP, considering his demise and the continuous disputes between the family members brought to the notice of this Court today, it is clear that the Guardianship Committee cannot effectively function. Moreover, since Mr. DMP has passed away, the members of the Guardianship Committee may possibly also have claims in the estate of Mr. DMP and would be conflicted in taking decisions. There is also a need to safeguard and secure the assets so that the same, which run into thousands of crores, are not frittered away or misused in any manner. In view of the same, the following directions are issued:
(i) In view of the fact that Mr. DMP is no more, the Guardianship Committee shall stand disbanded and Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw (Retd.), shall act as the Sole Guardian for the estate and all assets of Mr. DMP henceforth. He shall exercise the same powers mutatis mutandis, as those of the Supervising Guardian and the Guardianship Committee, in terms of order dated 29th October, 2021. Mr. T.R. Narayanan and Mr. Shrinath Banerjee, Personal Assistants of Mr. DMP, and all parties, shall now proceed strictly in accordance with the instructions given by the Sole Guardian in respect of the assets of Mr. DMP.
(ii) A report shall be placed before this Court, by Justice Endlaw (Retd.), within a period of two weeks, in respect of the following aspects:
(a) Whether the various directions concerning Mr. DMP and his assets, passed by this Court have been complied with directions given by him?
(b) The minutes of proceedings containing the directions issued by him from time to time shall be placed on record along with the report.
(c) Current status of the movable and immovable assets of Mr. DMP, including his bank accounts, fixed deposits, shares and any other investments.
(d) Any further documents/actions which may be required in order to safeguard the moveable and immovable assets of Mr. DMP.
(iii) Since the probate of the alleged Will of Mr. DMP has now been filed and there is a need to secure all the moveable and immoveable assets of Mr. DMP, the status quo order passed previously shall continue. No withdrawals/transfers shall be made from any of the bank accounts of Mr. DMP, including the fixed deposit accounts and other investments/holdings of Mr. DMP, held solely by him or in a joint account with any other person. However, the inward remittance into these accounts shall continue as before, including the interest accrued on the various deposits, income from investments or any other sources, dividends received from various companies, etc. Upon such remittances being made or received into these accounts, the concerned parties/banks shall give an intimation to the Sole Guardian about the same.
(iv) The status quo order which was earlier granted in respect of the immovable properties of Mr. DMP, on 4th June, 2021, shall continue. No party shall take any action to create any third party interest in the said properties/assets or diminish the same in any manner. The said order was passed in the following terms:
6. There are two accounts of the DMP, having substantial amounts, in which Ms. Uma Devi is stated to be a joint account holder and a cosignatory. On a query from the Court as to since when Mrs. Uma Devi is a joint account holder Mr. Abhinav Rao, ld. counsel has fairly submitted to the Court that she has been a joint account holder since November 2019. The Court notes that by November 2019, the DMP had already been detected with `fronto- temporal dementia, in writ proceedings before the Ld. Division Bench of this
Court being W.P.(CRL) 2255/2019 R.S. v. State & Ors as noted in the judgment dated 20th September, 2019.
7. In this background, since the DMPs assets (movable and immovable) are substantial and run into thousands of crores, without listing out the same, it is deemed appropriate to accept the voluntary statement made by Ms. Kanchana Rai and Ms. Uma Devi in reply to the application being CM 4396/2020 where it is stated as under:
That, in view of the fact that the answering Respondent and the Respondent No.5 have voluntarily offered to maintain status-quo till the disposal of the present writ petition, the present Application seeking maintaining of status-quo of DMPs property has become infructuous.
Thus, it is directed that status quo shall be maintained in respect of all moveable and immoveable assets of the DMP by both Mrs. Uma Devi and Ms. Kanchana Rai/her family.
17. In so far as the DMPs bank accounts are concerned, the current position is that he is suffering from dementia and is unable to operate his own bank accounts. From the submissions made, it appears that Ms. Uma Devi and the Secretary of the DMP are operating his accounts or spending therefrom. Accordingly, the status quo, as volunteered above, shall apply to all the bank accounts of the DMP. If any amounts are withdrawn, spent or transferred from the accounts of the DMP for living needs and other expenses, a statement of such amounts and expenses incurred every month along with the bank statements of the bank accounts of the DMP shall be filed, for the perusal of the Court in a sealed cover.
