SAMEER PAUL CHAUDHARY & ORS. vs STATE & ORS.

2024-02-09 Information

$~43
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Date of Decision: 9th February, 2024
+ TEST.CAS. 20/2022 & I.A. 3278/2022
SAMEER PAUL CHAUDHARY & ORS. ….. Petitioners
Through: Mr. Rajesh Ranjan, Mr. Attin Shankar Rastogi, Mr. Shivkant Arora, Mr. Archit Chauhan, Mr. Adil Vasudeva, Mr. Aman Kapoor, Mr. Kartikeya Durrani, Advs. (M. 8104624477)
versus

STATE & ORS. ….. Respondents
Through: Mr. Raghavendra Mohan Bajaj, Ms. Garima Bajaj and Mr. Kumar Karan, Advs. for R-3 (M. 9810048083)
Mr Anil Shukla, Abhishek Gupta, Raghav Arora, Advs. along with R 4 & 5 are in person (M. 7827716644)
CORAM:
JUSTICE PRATHIBA M. SINGH
Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. This is a petition filed by the Petitioners – Sameer Paul Chaudhary and others under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 for grant of Letters of Administration (hereinafter, LOA) of the Will dated 21st June, 2017 of Late Ms. Susheila Chaudhury. The said Will is a registered Will.
3. A brief background of the family would be required in order to decide the issues, which are raised in the present test case. Ms. Susheila Chaudhury (hereinafter, the testatrix) is the daughter of Late Shri L.C. Chaudhury. The testatrix had four brothers and six sisters. Thus, including the testatrix, there were eleven children of Late Shri L.C. Chaudhury. The names of the brothers and sisters are set out below:
1
Mr. Sudesh Pal Chaudhary
Brothers
2
Mr. Rajinder Pal Chaudhary

3
Mr. Prem Paul Chaudhary

4
Mr. Yash Pal Chaudhary

5
Ms. Susheila Chaudhury
Sisters
6
Ms. Kamla Chaudhary

7
Ms. Pushpa Mark

8
Ms. Aunila Shaw

9
Ms. Deepa Benjamin

10
Ms. Meenakshi Gupta

11
Ms. Kusumanjali Wilson

4. The only siblings, who are currently alive, are the sisters at serial numbers 8, 9, 10, 11 above. Thus, the testatrix herself was unmarried and she died on 20th April, 2021. The Will of the testator is set out below:
I (Miss) Susheila Chaudhary (D/o Late Mr. L.C. Chaudhary, Aged 91 Years, resident of 1/10 Sarvapriya Vihar, New Delhi-110016, Hereby in full senses and Sound mind declare that this is my last and Final WILL for the above address mentioned property and other belongings of mine.

Now therefore, I declare as under:- I owe nothing to anyone and am absolutely free of any debts.

I, hereby declare that on my death all my movable and immovable belongings including my personal apparels as expressly provided in this WILL shall devolve and rest in the following manner:-

I hereby give full authority and legal rights to get the house 1/10 Sarva Priya Vihar N. Delhi-16 Vacated by

1. Mrs Meenakshi Gupta R/o II-C/13 Aashirwad Vaishali Ghaziabad (U.P)
2. Sandeep Chaudhary R/o J-1906 (F.F) CR Park Delhi – 19
3. Sameer Chaudhary P-135 Pallav Puram M.I.G Flats Phase II Modi Puram Meerut (UP).
By giving two months notice to the tenants the authorised committee members will sell the said house within a period of one year. In case of any difficulty the period can be extended by the consent of the majority but the consent of Mrs. Meenakshi Gupta and Sameer Chaudhry is a must After paying the brokerage and other Municipal Taxes etc in respect of the above said house the person and pérsons taking up the initiative and responsibility for getting the sale transaction effected, shall get Rs 200,000/- (Rupees two lacs only) towards incentive sale which shall be distributed equally or according to the effort of individuals.
The balance amount of the sale of the said house will be distributed thus by
1. Mrs. Meenakshi Gupta
2. Mrs. Aunila shaw
3. Mr. Prem paul chaudhary
In case of any mishappening to the above mentioned persons, the decision will be taken by the rest of the committee members.
(I) house Money will be divided proportionately among the following Seven persons.
1. Aunila shaw – Sister – 1
2. Deepa Benjamin – Sister – 1
3. Meenakshi Gupta – Sister – 1
4. Kusmanjali Wilson – Sister – 1
5. Prem Paul Chaudharys – grand children
6. Nephews- Sanjay Chaudhary 2/3
Sandeep Chaudhary 1/3
7. Sameer Chaudhary 2/3, Ashima Kumar 1/3

