Delhi High Court
Surinder Singh vs State And Anr. on 21 August, 1997
Author: K Gupta
Bench: K Gupta
ORDER
K.S. Gupta, J.
1. In this petition filed under Section 276 of the Indian succession Act, 1925, it is alleged that Lal Chand, who died on May 9, 1983, executed a will dated January 10, 1981, bequeathing Industrial property No. C-58/1, Okhla Industrial Area Phase-II, (measuring 756.4 sq. yards) in favour of the petitioner. Aforesaid property is registered with the Sub-Registrar, New Delhi, at serial No. 673 in book No. 1, Vol. 4236 dated February 21, 1980, on pages 57 to 62.
Lal Chand deceased is survived by Smt. Bhagwanti (wife), Smt. Kanta Vasudeva. Smt. Pushpa Makkar (daughters), Surinder Kumar Arora (son) and the wife and two children, namely, (a) Smt. Chanda (wife), (b) Shipra Arora (daughter) and (c) Amit Arora (son), of his predeceased son Raj Kumar Deceased has not left any other legal heir. It was prayed that a probate in regard to said will dated January 10, 1981, may be granted to the petitioner.
2. Notice of the petition to the general public was published in Indian Express. Notice was also sent to the State which was served through the standing counsel.
3. Aforesaid legal heirs of Lal Chand deceased contested the petition by filing a joint written statement. It is alleged that Industrial plot No. C-58/1, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-II, was allotted to M/s. Khanna Litho Press whereof Lal Chand and Surinder Kumar Arora were the two partners. Surinder Kumar Arora is practicing medicine in USA and he later on came to know that Rajinder Singh s/o Ujjagar Singh and his brother Surinder Singh petitioner, obtained signatures of Lal Chand on various blank papers for securing some loan required by him towards the end of December 1980 or early 1981. Therefore, Surinder Kumar Arora asked the petitioner to tell about the nature of transaction and not to act upon the fabricated will in question on August 2, 1983, September 13, 1983 and September 26, 1983 but no response was received from him. In the reply also filed by the petitioner to their application under Order XI Rules 12 and 14 dated April 19, 1990, in the case the matter has not been clarified, Lal Chand was aged about 78 years in 1980. Construction on said Industrial plot No. C-58/1, given on lease by the DDA to M/s. Khanna Litho Press, was raised by Lal Chand and Surinder Kumar Arora from their joint funds. Relations of Lal Chand with his wife, sons and daughter were very cordial and thus there was no reason to have bequeathed the aforesaid Industrial plot by him in favour of an outsider. It is stated that the alleged will is not attested lawfully by the witnesses and the petitioner is not entitled to the grant of the probate prayed for.
4. In the rejoinder the petitioner has controverted the averments made in the joint written statement besides reaffirming those made in the petition.
5. Following issues were framed on January 12, 1994 :--
1(a). Whether the deceased Shri, Lal Chand executed a Will in favour of the petitioner in respect of the industrial property bearing Plot No. C-58/1, Okhla Industrial Area, Phase-11. New Delhi, on 10-9-89 (ought to have been 10-1-89)?
1 (b). If so, whether the same is a legal and valid Will?
2. Relief, if any, to which the petitioner is entitled?
Issues No. 1 (a) & 1 (b) :
6. Both these issues are interconnected and may be taken up for discussion together.
7. By the order dated October 3, 1996, the case was postponed for recording evidence to 9th & 10th July 1997. Since nobody appeared on behalf of the respondents/legal heirs on either of these two dates they were proceeded ex parte. In support of the averments made in the petition, the petitioner examined two witnesses including himself as PW 2, Chaman Lal PW 1 has deposed that he knew Lal Chand and the will dated January 1, 1981 Ex. P1 was executed in his presence. Lal Chand signed the will at point 'A' in his presence and he also put his signature at point 'B' thereon in the presence of Lal Chand. He is not aware whether K. Vasudeva, the other attesting witness to the will, was also present and appended his signature on the will at that time, Petitioner as PW 2 has deposed that he is the beneficiary of property No. C-58/1, Okhla Industrial Area. Phase-II, under the will in question. K. Vasudeva, other attesting witness to the will Ex. P1, died sometime in 1985.
8. Issue No. 1 (b) seems to have been framed taking note of the pleas raised in the joint written statement by the respondents. At the cost of repetition it may be stated that the plea taken by the respondents is that aforesaid Industrial plot No. C-58/1 was allotted by the DDA to M/s. Khanna Litho Press whereof Lal Chand, deceased and Surinder Kumar Arora were the partners; that Surinder Kumar Arora later on came to know that petitioner and his brother Rajinder Singh obtained signatures of Lal Chand on various blank papers for securing some loan required by the latter towards the end of December 1980 or early 1981 and the will in question is a fabricated document. However, the respondents have failed to lead any evidence whatsoever to support the plea to the said effect. From the unrebutted testimony of PW 1, one of the attesting witnesses, it is proved satisfactorily that the will Ex. P1 was validly executed by Lal Chand and the same bears his signature at point 'A'. This will pertains to aforesaid Industrial plot No. C-58/L Both the issues are decided accordingly.
Issue No. 2 :
9. In view of the findings on the said issues, the petitioner is entitled to the grant of the probate prayed for.
10. Petition is, thus, allowed and probate in respect of will dated January 10, 1981 Ex. P1 is granted, with a copy thereof annexed thereto, in favour of the petitioner subject to his furnishing valuation report, requisite Court-fee and an administration bond with one surety.
