Bombay High Court

Jehangir Tehmas Patel vs Fateh Singh Cheema And Ors on 25 February, 2025

Digitally
signed by
2025:BHC-OS:3102
MULEY
MULEY SHUBHAM
SHUBHAM PRAVINRAO
PRAVINRAO Date:
2025.02.26
18:12:40 1 901-TS-65-2012.doc
+0530

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
TESTAMENTARY AND INTESTATE JURISDICTION
TESTAMENTARY SUIT NO. 65 OF 2012
IN
TESTAMENTARY PETITION NO. 831 OF 2012

Dileep Cheema alias Dilipkumari Cheema
alias Dilip Chima alias Dilpkumari
Bhagwansingh Chima alias
Dalipkumari Cheema ...Deceased

Jehangir Tehmas Patel,
of Pune, Parsi Zoroastrian Inhabitant,
residing at Flat No.10, Springfield Park,
Plot No. 44/45, Lullanagar, Pune-411040,
one of the Executors and Trustees named
under the Will of Dr. Kate Patel, the sole
Executrix and sole beneficiary named
under the Will of the Deceased ...Plaintiff

Vs.

1. Fateh Singh Cheema
residing at Cheema Farm, P.O.
Kela Khera, District-Udham Singh Nagar,
Uttarakhand-263152.

2. Man Singh Cheema
residing at Cheema Farm, P.O.
Kela Khera, District-Udham Singh Nagar,
Uttarakhand-263152.

Shubham 1/39

::: Uploaded on - 26/02/2025 ::: Downloaded on - 26/02/2025 21:57:02 :::
2 901-TS-65-2012.doc

3. Tanvinder Singh Cheema
residing at Cheema Farm, P.O.
Kela Khera, District-Udham Singh Nagar,
Uttarakhand-263152. ... Caveators/Defendants

4. Neelam Devkrishanan,
residing at E-229, Natasha Golf View
Apartments, Inner Ring Road,
Domlur Layout, Bantgalore,
State of Karanataka ...Caveatrix/Defendant

-----------------
Mr. Karl Tamboly a/w. Zahra Padamsee and Rajvi Mehta, i/by Vashi and Vashi
for the Plaintiff.
Dr. G. R. Sharma a/w. Gaurav Sharma and Tanay Sakharwade for Defendant
Nos.1 to 3.
-----------------

CORAM : ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.
RESERVED ON : 24th FEBRUARY, 2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 25th FEBRUARY, 2025

JUDGMENT:

1. The captioned Testamentary Suit is filed for Letters of

Administration (with a Will annexed) in respect of the estate of one Dr. Ms.

Dileep Cheema ("the Deceased"), who passed away on 8th July 2011. The Suit is

opposed by Defendant Nos. 1 to 3 (" the Cheema's") who claim to be the nephews

of the Deceased and Defendant No. 4 (" Neelam") who the Plaintiff accepts is the

niece of the Deceased.

3 901-TS-65-2012.doc

2. Before adverting to the rival contentions, it is useful for context to

set out the following facts, viz.

i. The Will of the Deceased which is being propounded by the Plaintiff is

dated 15th May 1986 ("the said Will"). By the said Will, the Deceased

had named one Dr. Kate Patel ("Kate Patel") as both her sole executrix

and her sole beneficiary. The Deceased and Kate Patel were the closest

of friends who were both Doctors who not only lived together but also

ran a hospital together.

ii. Kate Patel passed away on 6 th October 2011 leaving behind her last

Will and Testament dated 13th August 2011. In her last Will and

Testament, Katel Patel named the Plaintiff as one of the executors as

also a beneficiary. The Plaintiff thereafter filed the captioned

Testamentary Petition ("the said Petition") which was opposed by the

Cheema's and Neelam who filed their respective caveats. It was thus

that the said Petition was converted to a Testamentary Suit.

iii. The Plaintiff thereafter filed two Notices of Motion i.e. Notice of

Motion No. 209 of 2012 and Notice of Motion No. 23 of 2013 for

dismissal of the Caveats filed by the Cheema's and Neelam

respectively. The dismissal of the Caveats filed by the Cheema's was

4 901-TS-65-2012.doc

essentially on the ground that Cheema's had no caveatable interest in

the estate of the Deceased. The Cheema's opposed the Notice of Motion

by filing an Affidavit in Reply in which they inter alia contended that a

decision as to whether the Cheema's had any caveatable interest in

the estate of the deceased, could only be taken once the Cheema's had

led evidence in the matter. It was thus that this Court vide an Order

dated 9th January 2014 dismissed the Plaintiff's Notice of Motion

seeking rejection of the Cheema's Caveat inter alia holding as follows:

"2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of defendant nos. 1 to 3 on the other hand invited my attention to the averments in affidavit and submits that grounds raised in the affidavit in support of the caveat would require oral evidence and caveat cannot be rejected at this stage...

3. On perusal of the affidavit filed by the defendants in support of caveat, I am of the view that the issue raised in the affidavit in support of the caveat cannot be brushed aside at this stage and caveat cannot be dismissed at this stage and would require oral evidence.

4. For the reasons recorded aforesaid, in my view, there is no substance in the Notice of Motions filed by the plaintiffs for dismissal of caveat of defendant nos. 1 to 4 and thus Notice of Motions are dismissed. No order as to costs.

5. It is made clear that this court has not gone into the correctness of the allegations made in the affidavit in support of the

5 901-TS-65-2012.doc

Notice of Motions and also affidavit in support of the caveat and all such contentions are kept open." (emphasis supplied)

3. This Court thereafter vide an Order dated 27 th January 2014

framed the following Issues for determination in the Suit viz.

"ISSUES

1. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is entitled to execute the Will of the deceased in his capacity as the executor of Dr. Kate Patel's Will?

2. Whether the Will of the deceased dated 15 th May, 1986 has been duly executed and attested as per the requirements of the Indian Succession Act, 1925?

3. Whether Dr. Kate Patel in her capacity as the sole executrix of the Will of the deceased dated 15th May, 1986 has manifested any intention to execute the same?

4. Whether the defendant nos. 1 to 3 prove that they have any caveatable interest qua the estate of the deceased?

5. Whether defendant nos. 1 to 3 prove that the Will of the deceased dated 15th May, 1986 has been superseded by a subsequent Will dated 20th September, 2001?

6. What order?"

4. The Plaintiff led the evidence of two witnesses, (i) the Plaintiff (PW-

1) and (ii) Mr. Jonathan Samuel Solomon (PW-2) whose evidence was recorded

in Court. The Defendants did not lead any evidence.