5. The evidence has been led in the case. The following persons have given evidence in the matter:
(i) PW-1 – Mrs. Renu Nayak, Sr. Assistant in the Sub-Registrar V-A, Hauz Khas, New Delhi. She has confirmed that the Will is a registered Will, which has been exhibited as Ex.PW-1/A.
(ii) PW-2 is Mr. Ravi Ahuja, who is one of the attesting witnesses. He filed his affidavit in evidence and has stated on 10th August, 2023 as under:
I tender my evidence by way of affidavit, which is exhibited as Ex.PW2/A bearing my signatures at points ‘A’ and ‘B’. I am one of the attesting witness of Will and Testament dated 21.06.2017 registered on 21.06.2017 as document no.756, which is already exhibited as Ex.PW1/A.
At this stage, original Will dated 21.06.2017 is taken out from the sealed cover and the same is shown to the witness.
I identify my signatures at point ‘A-1’, ‘A-2’ and ‘A-3’ on the Will Ex.PW1/A as attesting witness. 1 also identify the signatures of testator Miss Susheila Chaudhary at points ‘B-1’ to ‘B-7’ on the Will Ex.PW1/A.
I had signed on the Will Ex.PW1/A in presence of the testator and other attesting witness. The testator had also signed the Will Ex.PW1/A in my presence and presence of other attesting witness. We had also appeared in the office of Sub-Registrar for registration of the Will and we all also signed on the endorsement of registration before Sub-Registrar.

No cross examination was conducted qua the said witness.
(iii) PW-3 – Mr. Sunil Lall has also stated as under:
I tender my evidence by way of affidavit, which is exhibited as Ex.PW3/A bearing my signatures at points ‘A’ and ‘B’. I am one of the attesting witness of Will and Testament dated 21.06.2017 registered on 21.06.2017 as document no.756, which is already exhibited as Ex.PW1/A.
At this stage, original Will dated 21.06.2017 is taken out from the sealed cover and the same is shown to the witness.
I identify my signatures at point ‘C-1’, ‘C-2’ and ‘C-3’ on the Will Ex.PW1/A as attesting witness. I also identify the signatures of testator Miss Susheila Chaudhary at points ‘B-1’ to ‘B-7’ on the V/ill Ex.PW1/A.
I had signed on the Will Ex.PW1/A in presence of the testator and other attesting witness. The testator had also signed the Will Ex.PW1/A in my presence and presence of other attesting witness. We had also appeared in the office of Sub-Registrar for registration of the Will and we all also signed on the endorsement of registration before Sub-Registrar.

In his cross-examination, he has stated that he had also taken pictures on his mobile phone of Will before it was signed and same was not shared by him with anyone. He has also not been cross-examined on merits.
(iv) PW-4 – The Petitioner Mr. Sameer Paul Chaudhary – son of Late Rajinder Pal Chaudhary, who is also one of the nephews of the testatrix, has also given his evidence. He has exhibited the Aadhar card of the testator as Mark A and death certificate is exhibited as Ex.PW-4/1 and the Will.
6. From the evidence it is clear that none of the Respondents are challenging the execution of the Will. However, the issue is only in respect of the interpretation of one clause in the Will itself.
7. The Court has perused the original Will and the evidence on record. The portion of the Will, which requires interpretation, is as under:
I hereby give full authority and legal rights to get the house 1/10 Sarva Priya Vihar N. Delhi-16 Vacated by

The Will of Ms. Susheila Chaudhury is annexed as Annexure 1 with this order.
8. The testatrix is a Post-graduate and was highly qualified. Thus it appears that the Will was executed with due application of mind.
9. A perusal of the Will would show that the testatrix had given authority to Mrs. Meenakshi Gupta, Mr. Sandeep Chaudhary and Mr. Sameer Chaudhary to get the tenants evicted, after two months notice and also to sell the house being 1/10, Sarvapriya Vihar, New Delhi-110016.
10. The sale after being effected, the testatrix had permitted Rs.2 lakhs to be distributed equally to Mrs. Meenakshi Gupta, Mr. Sandeep Chaudhary and Mr. Sameer Chaudhary for their efforts for getting the tenants evicted and for sale of the property. Post the sale being effected, the balance was to be distributed in the following manner.
1. Aunila shaw – Sister – 1
2. Deepa Benjamin – Sister – 1
3. Meenakshi Gupta – Sister – 1
4. Kusmanjali Wilson – Sister – 1
5. Prem Paul Chaudharys – grand children
6. Nephews – Sanjay Chaudhary 2/3
– Sandeep Chaudhary 1/3
Sameer Chaudhary 2/3, Ashima Kumar 1/3