The above direction to maintain status quo shall now be binding upon all the parties, including Mr. US and his family who has been heard as an Intervenor, in this petition. They shall also not permit any third party to deal with the estate of Mr. DMP in any manner whatsoever, without prior permission of the Sole Guardian.
(v) Any payments which are to be made to any authorities including the tax authorities, other governmental bodies, or other expenditure including the residence expenditure, or the expenditure of Mrs. SDs residence, or approved expenditure by Justice Endlaw (Retd.), including for conduct of all final rites as per customs and traditions, shall be made only after the prior approval of the Sole Guardian.
(vi) All banks, financial institutions, companies and other authorities shall ensure strict compliance of todays directions. No amounts/assets shall be released to/transferred by any of the parties or any third party, without the prior approval of the Sole Guardian. Similarly, no account of Mr. DMP shall be permitted to be operated by any persons, without the prior approval of the Sole Guardian, which is to be obtained in respect of each such transaction.
(vii) The Sole guardian may issue directions to any person to ensure compliance of these directions.
(viii) This Court also notes that the remuneration of Justice Endlaw (Retd.) had been fixed in terms of the order dated 8th September, 2021, confirmed by the order dated 29th October, 2021 in the following terms:
274. Remuneration of the Supervising Guardian – Justice Rajiv Sahai Endlaw (Retd.) is fixed in terms of order dated 8th September, 2021 in the following terms:
iii) The interim guardian shall be paid an honorarium of Rs.3 lakhs per month exclusive of secretarial, travelling and other expenses which shall be borne from the DMPs accounts.
iv) The interim guardian may appoint a Manager to assist him in carrying out his functions and also fix a reasonable remuneration of the said Manager.

xxxx xxxx xxxx

24. Coming to the other specific prayers in the present application, this Court is of the prima facie opinion that the relief of partition sought through prayer (b) would not be maintainable in these proceedings. Insofar as prayer (a) is concerned, since the Guardianship Committee and the Supervising Guardian were already taking care of the estate of Mr. DMP under the orders passed by this Court, till the final report of Justice Endlaw (Retd.) is received, the above directions are issued in order to ensure that there is no third-party interest that is created in the immovable properties and there is no diminution of the assets of Mr. DMP.
25. It is clarified that the above directions are being issued in order to safeguard the assets of Mr. DMP and shall be subject to any directions which may be passed by the Court dealing with the testamentary case being TEST. CAS. 1/2022 or in any other proceedings concerning Mr. DMPs estate. Any further directions, if required shall be considered, post the receipt of the report of Justice Endlaw (Retd.) and post the filing of the replies to the present application by the Respondents.

10. The matter was again called before the learned Judge on 11 July 2022. Upon due consideration of the miscellaneous applications which had been moved, the Court closed the proceedings on the aforenoted writ petition by passing the following order:
3. The present application being CM APPL. 697/2022, had been filed alleging various violations of the directions issued by the ld. (then) Supervising Guardian and a reply had been directed to be filed by this Court vide order dated 6th January, 2022. However, today it is submitted by all the parties that the following proceedings have been filed and are pending between the parties:
(i) TEST CASE 1/2022 titled Kanchana Rai v. State of NCT of Delhi & Ors., the subject matter of which is the purported execution of the Will of Mr. DMP.
(ii) CS(OS) 203/2022 titled Smt Satula Devi v. Rajeev Sharma & Ors.
(iii) CONT. CAS. 693/2022 titled Mr. Ranjit Sharma v. Kanchana Rai & Ors.
(iv) LPA No. 209/2021 titled Smt Uma Devi v. Satula Devi & Ors.
(v) LPA No. 219/2021 titled Smt Kanchana Rai v. Satula Devi & Ors.
(vi) LPA No. 221/2021 titled Uma Devi v. Satula Devi & Ors.
(vii) LPA No. 223/2021 titled Smt Uma Devi v. Satula Devi & Ors.
(viii) LPA No. 224/2021 titled Smt Uma Devi v. Satula Devi & Ors.
(ix) LPA No. 429/2021 titled Uma Devi v. Satula Devi & Ors. (x) LPA No. 430/2021 titled Kanchana Rai v. Satula Devi & Ors.
(xi) LPA No. 432/2021 titled Umesh Sharma v. Satula Devi & Ors.
(xii) LPA No. 475/2021 titled Satula Devi v. Umesh Sharma & Ors.