6 901-TS-65-2012.doc

Submissions on behalf of the Plaintiff's

5. Mr. Tamboly, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Plaintiff

first dealt with Issue No. 41. He submitted that since the Cheema's had not led any

evidence in support of Issue No. 4, they had failed to establish that they had any

caveatable interest in the estate of the Deceased, much less that they were the

nephews of the Deceased.. He submitted that the Cheema's were therefore

clearly nothing more than meddlesome interlopers who had no locus or legal

right to oppose the grant of Letters of Administration in favour of the Plaintiff. He

submitted that on this ground alone the caveats filed by the Cheema's were

required to be dismissed.

6. Mr. Tamboly then pointed out that the Cheema's had themselves in

the Affidavit in Reply to Notice of Motion No. 209 of 2012 contended that

evidence would have to be led in order to decide as to whether the Cheema's had

a caveatable interest in the estate of the Deceased. He pointed out that it was on

this basis that this Court had dismissed the said Notice of Motion inter alia

recording that oral evidence would have to be led and that the caveat could not

be brushed aside at that stage. He submitted that in these facts, it was incumbent

upon the Cheema's to have established by leading the necessary evidence, that

they were the nephews of the Deceased or that they had any caveatable interest

in the estate of the Deceased. He pointed out that the Cheema's had infact

repeatedly sought time to file their Affidavit of Evidence but did not do so. It was

1 4.Whether the defendant nos. 1 to 3 prove that they have any caveatable interest qua the estate of the deceased?

7 901-TS-65-2012.doc

thus he submitted that the Cheema's had failed to establish that they had a

caveatable interest in the estate of the Deceased.

7. Mr. Tamboly then submitted that since the Cheema's did not have

any caveatable interest in the estate of the Deceased, they had no locus to oppose

the grant of Letters of Administration or for that matter even question the said

Will. In support of his contention, he placed reliance upon a judgment of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Elizabeth Antony vs. Michel Charles John

Chown Lengera2 from which he pointed out the following:

"2. ...The petitioner also claimed that she was a trustee of John Browne Trust and that therefore, the petitioner has caveatable interest. Thus, they opposed the probate of the will. Before the Sub-Court, several documents were filed. The respondent herein contested the caveat stating that the petitioner herein has no interest in the estate. The learned Subordinate Judge held that the petitioner is not in any manner related either to Mary Aline Browne or Zoe Enid Browne. The learned Single Judge of the High Court in an elaborate order having considered the rival contentions dismissed the Civil Revision Petition holding that the petitioner cannot claim to be a person who has a caveatable interest in the estate of the deceased testatrix Mary Aline Browne. We are told that the will has subsequently been probated and the letters of administration have been granted.

3. ....

4. ....

5. ....

6. Relying on these decisions the learned counsel urged that the petitioner in the instant case has substantial interest in the estate. The learned counsel for the respondent did not dispute the legal position. He, however, contended

2 (1990) 3 SCC 333

8 901-TS-65-2012.doc

that there was absolutely no material before the Courts below to substantiate the alleged interest of the petitioner in the estate. ...The learned counsel for the respondent further submitted that except mentioning these three aspects in a bare manner no other material was placed before the Court. Having gone through both the orders we are inclined to agree with the learned counsel for the respondent that the petitioner did not establish her caveatable interest. ...

Accordingly the learned Judge held that the petitioner has not established

that she has a caveatable interest justifying her opposition to the probate

proceedings for grant of letters of administration. In this state of affairs, we

are unable to agree with the learned counsel that the petitioner has

caveatable interest."

8. Mr. Tamboly then also placed reliance upon Section 114(g) 3 of the

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and submitted that since the Cheema's had not led

any evidence in support of their claim that they were the nephews of the

Deceased, a negative inference under Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act must

necessarily be drawn against them. He also took pains to point out that the

Cheema's despite contending that they were the nephews of the Deceased had

not taken any positive steps to secure and preserve the estate of the Deceased or

to obtain Letters of Administration in respect thereof. Basis this he submitted that

it was clear that the Cheema's were clearly meddlesome interlopers who did not

have any caveatable interest in the estate of the Deceased, and it was thus that

Issue No.4 was required to be answered in the negative.

3 114 (g) that evidence which could be and is not produced would, if produced, be unfavourable to the person who withholds it;

9 901-TS-65-2012.doc

9. Mr. Tamboly, then in dealing with Issue No. 2 4 pointed out that as

per Section 63(c)5 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 ("Succession Act") a valid

Will was required to be attested by two witnesses. He pointed out that in the

present case the fact that the said Will was attested by two witnesses namely

Neelam and Mr. Solomon an esteemed Solicitor of this Court was not in dispute.

He pointed out that though Neelam had filed a caveat, she had not denied

attesting the said Will. It was thus that he submitted that the requirements of

Section 63(c) of the Succession Act stood duly complied with. Mr. Tamboly then

pointed out that while a valid Will was required to be attested as per Section

63(c) of the Succession Act, the same was required to be proved like any other

document, which in law was required to be attested as per Section 68 6 of the

Indian Evidence Act 1872 ("Evidence Act"). He pointed out that Section 68 of the

Evidence Act, provided that the evidence of any one of the attesting witnesses

4 2.Whether the Will of the deceased dated 15th May, 1986 has been duly executed and attested as per the requirements of the Indian Succession Act, 1925?

5 63 (c) The will shall be attested by two or more witnesses, each of whom has seen the testator sign or affix his mark to the will or has seen some other person sign the will, in the presence an d by the direction of the testator, or has received from the testator a personal acknowledgment of his signature or mark, or of the signature of such other person; and each of the witnesses shall sign the will in the presence of the testator, but it shall not be necessary that more than one witness be present at the same time, and no particular form of attestation shall be necessary.

6 68. Proof of execution of document required by law to be attested.

If a document is required by law to be attested, it shall not be used as evidence until one attesting witness at least has been called for the purpose of proving its execution, if there be an attesting witness alive, and subject to the process of the Court and capable of giving evidence :

[Provided that it shall not be necessary to call an attesting witness in proof of the execution of any document, not being a Will, which has been registered in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), unless its execution by the person by whom it purports to have been executed is specifically denied

10 901-TS-65-2012.doc

could be led to prove due execution and did not require the evidence of both

attesting witnesses to be led.

10. Mr. Tamboly submitted that the Plaintiff had thus in accordance

with Section 68 of the Evidence Act, led the evidence of Mr. Solomon (PW-2) to

prove due execution of the said Will. In support of his contention, he drew my

attention to the following answers given by Mr. Solomon in cross examination,

viz.

"3. Q. (Shown Will No. 250 of 2012) Can you identify this document?

Ans. Yes. This is the Will of Dr. Dilieepkumari Cheema, the deceased.

4. Q. Who drew up this document?

        Ans.       I did.