11. The amount of consideration was to be distributed by three individuals i.e. Mrs. Meenakshi Gupta, Ms. Aunila Shaw and Mr. Prem Paul Chaudhary. Mr. Prem Paul Chaudhary died on 29th April, 2021. In case of any mishappening with any of three individuals, the decision to distribute has to be taken by the remaining two individuals. However, the distribution of the house money (balance of amount of sale of the house) was to be done amongst the above mentioned persons.
12. The contention of the Petitioners is that the distribution has to be in seven shares but the contention of the Respondent No. 4 Mrs. Meenakshi Gupta and Respondent No. 5 – Mrs. Kusumanjali Wilson is that the distribution has to be in six shares.
13. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the nephews of the testatrix i.e., Mr. Sanjay Chaudhary and Mr. Sandeep Chaudhary constitute one share and Mr. Sameer Chaudhary and Ms. Ashima Kumar constitutes the second share. Thus, though the names of Mr. Sameer Chaudhary and Ms. Ashima Kumar are not numbered separately with the numeral `7, the fact that they have to get 2/3rd and 1/3rd would show that there are seven groups for whom the share has to be given.
14. On the other hand, Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 submit that since there is no numbering against Mr. Sameer Chaudhary and Ms. Ashima Kumar, the nephews are to get only 1/4th each of the 6th share and thus, the consideration is to be distributed only in six groups.
15. All other Respondents support the stand of the Petitioners.
16. It is clear that the Will does have some errors such as
(i) wrong indentation,
(ii) non-numbering of Mr. Sameer Chaudhary and Ashima Kumar and;
(iii) description of the niece Ms. Ashima Kumar as a nephew.
17. In the opinion of this Court, the Will has to be interpreted in letter and spirit. Clearly, the testatrix reposed trust in Mr. Sanjay Chaudhary and Mr. Sandeep Chaudhary, both of whom are her nephews. She has also divided the cash equally among various individuals, out of which Mr. Sanjay Chaudhary, Mr. Sandeep Chaudhary, Mr. Sameer Chaudhary and Ms. Ashima Kumar are the part. The Will does not show or reflect any intention to divide only one share amongst the four nephews. Moreover there is also no intention to non-suit them or reduce their share.
18. The Will of the testatrix has to be interpreted in the spirit of law. The same has been clearly laid down in Navneet Lal v. Gokul, (1976) 1 SCC 630. The relevant portions of the said judgement are set out below:
8. From the earlier decisions of this Court the following principles, inter alia, are well established:
(1) In construing a document whether in English or in vernacular the fundamental rule is to ascertain the intention from the words used; the surrounding circumstances are to be considered; but that is only for the purpose of finding out the intended meaning of the words which have actually been employed. (Ram Gopal v. Nand Lal [1950 SCC 702 : AIR 1951 SC 139 : (1950) SCR 766, 772] )
(2) In construing the language of the will the court is entitled to put itself into the testator’s armchair (Venkata Narasimha v. Parthasarathy [41 IA 51, 72 : 21 IC 339 : 15 Bom LR 1010] ) and is bound to bear in mind also other matters than merely the words used. It must consider the surrounding circumstances, the position of the testator, his family relationship, the probability that he would use words in a particular sense. But all this is solely as an aid to arriving at a right construction of the will, and to ascertain the meaning of its language when used by that particular testator in that document. (Venkata Narasimha case and Gnanambal Ammal v. T. Raju Ayyar [1950 SCC 978 : AIR 1951 SC 103 : (1950) SCR 949, 955] )
(3) The true intention of the testator has to be gathered not by attaching importance to isolated expressions but by reading the will as a whole with all its provisions and ignoring none of them as redundant or contradictory. (Raj Bajrang Bahadur Singh v. Thakurain Bakhtraj Kuer [AIR 1953 SC 7 : (1953) SCR 232, 240] )
(4) The court must accept, if possible, such construction as would give to every expression some effect rather than that which would render any of the expressions inoperative. The court will look at the circumstances under which the testator makes his will, such as the state of his property, of his family and the like. (Pearey Lal v. Rameshwar Das [AIR 1963 SC 1703 : 1963 Supp (2) SCR 834, 839, 842] )
(5) It is one of the cardinal principles of construction of wills that to the extent that it is legally possible effect should be given to every disposition contained in the will unless the law prevents effect being given to it. (Ramachandra Shenoy v. Hilda Brite Mrs [AIR 1964 SC 1323 : (1964) 2 SCR 722, 735] ).
Xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx
18. It is, therefore, abundantly clear that the intention of the testator will have to be gathered from all the relevant and material contents in the entire will made in the situation in which the testator was placed in life in the background of his property, his inclinations, wishes, desires and attitudes as can be clearly and unambiguously found either from the recitals from the instrument or from absolutely undoubted contemporaneous legally admissible evidence.

