Delhi High Court Allows Registered Will Despite Delay — “Justice Can’t Be Denied for a Procedural Lapse When No Prejudice Is Caused”: Permits Stronger Evidence in Probate Case with ₹25,000 Cost for Late Filing

Court’s Decision

The High Court of Delhi overturned the trial court’s decision, which had refused to allow a certified copy of a registered Will to be placed on record in an ongoing probate case. The High Court ruled that procedural lapses should not prevent substantive justice, particularly when the evidence sought to be introduced was already referenced in earlier proceedings. As a result, the registered Will was permitted to be placed on record, subject to a cost of ₹25,000 imposed on the petitioner.

Facts of the Case

1. The testator passed away on May 24, 1988, leaving behind his wife, three daughters, and four sons.
2. The testator had executed a Will dated May 25, 1983, in which he bequeathed an immovable property in equal shares to two beneficiaries.
3. The Will also contained a condition that the property could not be sold during the lifetime of the testator’s wife.
4. The Will was registered on June 4, 1987, with the Sub-Registrar’s Office.
5. The testator’s wife passed away on August 15, 2008.
6. In 2009, a probate petition was filed to establish the Will’s validity.
7. The petitioner was initially a respondent in the case but was later transposed as a co-petitioner in 2011.
8. An unregistered copy of the Will had already been submitted to the court, and one of the attesting witnesses testified about its authenticity in 2011.
9. The petitioner obtained a certified copy of the registered Will in 2012 but did not place it on record at that time.
10. In 2019, the petitioner filed an application to submit the registered Will, arguing that it had higher evidentiary value.
11. The trial court dismissed this application in 2023, stating that the petitioner had delayed filing the document despite having knowledge of its existence since 2012.

Legal Issues Raised

1. Whether the trial court was justified in refusing to allow the registered Will to be placed on record due to the delay.
2. Whether the exclusion of the registered Will caused prejudice to the petitioner’s case.
3. Whether placing the registered Will on record would introduce new or conflicting evidence.
4. Whether procedural fairness should allow documentary evidence to be introduced at a later stage if it is crucial to the case.

Petitioner’s Arguments

The petitioner challenged the trial court’s refusal to allow the registered Will on record and presented the following arguments:

1. Higher Evidentiary Value
   • The registered Will was an officially authenticated document with greater evidentiary weight than the unregistered copy already on record.
   • Courts should prefer registered documents over unregistered ones where both versions exist.
2. Unfair Disadvantage
   • The exclusion of the registered Will would severely prejudice the petitioner’s case.
   • Without the registered Will, the petitioner would be denied the strongest available proof of the testator’s intent.
3. No New or Conflicting Evidence Introduced
   • The contents of the registered and unregistered Wills were identical.
   • Allowing the registered Will to be placed on record would not introduce any new claim or alter the case’s foundation.
4. Delay Was Inadvertent, Not Malicious
   • The delay in submitting the registered Will was unintentional and occurred due to oversight, not any mala fide intent.
5. All Witnesses Had Passed Away
   • Since all attesting witnesses were deceased, the best available documentary evidence (i.e., the registered Will) should be considered.
6. Substantive Justice Over Procedural Technicalities
   • The court should prioritize fairness over procedural delays to ensure that justice is served on merit rather than technicalities.

Respondent’s Arguments

The opposing side argued that the trial court’s order should be upheld, making the following counterpoints:

1. Unjustified Delay
   • The petitioner was aware of the registered Will since 2012 but made no attempt to introduce it earlier.
   • The entire evidence had already been presented, and introducing the Will at this late stage was procedurally unfair.
2. Missed Opportunity in 2014
   • The petitioner was examined as a witness (PW-3) in 2014 and failed to produce the registered Will at that time.
   • This demonstrated a lack of due diligence.
3. Procedural Fairness
   • Permitting the registered Will at this stage would disrupt the procedural integrity of the case and set a bad precedent for future litigations.

Analysis of the Law

The case raised fundamental legal principles related to probate law, evidence law, and procedural fairness.

1. Evidentiary Value of a Registered Will
   • Under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, a registered document holds higher evidentiary value than an unregistered one.
   • Courts prefer registered documents as they are presumed to be more authentic and reliable.
2. Role of Probate Proceedings
   • The purpose of probate proceedings is to validate the Will’s authenticity.
   • A registered Will is legally more reliable, and its exclusion could hinder a fair decision.
3. Discretion of Courts in Allowing Additional Evidence
   • Civil Procedure laws allow courts to permit additional evidence if it helps in delivering substantive justice.
   • Delays in presenting evidence should not override the court’s duty to examine all legally valid materials.
4. Supreme Court Precedents on Procedural Fairness
   • The Supreme Court has held that courts should not be overly rigid in enforcing procedural rules if doing so defeats justice.
   • Courts have also ruled that if a party is not introducing entirely new evidence but only strengthening an existing claim, such submissions should be allowed.

Precedent Analysis

• Courts in previous cases have ruled that delays in filing documentary evidence should not automatically lead to exclusion if no harm is caused to the opposing party.
• In similar probate matters, courts have given preference to registered Wills over unregistered ones.
• The judiciary has often taken a lenient approach in cases where procedural lapses are not deliberate but due to inadvertence.

Court’s Reasoning

The High Court overturned the trial court’s order based on the following reasoning:

1. The Will’s Registration Had Already Been Acknowledged
   • The original probate petition (filed in 2009) and its amendments (in 2018) already mentioned the Will as a registered document.
   • This indicated that the registered Will was always part of the case’s narrative.
2. No New or Conflicting Evidence Introduced
   • The registered and unregistered Wills were identical, meaning no new claims were being introduced.
3. The Delay Was Not Malicious
   • The lapse in placing the registered Will on record was due to inadvertence, not bad faith.
4. No Prejudice to Opposing Parties
   • Since the unregistered Will was already on record, the opposing parties were not caught by surprise.
   • The additional document would not alter the course of the case unfairly.
5. Interest of Justice Favored Inclusion
   • Courts should consider all relevant and legally valid evidence to reach a just decision.
6. Delay Could Be Compensated With Costs
   • To address the procedural delay, the court imposed a cost of ₹25,000 on the petitioner.

Conclusion

The High Court set aside the trial court’s order and allowed the registered Will to be placed on record. However, it did not rule on the authenticity of the Will, leaving that decision to the trial court.

Implications

1. Reaffirms that procedural delays should not defeat substantive justice.
2. Strengthens the legal standing of registered Wills in probate proceedings.
3. Reinforces that courts have the discretion to allow additional evidence if it aids justice.
4. Encourages litigants to act diligently in submitting documentary evidence.

Also Read – Kerala High Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings: Emphasizing the Need for Clear Evidence in Allegations of Criminal Breach of Trust and Cheating Under IPC