5.      Q.         On whose instructions did you do so?
        Ans.       On the instructions of the deceased.


6.      Q.         Can you identify the signatures on this document?
        Ans.       Yes. The first signature is that of the deceased. Below her

signature and to the right of the execution clause is the signature of Miss Neelam S. Chima, who was also present at that time of signing of the Will. The signature at the bottom on the left is my own and below that I have in my handwritten the words "Advocate and Solicitor, Bombay."

11 901-TS-65-2012.doc

8. Q. In whose handwriting are the date and month written?

       Ans.       They are in the handwriting of the deceased.


9.     Q.         How are you aware that the handwriting of the date and
                  month is that of the deceased?
       Ans.       The deceased wrote the date and the month in my
                  presence.


10.    Q.         In whose presence did deceased sign on this document?

       Ans.       She did so in the presence of Ms. Neelam Chima and
                  myself.


11.    Q.         In whose presence did you attest this Will?
       Ans.       In the presence of Dr. Cheema and Ms. Neelam Chima.



12.    Q.         Who was present when Ms. Neelam Chima attested the
                  Will?
       Ans.       The deceased and I were present.


13.    Q.         Where was this Will signed and attested?
       Ans.       In my office of M/s. Solomon & Co.


14.    Q.         Where and when did the deceased give you instructions to
                  draw up this Will?
       Ans.       She came to my office to give instructions. As far as I

recollect it was on the same day as the execution of the Will, 15th May 1986.

12 901-TS-65-2012.doc

20. Q. Would you be able to speak about the soundness of the testator's state of mind, memory and understanding on that day?

Ans. I found her to be absolutely of normal and sound mind.

21. Q. How old was Dr. Cheema in 1986?

Ans. I do not know her exact age, but my impression was that she was about 60 years old.

25. Q. Did Neelam at any time after the demise of the testatrix ever make any grievance in your presence about the execution and attestation of this Will?

Ans. Not about this Will."

Basis the above, he submitted that, there could be no manner of doubt that the

said Will had been duly executed as per the provisions of the Succession Act. He

therefore submitted that the Plaintiff had duly discharged the burden of proving

due execution of the said Will.

11. Mr. Tamboly then without prejudice to the above, took pains to

point out that the Affidavit in Support of the Caveat filed by the Cheema's said

nothing about the execution and/or attestation of the said Will. He pointed out

that it was only in the Further Affidavit filed by the Cheema's that they had raised

the following contentions, namely that (i) Neelam was asked by the Deceased to

sign a typed document (ii) there was no signature on the document (iii) Neelam

was not told what she was signing and (iv) that Neelam did not have the

13 901-TS-65-2012.doc

intention of attesting the document. Dealing with the said contentions Mr.

Tamboly first submitted that it was unfathomable as to how the Cheema's could

contend any of this, when Neelam had not in her own Affidavit in Support of the

Caveat, taken any such contentions. Second, he pointed out from the Plaintiff's

Affidavit of Evidence that it was Neelam herself who had found and handed over

the said Will to Mr. Solomon and was also provided a receipt by Solomon and

Company for the same. Third, that the Cheema's had, apart from alleging that

Neelam had no intention of attesting the said Will, not raised any other legitimate

grounds to challenge the due execution of the said Will. He also took pains to

point out that Neelam had herself neither denied attesting the said Will nor had

she led any evidence in the Suit in support of any of the contentions taken by her

in the Affidavit in Support of her Caveat. It was thus he submitted that the

Plaintiff had more than adequately proved Issue No.2 and thus the same was

required to be answered in the affirmative.

12. Mr. Tamboly then dealing with Issue No. 5 7 submitted that neither

the Cheema's nor Neelam had produced what they alleged was the subsequent

Will much less taken any steps to prove the same. He thus submitted that in this

admitted factual backdrop, that the question of the Defendants contending much

less having proved that the said Will had been superseded by a subsequent Will

did not arise. He thus submitted that Issue No. 5 must necessarily be answered in

the negative.

75. Whether defendant nos. 1 to 3 prove that the Will of the deceased dated 15 th May, 1986 has been superseded by a subsequent Will dated 20th September, 2001?

14 901-TS-65-2012.doc

13. Mr. Tamboly then dealing with Issue No. 38 submitted that there

was overwhelming evidence to show that Kate Patel had manifested her intention

to execute the said Will. He pointed out that Kate Patel had incurred expenses

towards (i) the funeral and last rights of the Deceased (ii) the obituary of the

Deceased (iii) the cost for the assessment of the jewellery which he submitted was

jointly owned by the Deceased and Kate Patel and (iv) paid the fees to the

chartered accountant for sorting out the securities of the Deceased which would

be required to be listed in the schedule of assets of the Deceased appended to the

Probate Petition. He submitted that all this was even though Kate Patel had a fall

on 20th July 2011, shortly after the death of the Deceased which resulted in a

fracture of her hip and femur joint. He submitted that Kate Patel was thereafter

moved to Pune on 29th July 2011 and was admitted to the Sancheti Hospital,

where she underwent a surgery for the fracture suffered by her. . He therefore

submitted that there could be no manner of doubt that Kate Patel had manifested

an intention to execute the said Will and had infact taken positive steps in that

regard before she passed away.

14. Mr. Tamboly then placed reliance upon a judgement of the Division

Bench of this Court, in the case of John Francis Anthony Gonsalves vs Agnes

Mary Conception Rebello9 to point out that this Court had specifically held that

8 3. Whether Dr. Kate Patel in her capacity as the sole executrix of the Will of the deceased dated 15 th May, 1986 has manifested any intention to execute the same?

9 2008 (3) Mh.L.J. 804

15 901-TS-65-2012.doc

an executor who orders the funeral expenses of the testator but passes away

before applying for probate, has manifested an intention to act as an executor

and, is therefore, entitled to take the legacy. Basis this he submitted that there

could be no manner of doubt that in the facts of the present case, Kate Patel

having not only made payment of the funeral expenses of the Deceased but also

having taken the various other steps as detailed above, had clearly manifested

her intention to execute the said Will.

15. Mr. Tamboly, then in support of Issue No.1, placed reliance on

Sections 23210 and 23311 of the Succession Act to submit that the Plaintiff would

be entitled to seek letters of administration in respect of the said Will, since (i) the

Deceased, had named Kate Patel as both the sole Executrix and absolute

beneficiary of her estate (ii) Kate Patel had in her own last Will and Testament,

appointed the Plaintiff as one of the Executors and a beneficiary (iii) the Plaintiff

had obtained probate of Kate Patel's Will and (iv) the bequest in favour of Kate

Patel under the Deceased's Will had never lapsed. He submitted that in view of

10 232. Grant of administration of universal or residuary legatees.--When--

(a) the deceased has made a Will, but has not appointed an executor, or

(b) the deceased has appointed an executor who is legally incapable or refuses to act, or who has died before the testator or before he has proved the Will, or

(c) the executor dies after having proved the will, but before he has administered all the estate of the deceased,

an universal or a residuary legatee may be admitted to prove the Will, and letters of administration with the Will annexed may be granted to him of the whole estate, or of so much thereof as may be unadministered.