19. Further, guiding principles for interpretation of Wills was discussed in the case of Sadaram Suryanarayana v. Kalla Surya Kantham, (2010) 13 SCC 147. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgement are set out below:
16. In Pearey Lal case [AIR 1963 SC 1703 : 1963 Supp (2) SCR 834], this Court recognised the following guiding principles in the matter of interpretation of wills: (SCR pp. 834-35)
(i) the intention of the testator by reading the will as a whole and if possible, such construction as would give to every expression some effect rather than that which could render any of the expressions inoperative must be accepted;
(ii) another rule is that the words occurring more than once in a will shall be presumed to be used always in the same sense unless a contrary intention appears from the will;
(iii) all parts of a will should be construed in relation to each other;
(iv) the court will look at the circumstances under which the testator makes his will, such as the state of his property, of his family and the like;
(v) where apparently conflicting dispositions can be reconciled by giving full effect to every word used in a document, such a construction should be accepted instead of a construction which would have the effect of cutting down the clear meaning of the words used by the testator;
(vi) where one of the two reasonable constructions would lead to intestacy, that should be discarded in favour of a construction which does not create any such hiatus.

XXX
22. It is evident from a careful reading of the provisions referred to above that while interpreting a will, the courts would as far as possible place an interpretation that would avoid any part of a testament becoming redundant. So also the courts will interpret a will to give effect to the intention of the testator as far as the same is possible. Having said so, we must hasten to add that the decisions rendered by the courts touching upon interpretation of the wills are seldom helpful except to the extent the same recognise or lay down a proposition of law of general application. That is so because each document has to be interpreted in the peculiar circumstances in which the same has been executed and keeping in view the language employed by the testator. That indeed is the requirement of Section 82 of the Succession Act also inasmuch as it provides that meaning of any clause in a will must be collected from the entire instrument and all parts shall be construed with reference to each other.

20. Bearing in mind the above legal position, after perusing the Will, this Court is of the clear opinion that the manner in which the share has been specified as 2/3rd and 1/3rd against Mr. Sanjay Chaudhary and Mr. Sandeep Chaudhary as also 2/3rd and 1/3rd qua Mr. Sameer Chaudhary and Ms. Ashima Kumar, clearly, shows that there is an intention to divide the entire sale consideration into seven groups. Considering the educational qualifications when the said share of 2/3 and 1/3 is specifically written, it would be grossly unjust to interpret the same as a ¼ share for all the four nephews (sic one niece). The intention which can be gleaned from the Will is that two nephews get 2/3 and 1/3. The other two also get 2/3 and 1/3. Thus there are four nephews/niece who are to be given two shares to enable them to distribute the same 2/3 & 1/3. Any contrary interpretation would violate the letter and spirit of the Will.
21. Thus, for the sake of distribution in terms of the Will, which is an admitted Will, the sale consideration would be liable to be divided into seven groups with the following shares.
1. Aunila shaw – Sister – 1
2. Deepa Benjamin – Sister – 1
3. Meenakshi Gupta – Sister – 1
4. Kusmanjali Wilson – Sister – 1
5. Prem Paul Chaudharys – grand children
6. Nephews – Sanjay Chaudhary 2/3
– Sandeep Chaudhary 1/3
7. Sameer Chaudhary 2/3, Ashima Kumar 1/3

22. With this clarification, the Will dated 21st June, 2017 of Late Ms. Susheila Chaudhary is probated and the letters of administration are granted in favour of all the beneficiaries.
23. It is submitted that there is some discrepancy between the names mentioned in the Will and the Aadhar cards of the respective individuals. Accordingly, the Court has perused paragraph 17 of the petition and the same is extracted herein below in order to avoid procedural technicalities in the distribution of the shares to the various individuals.
17. That as compared to their respective names in the government document/Aadhar, there are few minor spelling errors in the Will dated 21.06.2017 of the Testator in respect of the name of the Testator, Petitioner No.1, 2 & 3 and Respondent No.5 & 7. A comparison of said spelling errors are described hereinbelow in table:

S. No.
Name in Aadhar
Name in Will
Testator
Late Susheila
Chaudhury
Late Susheila
Chaudhary
Petitioner No.1
Mr. Sameer Paul Chaudhary
Mr. Sameer Chaudhury
Petitioner No.2
Mr. Sandeep Chowdhury
Mr. Sandeep Chaudhary
Petitioner No.3
Mr. Sanjay Chowdhury
Mr. Sanjay Chaudhary
Respondent No.5
Mrs. Kusumanjali Wilson
Mrs. Kusmanjali Wilson
Respondent No.7
Mrs. Ashima Chodhary
Mrs. Ashima Kumar

The aforesaid errors are only typographical mistakes in the Will and the above persons are individually the one and same for all purposes. That for the sake of convenience the name of the parties as well as that of the Testator are mentioned in the present petition as it appears in their respective Aadhar.

24. The petition is, accordingly, disposed of in the above terms. All pending applications are also disposed of.

PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 09, 2024/dk/bh
(corrected & released on 15th February, 2024)

ANNEXURE 1

TEST.CAS. 20/2022 Page 2 of 2