Court’s Decision
The Delhi High Court, in Test Case No. 54/2014, granted probate of the Will dated 11.12.2004 of Late D.K. Jain, rejecting the objections raised by his daughter (Legal Representative No. 5). The Court held:
“I find no merit in the objections raised by the sole Objector. The petitioner has duly discharged the onus cast on him in proving the due execution and attestation of the subject Will as per law.”
The Court held that the statutory requirements under Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 were fully satisfied.
Facts
- The Will dated 11.12.2004 bequeathed the testator’s entire estate to his wife.
- Five legal heirs survived the testator, but only one (Legal Representative No. 5) continued to contest the Will.
- Other heirs had withdrawn their objections through family settlements.
Issues
- Whether the Will dated 11.12.2004 is the genuine and validly executed Will of Late D.K. Jain?
- Relief, if any.
Petitioner’s Arguments
- The Will was duly executed and attested by two witnesses.
- The petitioner, a Chartered Accountant, had professional dealings with the testator and was appointed as an executor.
- The Will was produced from the custody of the testator’s wife in a sealed envelope bearing his initials.
Respondent’s Arguments (Objector’s Contentions)
- The Will was fabricated, signatures possibly taken on blank papers.
- The spelling of the testator’s name was incorrect.
- Will excluded natural heirs without explanation, raising suspicion.
- Witness and petitioner were rewarded with promotions and benefits, indicating vested interest.
- No codicil was made despite substantial estate changes post-2004.
- The other executor had not joined the petition, rendering it invalid under Section 224 of ISA.
Analysis of the Law
- The Court reiterated that under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, the testator must sign the Will and it must be attested by two or more witnesses.
- Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act mandates the presence of at least one attesting witness to prove execution.
- The Court noted that PW-2, an attesting witness, confirmed that the Will was signed by the testator in the presence of both witnesses.
Precedent Analysis
The Court relied on the following:
- H. Venkatachala Iyengar v. B.N. Thimmajamma — to explain the standard of proving a Will and removing suspicious circumstances.
- Kavita Kanwar v. Pamela Mehta — on the validity of unregistered Wills and minor discrepancies.
- Surendra Pal v. Dr. Saraswati Arora — on naturalness of bequeathing estate to the spouse.
- Indu Bala Bose v. Manindra Chandra Bose — on sufficiency of attesting witness evidence.
- H.P.S. Chawla v. Dr. N.P.S. Chawla — to uphold maintainability of probate petition by a single executor.
- Mohd. Rahim Ali v. State of Assam — to clarify that even discrepancies in name spelling do not vitiate the Will.
Court’s Reasoning
- The Will was attested in accordance with Section 63(c) of the ISA.
- PW-2 provided a credible and detailed account of the Will’s execution.
- Objector’s own documents initially acknowledged the Will’s validity.
- Discrepancies in name spelling, shares mentioned, or codicil absence were not sufficient to discredit the Will.
- The Court found that:
“A mere deviation of one or two years in the age of legal representatives or discrepancy in the number of shares cannot invalidate the Will when attestation and execution are proved.”
- The objection under Section 224 ISA was rejected; the Court held that even a single executor can maintain the petition under Section 311 of ISA.
Conclusion
The Court granted probate of the Will, concluding:
“The petitioner has succeeded in proving the due execution and attestation of the subject Will. The objections raised by the Objector do not cast any reasonable doubt on the validity of the Will.”
Implications
This judgment reaffirms that:
- Probate petitions can be maintained by a single executor.
- Mere suspicion, without substantive proof, is insufficient to invalidate a Will.
- Wills executed in compliance with statutory requirements and supported by attesting witnesses will stand unless disproved by strong and cogent evidence.