(xiii) LPA No. 52/2022 titled Kanchana Rai v. Satula Devi & Ors.
4. Since the present writ petition has already been disposed of and the application being CM APPL. 697/2022 which has been moved is in respect of allegations raised qua the directions issued by the (then) Supervising Guardian and qua orders of this Court, it is deemed appropriate to dispose of the present application with the direction that if any violations of orders passed by this Court or directions issued by the ld. (then) Supervising/ (now) Sole Guardian are alleged, the same may be agitated by the parties, seeking appropriate remedies in accordance with law. All the directions from the order dated 6th January, 2022 above, as also the directions issued by Justice (Retd.) Rajiv Sahai Endlaw from time to time shall continue and shall now be subject to further orders in any of the above proceedings.
5. In so far as CM APPL. 9891/2022 is concerned, the said application has been filed informing the Court that the Petitioner-Mrs. Satula Devi has, unfortunately, passed away on 12th June, 2022 and the present application seeks transposing of her two sons and some other legal heirs of the Petitioner, as Petitioners in the present petition. Since in this writ petition all the children of Mrs. Satula Devi are already Respondents before this Court, and the writ petition itself has been disposed of, this Court takes on record the fact that Mrs. Satula Devi has passed away. The application being CM APPL. 697/2022, which was pending in the present petition and in which notice was issued is also being disposed of as above. Thus, this Court is of the opinion that no further orders need to be passed transposing any of the parties as Petitioner(s) in the present case. Accordingly, CM APPL. 9891/2022 is disposed of. It is made clear that the contentions of all parties are left open.
6. At this stage, counsels for the parties have made some submissions regarding the continued supervision of Mr. DMPs affairs by the Sole Guardian.
7. Mr. Vikas Singh, ld. Sr. Counsel for the Petitioner, relies upon Section 41(4) of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (hereinafter GWA) to argue that even upon the demise of the ward, till the report of the guardian is received by the Court, the guardian need not be discharged.
8. Mr. Sandeep Sethi, ld. Sr. Counsel for Mr. US, submits that the appointment made by the Court of the Sole Guardian was not under the GWA, therefore the same cannot apply in this situation. He further submits that Section 41(4) of the GWA no longer has any applicability, in view of the fact that the report has been submitted by the Sole Guardian.
9. Upon being queried by the Court, both counsels have submitted that some proceedings are still continuing before the Sole Guardian and there are certain orders that have been reserved by Justice Endlaw (Retd). This Court is clearly of the view that Mr. DMP and his wife Mrs. Satula Devi having passed away, all the legal heirs are embroiled in a succession battle over assets worth thousands of crores. Under such circumstances if the Sole Guardian is discharged or any of the above directions are modified, there is every likelihood that the assets may be frittered away by one faction or the other. Thus, all the above directions shall continue to operate and the Sole Guardian shall continue to function, until discharged by a competent Court. The terms and remuneration of the Sole Guardian shall be as are prevalent today. Accordingly, in the spirit of the order dated 6th January, 2022, and safeguarding all the movable and immovable assets of Mr. DMP which run into several thousand crores of rupees, the Sole Guardian shall continue to remain the Sole Guardian, until and unless his authority is either modified or cancelled by Court of competent jurisdiction in any of the proceedings mentioned above. In this regard, detailed directions which were issued vide order dated 6th January, 2022, regarding the Sole Guardian and safeguarding of Mr. DMPs assets – as extracted above- shall also continue until and unless they are modified by any Court of competent jurisdiction.
10. Both the applications are disposed of. The present writ petition need not be listed further.
11. The digitally signed copy of this order, duly uploaded on the official website of the Delhi High Court, www.delhihighcourt.nic.in, shall be treated as the certified copy of the order for the purpose of ensuring compliance. No physical copy of orders shall be insisted by any authority/entity or litigant.

11. Undisputedly, the Sole Guardian who had been appointed by the Court and the orders passed in that respect continue to hold the field even today. However, and as was noted by the learned Judge while passing the order of 06 January 2022, it was clearly observed that the appointment of the Guardian would be without prejudice to the rights and contentions of parties and subject to any directions which may be passed by the appropriate court dealing with the instant testamentary case.