11233. Right to administration of representative of deceased residuary legatee-- When a residuary legatee who has a beneficial interest survives the testator, but dies before the estate has been fully administered, his representative has the same right to administration with the Will annexed as such residuary legatee.

16 901-TS-65-2012.doc

Sections 232(b) and 233 of the Indian Succession Act, the Plaintiff was entitled to

administer the estate of the Deceased in his capacity as the executor and

beneficiary under Kate Patel's Will. In support of his contention that a residuary

legatee has the locus standi to apply for Letters of Administration, placed reliance

on the following judgments D.C. Khanna v. Pirthi Singh Dhillon S/o S. Jai Singh 12,

Shib Prosad Sadhukhan v. Shri Nemai Chandra Ghoshal 13 and Haripada Saha &

Anr. v. Gobind Chandra Saha14

16. Additionally, Mr. Tamboly pointed out that the Plaintiff, in his

capacity as Executor of Kate Patel's Will, had continued to pay for security

expenses, electricity bills, municipal taxes, and other dues related to Kavita

Building from Kate Patel's estate account. In contrast, the Cheema's who claimed

to be entitled to the estate had taken absolutely no steps to either protect the

estate or assert their so-called entitlement.

17. It was thus and basis the aforesaid submissions that Mr. Tamboly

submitted that the Suit be decreed in favour of the Plaintiff. He submitted that

given the conduct of the Cheema's in the present case the Plaintiff was entitled to

costs. He submitted that it was now writ large that the Cheema's had simply

stalled the grant of Letters of Administration in favour of to the Plaintiff for the

last 13 odd years without having a semblance of interest in the estate of the

12 AIR 1963 P&H 66 13 1990 SCC OnLine Cal 86 14 (1946-47) 51 CWN 917

17 901-TS-65-2012.doc

Deceased. He submitted that the Plaintiff had to spend a considerable amount to

protect and preserve the estate of the Deceased. He submitted that the Plaintiff

had paid a sum of Rs. 59,13,207/- towards security charges, property tax, water

charges, electricity bills for ' Kavita' building and towards the rent for locker No.

438 at Indian Overseas Bank. He also reiterated that the Cheema's had taken no

steps to protect and preserve the estate of the Deceased or to obtain Letters of

Administration in respect of the estate of the Deceased. He submitted that it was

therefore ex facie evident that the Defendants had acted in bad faith and solely

with the intention to cause unnecessary delay and obstruction to the grant of

Letters of Administration in favour of the Plaintiff. He submitted that the conduct

of the Cheema's had resulted in considerable financial loss to the Estate of Dr.

Kate Patel and undue hardship to its rightful beneficiaries. It was thus he

submitted that costs be awarded to the Plaintiff.

18. Mr. Tamboly pointed out that the provisions of the Code of Civil

Procedure, 1908 would be applicable to Testamentary Suits in view of Section

268 and 295 of Indian Succession Act. He then invited my attention to the

judgments of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Salem Advocate Bar

Association v/s Union of India15, Charu Kishor Mehta v/s Prakash Patel 16,

Padmawati v/s Harijan Sewak Sangh 17 to point out that the Hon'ble Supreme

Court had held that the Courts have a duty to discourage wrong doers from

15 2008 6 SCC 344 16 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1962 17 (2012) 6 SCC 460

18 901-TS-65-2012.doc

prolonging litigation by imposing costs and that the costs imposed must be the

real costs equal to the deprivation suffered by the rightful person. It was thus he

submitted that the Plaintiff was entitled to costs in the present case.

Submissions on behalf of Defendants.

19. Mr. Sharma Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Cheema's

at the outset submitted that the Plaintiff's contention that the Cheema's did not

have any caveatable interest in the estate of the Deceased was plainly untenable.

He pointed out that the Cheema's had, in paragraph one of their Further Affidavit

in Support of the caveat, specifically set out the manner in which they were

related to the Deceased. He also pointed out that the Cheema's had annexed a

family tree to the same Affidavit setting out how they were related to the

Deceased. Mr. Sharma then took pains to point out that the Plaintiff had in the

Affidavit in Reply dated 15th February 2014 not specifically denied that the

Cheema's were the nephews of the Deceased and had put the Cheema's to the

strict proof thereof. Mr. Sharma submitted that denial for want of knowledge,

was no denial in law, for which he placed reliance upon the judgements of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Muddasani Venkata Narsaiah vs.

Muddasani Sarojana18 and Jafarui Sah and Others vs. Dwarika Prasad

Jhunjhunwala and others19. It was thus that he submitted that the Cheema's were

18 (2016) 12 SCC 288.

19 1966 SCC OnLine SC 194

19 901-TS-65-2012.doc

not required to lead any evidence to prove that they were related to the Deceased,

since the Plaintiff had not specifically denied the contents of paragraph one of

Further Affidavit in Support of the caveat.

20. Mr. Sharma then placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon'ble

Supreme Court in Ranjit Singh and Another v/s State of Uttarakhand and others 20

to submit that it was trite law that even in cases where a Suit proceeds ex-parte a

Defendant always has the right to cross examine the Plaintiff's witnesses to

establish that the case propounded by the Plaintiff, is false. He also pointed out

that this Court had, vide the Order dated 25 th April 2024 specifically recorded as

follows, viz.

"2. Issue Nos.3 and 4 framed in the present suit place the burden entirely on defendant Nos.1 to 3 to prove, in the first place, as to whether they have any caveatable interest in the present proceedings. Having failed to lead any evidence in the matter, the said defendants may not be able to discharge the burden as per issue No.3 framed in the present suit. On this basis, the learned counsel of the plaintiff submits that the present proceedings ought to be treated as uncontested proceedings and the grant may be issued.

3. This Court is of the opinion that as a Testamentary Court and a Court of conscience, this Court is required to appreciate the material on record to come to the conclusion that the letters of

20 2024 SCC OnLine SC 2932

20 901-TS-65-2012.doc

administration with Will annexed, can be granted on the basis of the subject Will. It is also an admitted position that the plaintiff's witnesses have been cross-examined on behalf of defendant Nos.1 to 3.

