Delhi High Court Upholds Partition Between Brothers; Declares Mother’s Will Manipulated on Blank Signed Paper and Invalidates Gift Deed Based on Disputed Will
Delhi High Court Finds Suspicious Circumstances Surrounding Mother’s Will; Upholds Trial Court Order Granting Brothers Equal Shares in Lajpat Nagar Property
Facts
The dispute concerned property bearing E-143, Amar Colony, Lajpat Nagar-IV, New Delhi, ultimately measuring about 200 sq. yards. The plaintiff, Praveen Trehan, claimed that the property had been acquired from HUF funds in the name of his mother, Smt. Krishna Trehan. The defendants disputed the existence of any HUF and asserted that the property was her individual property.
The Trial Court found that there was no evidence establishing the alleged HUF or acquisition from HUF funds. Nevertheless, it declared the mother’s Will dated 23 March 2004 null and void because of suspicious circumstances. Consequently, the Gift Deed executed in favour of Aradhana Trehan was also affected, and a preliminary partition decree was passed granting Praveen Trehan and Sudhir Trehan one-half share each.
Sudhir Trehan and his wife challenged that decree before the Delhi High Court.
Issues
The principal questions before the High Court were whether the alleged HUF and HUF funds had been proved; whether Krishna Trehan was the exclusive owner of the property; whether her Will dated 23 March 2004 was genuine and duly proved; whether the suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will had been satisfactorily explained; whether the subsequent Gift Deed could survive; and whether reframing of issues by the Trial Court caused prejudice sufficient to invalidate the judgment.
Appellants’ Arguments
The appellants argued that the Will had been duly proved in accordance with Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. They contended that examination of one attesting witness was sufficient and that non-examination of the second attesting witness or the doctor could not by itself invalidate the Will.
They also challenged the Trial Court’s treatment of matters such as the blank space on the document, different pens and inks, its handwritten character and lamination as suspicious circumstances. According to them, the plaintiff had failed to establish that the Will was not genuine.
Respondent’s Arguments
Praveen Trehan supported the Trial Court’s findings, contending that the Will had not been satisfactorily proved and was surrounded by suspicious circumstances. He also argued that reframing of the issues caused no prejudice because the material questions concerning the Will, Gift Deed and partition remained substantially the same.
Analysis of the Law
The High Court first rejected the plaintiff’s HUF theory. It found no evidence whatsoever establishing the existence of the alleged HUF or any HUF corpus. The plaintiff could not identify its name, tax assessment, bank account, assets or documentary evidence showing the existence of HUF funds.
The Court consequently treated Krishna Trehan as the exclusive owner. It also noted the statutory presumption under the then Section 3(2) of the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act that where property was purchased by a person in his wife’s name, it was presumed, unless proved otherwise, to have been purchased for her benefit.
The crucial question therefore became whether her Will was genuine.
The Court reiterated that a Will must satisfy Section 63 of the Succession Act, requiring execution and attestation, while Section 68 of the Evidence Act requires examination of at least one attesting witness where available.
Precedent Analysis
The Court relied upon Daulat Ram v. Sodha, (2005) 1 SCC 40, for the principle that a Will requiring attestation cannot be used in evidence unless at least one attesting witness is examined where such witness is available.
It also referred to Janki Narayan Bhoir v. Narayan Namdeo Kadam, (2003) 2 SCC 91, explaining that the attesting witness must prove due execution in the manner contemplated by Section 63 of the Succession Act.
Court’s Reasoning
The High Court found several circumstances surrounding the Will significant.
The Will reproduced on page 21 of the judgment was a single-page handwritten and laminated document. Nearly one-third of the upper portion was blank, without satisfactory explanation. More importantly, the document had admittedly been drafted by B.D. Trehan, the testatrix’s husband, while there was evidence that he possessed blank papers bearing Krishna Trehan’s signatures. The Court held that these circumstances created genuine concern that the Will could have been prepared on a pre-signed sheet.
The Court further observed that the writing, witnesses’ signatures and doctor’s endorsement appeared adjusted into the available space rather than forming a natural documentary flow.
Although one attesting witness, Rupa Singh, was examined, her testimony did not satisfactorily dispel the doubts. She admitted that the Will was already prepared when she arrived and that her name and address had already been written on it.
The Court expressly recognised that there was no legal requirement to examine both attesting witnesses. However, the non-examination of the other attesting witness assumed significance in the factual circumstances because he was a close friend of Sudhir Trehan and therefore a natural witness who could have clarified the circumstances surrounding execution.
Similarly, the doctor who supposedly certified Krishna Trehan’s fitness was not her regular treating physician but a neighbourhood cardiologist. The fitness endorsement had apparently already been written before he signed it, raising further doubt about whether he had actually examined her.
The High Court therefore agreed with the Trial Court that the Will had been manipulated on a blank signed paper and was not genuine.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court upheld the finding that the Will dated 23 March 2004 was null and void. Consequently, Sudhir Trehan could not claim absolute ownership under that Will, and the subsequent Gift Deed in favour of his wife could not operate against the share devolving upon Praveen Trehan.
The Court also rejected the objection concerning reframing of issues, holding that the substantive issues remained the same and no prejudice had been caused.
Accordingly, the High Court found no infirmity in the Trial Court’s decision granting Praveen Trehan and Sudhir Trehan one-half share each, and dismissed the Regular First Appeal along with the pending applications.
Case Details
Case: Sudhir Trehan & Anr. v. Praveen Trehan & Ors.
Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi
Case Number: RFA 846/2023
CNR: DLHC010414252023
Judge: Justice Neena Bansal Krishna
Reserved: 19 May 2026
Pronounced: 31 August 2026
Result: Regular First Appeal dismissed; preliminary partition decree granting equal half shares upheld.