12. Appearing in support of the instant application Mr. Vikas Singh learned senior counsel, addressed the following submissions. According to Mr. Singh an interim Administrator in terms as envisaged under Section 247 of the Indian Succession Act, 19252 is mandated when there be a bona fide dispute regarding the validity of the Will, the necessity for making such an arrangement and the fitness of the Administrator. Insofar as a bona fide dispute relating to the Will is concerned Mr. Singh laid stress on the fact that the DMP was suffering from mental issues right from 1997. It was pointed out that his health started deteriorating further post 2011 and, therefore, it was improbable that DMP would have been in a position to execute or draw up a Will with full mental capacity on 18 July 2011. It was the submission of Mr. Singh that the complete exclusion of late SD and her four grandsons, who were the natural legal heirs, without any justification is an aspect which casts a serious doubt upon the validity of the Will. Mr. Singh also pointed that that the genuineness of the alleged Will is presently subject matter of challenge in Civil Suit No. 203/2022.
13. Doubting the validity of the alleged testamentary disposition stated to have been made by DMP, Mr. Singh pointed out that the probate petitioner gives no details regarding the date on which the alleged Will was discovered. It was further highlighted that the original probate petition itself came to be filed without the original Will or a certified copy thereof being annexed. Mr. Singh also referred to the apparent discrepancies between the so called original of the Will which was placed on the record when compared with a photocopy thereof which was also filed by the petitioner. These discrepancies have been duly highlighted in paragraphs 7 (e), (f), (g), (h) (i), (j), (k), (l), (m), (n), (o), (p), (q), (r), (s), (t) and (u) of the application and are reproduced hereinbelow:
DISCREPANCIES IN THE ALLEGED WILL
e. That the probate petition suffers from non-disclosure of the date on which the alleged will was discovered by the Petitioner. It is submitted that entire probate petition is silent on the date on which the propounder gained knowledge of the alleged will. In fact, in a connected proceeding i.e., before the Ld. Sole Guardian, it was admitted by the counsel for the Petitioner that the date of knowledge of the alleged will is unknown to the propounder. The relevant proceedings took place on 27.12.2021, that is the date on which Testator died and there was huge protest from the lawyer of Ms. Uma Devi and the Petitioner that the last rites should be conducted by the sons of Petitioner and not the elder brother of the Applicant, based on the wish of Testator as per the alleged will. During the said proceedings, a question was asked to the Petitioner regarding the date on which the Petitioner gained knowledge of the alleged will and it was plainly denied by the Petitioner stating that they were unaware about the date on which the alleged will came to her knowledge. Further, it is trite law that where a propounder of a will is appointed as an executor under a will, the same will be considered a suspicious circumstance.
f. That the Petitioner has filed the present probate petition without annexing the original will or the certified copy of the original will in contravention of section 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 as well as a decision of the Honble High Court of Calcutta in Madhav Prasad Birla (D) AIR 2005 Cal 1 wherein it was held that an application seeking probate of a will could not be entertained without receiving the original copy of the will. That on objecting to the same by the Answering Respondent, a very frivolous excuse was given by the Petitioner that the original will was not submitted due to an apprehension that it might get misplaced, casting aspersions on the functioning of this Honble Court. However, vide Order dated 25.01.2022, this Honble Court directed the Petitioner to place the alleged original will on record. That the Petitioners hesitance to place the alleged original will for perusal by this Honble Court as well as the contesting Respondents raises grave suspicion as to the authenticity of the alleged will.
g. It is also pertinent to mention that before the Rajya Sabha it has been recently discovered that the signatures of the Testator varied from the year 2000 to 2021 and therefore all his signatures are being verified by the expert appointed by the Rajya Sabha. It has also been suggested by the Rajya Sabha that signature of his erstwhile secretary, who is also the attesting witness, Mr T. R. Narayanan is also being examined by the Rajya Sabha. True copy of the Letter dated 04.01.2022 of the Forensic Science Laboratory is annexed herewith and marked as DOCUMENT-4.
h. That pursuant to the order dated 25.01.2022 of this Honble Court in Test Case no. 1 of 2022, the counsel of the answering respondent inspected the alleged original will and various discrepancies were found in it. A comparison of the two would establish that the alleged will is certified copy of another will, as there is no consistency between the alleged original will and the photocopy filed before this Court. It is submitted that the discrepancies in the copy of the alleged will annexed with the instant probate petition are as under:
i. On page 6 of the alleged original will filed in sealed cover a number T-13190 which is handwritten is on the right side whereas in the copy of the alleged will it is on the left side.