4. This Court would like to see the evidence and material on record before passing any order."

Basis the above he submitted that it was therefore now not open for the Plaintiff

to contend that merely because the Cheema's had not led any evidence, they were

precluded from in any manner contesting the Suit. He submitted that as already

noted in the Order dated 25 th April 2024, it was well settled that before the grant

of Probate or Letters of Administration the conscience of the Court was required

to be satisfied and thus, the Cheema's were entitled to oppose the said grant of

Letters of Administration by pointing out the various infirmities in the evidence

led by the Plaintiff.

21. Mr. Sharma then pointed out, what according to him were the

infirmities in the evidence led by the Plaintiff, as also the suspicious

circumstances which surround the execution of the said Will. However, before

proceeding further, I must note that a major part of the so-called discrepancies

in the Plaintiff's evidence all pertained to the Will of Kate Patel and its execution.

Hence, even assuming the contention of Mr. Sharma is correct, such

discrepancies are wholly irrelevant for the purpose of deciding the present Suit,

21 901-TS-65-2012.doc

since firstly, the present Suit concerns the Will of the Deceased and not Kate

Patel's Will and secondly, probate in respect of Kate Patel's Will has already been

granted to the Plaintiff. Thus, any so-called discrepancies in the evidence insofar

as the same pertain to Kate Patel's Will are wholly immaterial and irrelevant to

the Issues at hand in the present Suit.

22. It is, however, necessary to set out what according to Mr. Sharma

are the infirmities in the evidence of the Plaintiff as also the suspicious

circumstances surrounding the said Will. Insofar as suspicious circumstances

were concerned, Mr. Sharma has submitted that the following would constitute

suspicious circumstances, viz.

i. The Testamentary Petition was filed by suppressing that the

Cheema's were the nephews of the Deceased and thus no citation

was served upon the Cheema's.

ii. The signature of the Deceased on the Will did not tally with the

signature of Deceased.

iii. That the date and month of the said Will were both written in hand,

whereas the year was typed.

iv. That Neelam in the Affidavit in Support of her caveat had not stated

22 901-TS-65-2012.doc

that the Deceased had signed the said Will in her presence or that

Mr. Soloman had attested the said Will.

v. That Neelam was never examined, nor had she filed any Affidavit of

an attesting witness to the said Will. 21

23. Mr. Sharma then insofar as the evidence led by the Plaintiff, pointed

out that the evidence clearly indicated the possibility of the Deceased having left

more than one Will. He also submitted that there were extremely suspicious

circumstances regarding the custody of the said Will, since the letter dated 13 th

January 2012 specifically stated that the original Will of the Deceased dated 15 th

May 1986 along with original registered deed of sale dated 20 th March 1981

were lying with M/s Solomon and Company, which was reiterated by Mr.

Solomon in his cross examination. He however pointed out that Mr. Solomon had

in his Examination in Chief, submitted that the Original Will of the Deceased

dated 15th May 1986 and original registered deed of sale dated 20 th March 1981

were handed over to him by Neelam. Basis this Mr. Sharma submitted that the

testimony of Mr. Solomon created a doubt in mind that there existed more than

one Will of the Deceased.

24. Mr. Sharma then submitted that the examination in chief of Mr.

Solomon contained contradictory statements qua the presence of the Neelam at

21 Affidavit in support of Caveat filed by Defendant No.4

23 901-TS-65-2012.doc

the time of execution of the said Will. He pointed out that Mr. Solomon, had on

the one hand submitted that the Deceased signed the Will in his presence and in

presence of Neelam while on the other hand stated that the date on which the

said Will was executed, only Kate Patel had accompanied the Deceased to his

office. He also pointed out that Mr. Solomon had stated that while giving

instructions to Mr. Solomon, no one other than the Deceased were present. 22 He

placed reliance upon the following answers given in examination in chief by Mr.

Solomon to support his contention:

14.To Where and when did the deceased give you Court instructions to draw up this Will?

           Ans.                  Ans. She came to my office to give instructions.
                                 As far as I recollect it was on the same day as
                                 the execution of the Will, 15 th May 1986.

           Q.15                   Did anyone accompany the deceased to give
                                 you the instructions?
           Ans.                  Ans. When the deceased gave me instructions
                                 no one else was present.

           16.To                 Did the deceased come to your office alone or
           Court                 with someone else?
           Ans.                  As far as I remember she came with Dr. Kate J.
                                 Patel.

25. Mr. Sharma then invited my attention to the Affidavit in Support of

Caveat filed by Neelam and submitted that Neelam though named as an attesting

22 Examination in chief of PW-2 Q. 14, 15 and 16

24 901-TS-65-2012.doc

witness had filed a caveat stating that (i) the Deceased had executed a subsequent

Will dated 20th September 2001 (ii) the subsequent Will dated 20 th September

2001 was concealed by the Plaintiff in collusion with a neighbour of the

Deceased and (iii) that the Deceased had told Neelam the Deceased had made

bequeaths to charity due to change in circumstances. Mr. Sharma submitted that

Neelam had informed the Cheema's that sometime in 1986 the Deceased had

made her sign a typed document and that there was no other signature on said

documents. It was thus he submitted that Neelam had signed the said Will

without knowledge of what she was signing hence Neelam did not have animus

attestandi i.e. intention to attest the said Will when she signed.

26. Basis the above Mr. Sharma submitted given the fact that Mr.

Solomon had (i) made contradictory statements regarding Neelam's presence at

the time of execution of the said Will (ii) Neelam though shown as an attesting

Witness of the said Will, did not depose that she had signed the said Will in the

presence of the Deceased and (iii) Mr. Solomon in examination in chief stated

that said Will was handed over to him by Neelam, whereas letter dated 13 th

January 2012 specifically stated that the original Will of the Deceased dated 15 th

May 1986 along with original registered deed of sale dated 20 th March 1981

were lying with M/s Solomon and Company. Basis this Mr. Sharma submitted

that the execution of the said Will was surrounded by grave and suspicious

circumstances, Mr. Sharma then placed reliance upon judgment of the Hon'ble

25 901-TS-65-2012.doc

Supreme Court in Chinu Rani Ghosh vs. Subhash Ghosh and others 23 and Murthy

and Others v/s C. Saradambl 24 to submit that the burden of proof is on the

propounder of the Will and in case there exists suspicious circumstances

surrounding a Will, then the burden is on the propounder to satisfy the

conscience of the Court and dispel these suspicious circumstances. Mr. Sharma

in support of his contention that fraud vitiates everything, and all the advantages

gained by a party who practices fraud would have to be taken away, placed

reliance upon a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Lillykuutty v/s

Scrutiny Committee, SC & ST25 and Meghmala v/s G. Narsimha Reddy26. He

submitted that the evidence produced by the Plaintiff did not inspire confidence

but infact showed suspicious circumstances existed surrounding the said Will. It

was thus he submitted that the said Will could not be said to have been duly

executed in accordance with Section 63 of the Succession Act.