j. There is a double cross mark on the photo of the Testator and below the photo there are three lines in the alleged copy of the will filed in the petition which are not there in the alleged original will.
k. Signature of the Testator at the bottom of the alleged will filed before the court is not matching with the alleged original will. The letter d in Mahendra and Prasad are different in alleged original will from the signature shown in the alleged copy of the will filed before the Court.
l. The first page of the alleged original will has a stamp which is not there in the alleged copy of the will filed before the court.
m. At page 6-9, there is also a displacement in the thumb impression as well as signatures between the alleged original will filed and the will filed before the court.
n. At page 7, in the alleged will filed before the court, SD/- is written above the signature of registrar whereas in the alleged original will the said signature is blank. Further, the signature at the bottom of the page is at a different place than in the copy of the will. The finger print at the bottom of the page is missing from the original will.
o. Further again, at page 8, on comparing the alleged original will and the alleged will filed in the probate petition the signatures of the Testator do not match.
p. Additionally, at page 14, the signatures of TR Narayan do not match. Also, there is a tick below the signature of TR Narayan in the alleged will filed in the probate petition which is not there in the alleged original will.
q. There is a tick below the signature of Sudhir Bachan in the alleged will filed in the probate petition however the same is not there in the alleged original will.
r. At pages 9, 11,13,15 there is no stamp in the alleged original will while the alleged copy of the will filed in the probate petition has a stamp.
s. The alleged original copy of the will and the photograph of the Testator on the will are new and fresh which clearly indicates that the alleged will is not of 2011 and has been recently doctored.
t. That there are numerous empty pages with stamp in the alleged original will and the same are not present in the photocopy filed before this Honble Court.
u. That the alleged will has a vague and uncertain clause which states that the TDRs which are worth 3400 crores and RBI bonds would be transferred in the favour of the nominee, without disclosing the name of the nominee/beneficiary. That the Petitioner along with Ms. Uma Devi, in spite of the interim orders dated 26.02.2020 and 04.06.2021 in W.P. (c) No. 1271 of 2020 of maintaining status quo w.r.t. the assets of the Testator, have got money transferred from one account to another to get more TDRs issued without disclosing the nominee/beneficiary till date and have changed nominees and created FDRs wherein their own nominees have been added, when clearly Dr. Prasad was in no position to change the nominees.
It is further relevant to note that as per the directions of the Honble Court in W.P. (C) 1271 of 2020, even for creating new FDRs the courts permission was required. True copy of orders dated 26.02.2020 in W.P. (c) No. 1271 of 2020 passed by this Honble Court is annexed herewith and marked as DOCUMENT 5.

Mr. Singh also alluded to the discrepancies in the signature of the testator and the variations which came about during the year 2000 to 2021 and which aspect is presently being verified by an expert appointed by the Rajya Sabha.
14. Proceeding then to impress upon the Court the necessity and imperatives for the appointment of an Administrator, Mr. Singh addressed the following submissions. It was firstly asserted that the petitioner who is the named executor of the testament of DMP was one of the key conspirators who had been found to have suppressed the mental condition of DMP even when it continued to deteriorate over a period of time. It was argued by Mr. Singh that both the Division Bench in the habeas corpus petition as well as the learned Judge dealing with the writ petition for appointment of a Guardian of DMP, had been constrained to adversely comment upon the lack of care extended by the petitioner to DMP while his mental health continued to worsen.
15. It was further urged that the petitioner had with mala fide intent added herself as a joint account holder in the Syndicate Bank account of the late SD and without her knowledge or consent transferred INR 25 crores to her personal account on the very next day. Our attention was drawn to the various allegations made in FIR No. 27/2021 registered against the petitioner and which apart from the allegations aforenoted, also alludes to various other instances of the assets of DMP being siphoned away once he started losing his mental capacity.
16. It was also pointed out that even UD had got herself appointed as the joint account holder in the accounts of DMP in November 2019 and thus evidently at a time when DMP had become mentally incapacitated and was in no position to make an informed decision. It was pointed out that due to the complex situation prevailing with respect to the management of the assets of DMP in light of his failing mental condition, this Court had been constrained to transfer the investigation to the Crime Branch requiring it to file periodical status reports. It was pointed out that based on the