27. In view of the above, he submitted that the Suit must necessarily be

dismissed, and the estate of the Deceased be administered on the basis that the

Deceased had died intestate.

28. In rejoinder, Mr. Tamboly submitted that the Petitioner's contention

that the Plaintiff's failure to specifically deny the alleged relationship between the

Cheema's and the Deceased amounted to an admission on the part of the

23 Order dated 11th December 2024 of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition (c) No. 23721 of 2022 24 (2022) 3 SCC 209 25 (2005) 8 SCC 283 26 (2010) 8 SCC 383

26 901-TS-65-2012.doc

Plaintiff, thereby eliminating the need for evidence was entirely misconceived. He

submitted that Plaintiff's Affidavit in Reply was being read selectively and the

same was required to be read in its entirety . He then placed reliance upon the

judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Udhav Singh v. Madhav Rao Scindia27

to submit that pleadings must be read as a whole to ascertain their true intent

and cannot be interpreted in isolation. He pointed out that a plain reading of the

Plaintiff's Affidavit in Reply to the caveat made it clear that the Plaintiff had

expressly stated that the Cheema's had failed to produce any documentary

evidence to substantiate their claim. He submitted that it was in this limited

context that the Plaintiff had put the Cheema's to strict proof of their claim. He

pointed out that the judgment relied upon by Mr. Sharma in the case of

Muddasani Venkata was inapplicable to the facts of the present case, since in that

case the Defendant had initially claimed unawareness of a document's execution,

of which evidence was subsequently led to establish the document's existence

and then it was that evidence which remained unchallenged. He thus pointed out

that the said judgement was delivered in an entirely different factual context and

thus could not be applied to the present case.

29. Mr. Tamboly then placed reliance upon Order XIV Rules 1, 5, and 6

of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ("CPC") and pointed out that Issues in a Suit

are framed when a material fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by

the other party. He submitted that since the Plaintiff had disputed that the

27 1976 AIR 744

27 901-TS-65-2012.doc

Cheema's were related to the Deceased, the Court had specifically framed Issue

No. 4. He then pointed out that the Cheema's had never challenged the framing

of Issue No.4 at any stage of the proceedings. He also pointed out that the

Cheema's had infact never contended that their failure to lead evidence

regarding their alleged caveatable interest was justified by an implied admission

on the Plaintiff's part. He therefore submitted that it was now not open to the

Cheema's to contend that they were not required to establish by leading evidence

that they had a caveatable interest in the estate of the Deceased.

30. Mr. Tamboly also pointed out that reliance upon the judgement of

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ranjit Singh & Anr. was entirely

misplaced since the Cheema's had not been denied an opportunity to cross-

examine the Plaintiff's witnesses. He further argued that the Hon'ble Supreme

Court's judgment in the case of Chinu Rani Gosh was also of no assistance to the

Cheema's since in that case, the details of the attesting witness were not

provided, whereas no such deficiency existed in the present case. He reiterated

that Neelam had, despite filing a caveat, not led any evidence nor had she taken

any steps to establish the existence of any alleged subsequent Will of the

Deceased much less having produced the same before the Court.

31. Mr. Tamboly then reiterated that as per Section 68 of the Evidence

Act, due execution of a Will could be proved by the testimony of a single attesting

witness. He submitted that in the present case, due execution of the said Will was

28 901-TS-65-2012.doc

done through the evidence of Mr. Solomon. He further pointed out that Neelam

had never disputed the execution of the said Will and had, in fact, admitted its

existence. He reiterated that the only contention of the Cheema's was that

Neelam had signed the Will without the intention of attesting it ( animus

attestandi). He however pointed out that this claim was made not by Neelam

herself but by the Cheema's in their Affidavit in Support of the caveat. Given

these facts, Mr. Tamboly submitted that the Cheema's contention regarding

suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the said Will was entirely

untenable and thus the contention that there existed suspicious circumstances

was totally baseless. He thus submitted that the judgment in Murthy v. C.

Saradambal was also misplaced and inapplicable to the present case. He also

reiterated that the Plaintiff was entitled to costs given the complete lack of any

bonafides on the part of the Cheema's in opposing the grant of letters of

administration as had been prayed for in the Suit.

Reasons and Conclusions

32. After having heard learned counsel and having appreciated the

evidence on record, I answer the Issues framed for consideration as follows, viz.

A. Issue No. 4. Whether the defendant nos. 1 to 3 prove that they have any caveatable interest qua the estate of the deceased?

29 901-TS-65-2012.doc

33. The above squarely places the burden of proof upon the Cheema's

to establish that they have a caveatable interest in the estate of the Deceased.

Order XIV Rule 1 of the CPC makes it clear that Issues are framed when a

material proposition of fact or law is affirmed by one party and denied by the

other party. It was thus in this context based on the pleadings that Issue No. 4

was framed by this Court. The Cheema's after the Issues were framed, did not

seek any modification of the Issues framed. Therefore, in my view it is now not

open for the Cheema's to contend that they were not required to lead evidence to

establish that they had a caveatable interest in the estate of the Deceased in view

of any alleged admission by non-traverse on the part of the Plaintiff. Had this

infact been the case, Issue No.4 would not have been framed by this Court.

However, Issue No. 4 having been specifically framed, it is now not open to the

Cheema's to contend that the Plaintiff had accepted that they had a caveatable

interest in the estate of the Deceased for want of non-traverse. Thus, this

contention in the facts of the present case needs only to be stated to be rejected.

34. Additionally, it is indeed befuddling as to how the Cheema's can

contend that they did not have to lead any evidence to establish that they had a

caveatable interest in the estate of the Deceased in light of the stand taken by

them in the Affidavit in Reply to Notice of Motion No. 209 of 2012 and the

Order of this Court dated 9th January 2014 which specifically observed that the

question of whether the Cheema's had a caveatable interest would require oral

evidence. Thus, in view of these facts, there can be no manner of doubt that the

30 901-TS-65-2012.doc

Cheema's had to establish that they had a caveatable interest in the estate of the

Deceased. The Cheema's have not only failed to do so but have not even so much

as attempted to do so. Hence in my view, Issue No. 4 must necessarily be

answered in the negative.

B. Issue No. 2. Whether the Will of the deceased dated 15 th May, 1986 has been duly executed and attested as per the requirements of the Indian Succession Act, 1925?

35. Section 63(c) of the Succession Act provides that a Will is required

to be attested by two or more attesting witnesses. In the present case, it is not in

dispute that the said Will infact bears the signatures of two attesting witnesses,

namely Neelam and Mr. Solomon. Neelam though having filed a caveat has in the

Affidavit in Support thereof not in any manner denied or disputed that she had

attested the said Will. The only real contention taken by Neelam in the said

Affidavit is that the Deceased left a subsequent Will dated 20th September 2001.

However, Neelam has not led any evidence in support of the contentions taken

nor has she even attempted to produce the alleged subsequent Will. Infact,

Neelam has, after the filing of the caveat, clearly abandoned the Suit.

36. Crucially, all contentions which suggest that Neelam had not duly

attested the said Will are to be found in the Further Affidavit filed by the

Cheema's and not Neelam. Even assuming they could, the Cheema's have not led

any evidence in support of the case pleaded by them in their Further Affidavit.

31 901-TS-65-2012.doc

Thus all such contentions remain at the very highest, the mere ipse dixit of the

Cheema's, who I have already held above, do not have any caveatable interest in

the estate of the Deceased. Thus, these contentions must necessarily be rejected

outright.

37. Conversely the Plaintiff has, as per the requirements of Section 68

of the Evidence Act, led the evidence of Mr. Solomon, who is one of the attesting

witnesses to prove due execution of the said Will. I have read the evidence of Mr.

Solomon who is indeed a well-respected Solicitor of this Court and in my view,

the evidence of Mr. Solomon on the aspect of due execution of the said Will is

entirely unimpeachable. The minor inconsistencies in some of the answers given

by Mr. Solomon and of which the Cheema's sought to make capital of firstly do

not pertain to the aspect of execution of the said Will and secondly, it is well

settled that cross examination is not a memory test and therefore, minor

discrepancies in evidence would not by themselves warrant the evidence as a

whole to be disregarded. Thus, in my view, given the evidence led by the Plaintiff

and the fact that admittedly no evidence has been led by the Cheema's to prove

that the said Will was not duly executed, I find that the Plaintiff has duly

discharged the burden of proving that the said Will was duly executed as per the

provisions of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.

38. Since it is well settled that the conscience of the Court is required to

be satisfied before the grant of probate and/or letters of administration it is

32 901-TS-65-2012.doc

essential that I deal with what Mr. Sharma has contended are the suspicious

circumstances in the present case. I find that the alleged suspicious

circumstances need only to be stated to be rejected for the following reasons (i)

the Cheema's were not required to be named in the Testamentary Petition, since

they do not have a caveatable interest in the estate of the Deceased (ii) no

evidence was led or any other signature of the Deceased was produced to

substantiate the contention that the signature on the Will did not tally with the

signature of the Deceased (iii) that the mere fact that the date and month on the

said Will were written in hand while the year was typed does not by itself

amount to a suspicious circumstance and more so in view of the evidence of Mr.

Solomon which proves due execution. (iv) that the evidence of Mr. Solomon

corroborated that the Deceased had executed the said Will in the presence of

Neelam hence the fact that Neelam had not specifically said so in her Affidavit in

Support of the caveat would not by itself be a suspicious circumstance more so

when Neelam had not led any evidence in the matter or for that matter ever

contested the Suit after she filed her Affidavit in support of her Caveat and (v)

that fact that Neelam was not examined as an attesting witness nor had she filed

an Affidavit as an attesting witness is also not a suspicious circumstance, firstly

since Neelam has not in her Affidavit in Support of the caveat denied attesting

the said Will and secondly Section 68 of the Evidence Act requires a Will to be

proved by only one attesting witness, which in this case was Mr. Solomon. Hence

viewed holistically and especially since the Cheema's had not, led any evidence

to support the contention of suspicious circumstances surrounding the said Will

33 901-TS-65-2012.doc

and the fact that Neelam had also after filing her Affidavit in support of her

Caveat abandoned the Suit, I find that there are absolutely no suspicious

circumstance surrounding the said Will. Issue No. 2 is therefore answered in the

affirmative.

C. Issue No. 5. Whether defendant nos. 1 to 3 prove that the Will of the deceased dated 15th May, 1986 has been superseded by a subsequent Will dated 20th September, 2001?

39. The contention that the Deceased left a subsequent Will is to be

found in the Affidavit in support of Caveat filed by Neelam and the Cheema's

Further Affidavit in support of their Caveat. However, no such subsequent Will

has been produced either by Neelam or the Cheema's. Crucially and at the cost of

repetition, neither Neelam nor the Cheema's have led any evidence to establish

the existence of any such subsequent Will nor have either of them taken any

steps to prove such alleged subsequent Will. Thus, the contention that the

Deceased left a subsequent Will remains only the ipse dixit of Neelam and the

Cheema's and therefore must be rejected as such. Hence in my view, Issue No. 5

can only be answered in the negative and is accordingly so answered.

D. Issue No. 3. Whether Dr. Kate Patel in her capacity as the sole executrix of the Will of the deceased dated 15 th May, 1986 has manifested any intention to execute the same?

34 901-TS-65-2012.doc

40. I find in the facts of the present case, this Issue stands

squarely answered by the judgement of this Court in the case of John Francis

Anthony Gonsalves in which this Court held as follows, viz.

"8....On careful reading of Sectin 141 it becomes clear that a person to whom a legacy is bequeathed and who is name as an executor of the will, shall not take the legacy unless he proves the will or otherwise manifests an intention to act as executor. If the will is proved, he takes a legacy. However, there may be circumstances where he does not have time and, therefore, he may not get the will proved but still if he manifests an intention to act as a executor, he gets a will. As per the illustration to Section 141, A, who is named an executor and to whom the legacy is given under the will, himself dies within a few days after the testator and, therefore, he could not prove the will but still as he orders the funeral according to the directions contained in the will, A has manifested an intention to act as executor and, therefore, he would also take the legacy, though the will is not proved. On careful perusal of the section, it appears that he has either to prove the will or otherwise to manifest the intention to act as executor. In the present case, evidence on record reveals that the petitioners came to know about the existence of will only in April, 1990 and shortly thereafter they filed the petition for probate and as per the evidence on record as well as findings of the trial Court, they have also proved the will. Therefore, there could be no difficulty in granting probate to them. In fact by immediately applying for probate, they have also manifested their intention to act as an executors. The learned trial Court wrongly came to conclusion that the petitioners had not manifested their intention to act as executors for long period of twenty-one years and are not entitled to probate under Section 141 of the Indian Succession Act. Section 222 of the Indian Succession Act provides that probate shall be granted only to an executor appointed by the Will and under Section 224 probate may be granted to several executors

35 901-TS-65-2012.doc

simultaneously. Under Section 223 probate can be refused to a person, who is minor or is of unsound mind or is an association of individuals unless it is a company. In the present case, none of the circumstances are present under which probate could be refused under Section 223 of the Indian Succession Act. "

The evidence bears out that Kate Patel, had after the death of the Deceased, inter

alia incurred expenses for the funeral and obituary of the Deceased and had also

taken steps for the assessment of jewellery and other details required for the

filing of probate Petition. The evidence also bears out that shortly after the death

of the Deceased, Kate Patel had a fall which resulted in her suffering a fracture

for which she had to be operated upon in Pune and that Kate Patel infact passed

away within three months from the date of the death of the Deceased. Thus, in

my view there can be not even a modicum of doubt that Kate Patel had, despite

the adverse circumstances that had befallen her, manifested her intention to

execute the said Will. Hence, I answer Issue No. 3 in the affirmative.

E. Issue No. 1. Whether the plaintiff proves that he is entitled to execute the Will of the deceased in his capacity as the executor of Dr. Kate Patel's Will?

41. I have already held above, that the Plaintiff has, established that (i)

the Cheema's have no caveatable interest in the estate of the Deceased (ii) the

said Will has been duly executed in accordance with the provisions of the Indian

Succession Act and (iii) Kate Patel had manifested an intention to act as an

36 901-TS-65-2012.doc

executor under the said Will. In this backdrop, it is not in dispute that (iv) the

said Will admittedly names the late Kate Patel as her sole beneficiary (v) Kate

Patel by her Will named the Plaintiff as an executor as also a beneficiary and (vi)

the Plaintiff has obtained probate of Kate Patel's Will. Also, and crucially no other

person including the Cheema's have applied for Probate or Letters of

Administration of the estate of the Deceased. Thus, in my view, in these facts, the

Plaintiff would as per Section 233 of the Indian Succession Act be a residuary

legatee and thus be entitled to apply for Letters of Administration in respect of

the said Will. Thus, Issue No. 1 is answered in the affirmative.

42. On the aspect of costs, it would be useful to set out that the Hon'ble

Supreme Court had, in the case of Salem Advocate Bar Association inter alia held

as follows:

" 36. Section 35 of the Code deals with the award of cost and Section 35A with award of compensatory costs in respect of false or vexatious claims or defences. Section 95 deals with grant of compensation for obtaining arrest, attachment or injunction on insufficient grounds. These three sections deal with three different aspects of award of cost and compensation. Under Section 95 cost can be awarded upto Rs.50,000/- and under Section 35A, the costs awardable are upto Rs.3,000/-. Section 35B provides for award of cost for causing delay where a party fails to take the step which he was required by or under the Code to take or obtains an adjournment for taking such step or for producing evidence or on any other ground. In circumstances mentioned in Section 35-B an order may be made requiring the defaulting party to pay to other party such costs as

37 901-TS-65-2012.doc

would, in the opinion of the court, be reasonably sufficient to reimburse the other party in respect of the expenses incurred by him in attending the court on that date, and payment of such costs, on the date next following the date of such order, shall be a condition precedent to the further prosecution of the suit or the defence. Section 35 postulates that the cost shall follow the event and if not, reasons thereof shall be stated. The award of the cost of the suit is in the discretion of the Court. In Sections 35 and 35B, there is no upper limit of amount of cost awardable.

37. Judicial notice can be taken of the fact that many unscrupulous parties take advantage of the fact that either the costs are not awarded or nominal costs are awarded on the unsuccessful party. Unfortunately, it has become a practice to direct parties to bear their own costs. In large number of cases, such an order is passed despite Section 35(2) of the Code. Such a practice also encourages filing of frivolous suits. It also leads to taking up of frivolous defences. Further wherever costs are awarded, ordinarily the same are not realistic and are nominal. When Section 35(2) provides for cost to follow the event, it is implicit that the costs have to be those which are reasonably incurred by a successful party except in those cases where the Court in its discretion may direct otherwise by recording reasons thereof. The costs have to be actual reasonable costs including the cost of the time spent by the successful party, the transportation and lodging, if any, or any other incidental cost besides the payment of the court fee, lawyer's fee, typing and other cost in relation to the litigation. It is for the High Courts to examine these aspects and wherever necessary make requisite rules, regulations or practice direction so as to provide appropriate guidelines for the subordinate courts to follow."

As already noted above, Issue No. 4 squarely cast the burden upon the Cheema's

to prove that they have a caveatable interest in the estate of the Deceased. Despite

this they have chosen not to lead any evidence and as I have already held, failed

38 901-TS-65-2012.doc

to establish that they have any caveatable interest in the estate of the Deceased.

Crucially, the Cheema's have also not taken any steps to safeguard the estate of

the Deceased, nor have they sought Probate or Letters of Administration in their

favour. Thus, in my unhesitating view, the Cheema's are clearly meddlesome

interlopers who have stalled the grant of letters of administration in favour of the

Plaintiff. In these facts, not to award costs would not only be against the mandate

of the law but would also embolden similarly placed and motivated interlopers

like the Cheema's in stalling legal proceedings which in the normal course have

been dealt with and disposed of as being uncontested.

43. As pointed out by Mr. Tamboly, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has, in

the case of Charu Kishor Mehta justified the imposition of costs by taking into

consideration the conduct of the Petitioner therein and which resulted in an

abuse of process of law. Thus, having already noted that the Cheema's are

meddlesome interlopers with no semblance of a legal right in the estate of the

Deceased I have no hesitation in holding that the conduct of the Cheema's has

resulted in an abuse of the process of law. This would equally apply to Neelam

who has after filing her Caveat and Affidavit in Support thereof, not taken any

steps to content the Suit on merit. Neelam has, after filing her caveat, simply

abandoned the Suit and has stalled the grant of letters of administration in favour

of the Plaintiff which should have followed as a matter of course. Clearly

therefore, Neelam's conduct has also resulted in an abuse of the process of law

and thus Neelam and the Cheema's must necessarily be held liable to pay costs.

39 901-TS-65-2012.doc

44. Hence, the following Order:

      (i)         Testamentary Suit No. 65 of 2012 is decreed.


      (ii)        The office to grant Letters of Administration to the Plaintiff

                  expeditiously as per Rules.


      (iii)       The Defendant Nos.1 to 4 shall each pay costs of Rs.5,00,000/-

(Rupees Five Lakhs only) to the Plaintiff within 8 weeks from today.

(iv) In the event the costs aforesaid are not paid within the prescribed

time, the Plaintiff shall be at liberty to (a) recover the same by

executing this order as per the provisions available in law as also

(b) by seeking to recover the said costs as arrears of land revenue.

(ARIF S. DOCTOR, J.)

After Pronouncement

45. At this stage, after the operative part of the judgment was

pronounced, an application for stay was made by the Learned Counsel appearing

for Defendant nos.1 to 3. For the reasons that I have recorded aforesaid which

clearly hold that the Defendants are meddlesome interlopers the application for

stay is rejected.