Delhi High Court
Mrs.Veena Nirmal Singh vs State on 22 April, 2010
Author: V.K.Shali
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ TEST CAS. NO.40/2009
Date of Decision : 22.4.2010
MRS.VEENA NIRMAL SINGH ......Petitioner
Through: Counsel for the plaintiff
(appearance not given).
Versus
STATE ...... Respondent
Through: Mr.Manoj Rath, Advocate
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. SHALI
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be
allowed to see the judgment? YES
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? NO
3. Whether the judgment should be reported
in the Digest ? NO
V.K. SHALI, J. (oral)
1. This is a petition filed by Smt.Veena Nirmal Singh wife of
Mr.Nirmal Singh, R/o R-11, Nehru Enclave, Kalkaji, New
Delhi-19 for grant of probate of a Will dated 18.4.2009
made by the widowed sister Neelam Sahni who died on
07.4.2009. It is stated in the petition that the
deceased/testator Smt.Neelam Sahni was widow and she
did not have any issue from the wedlock. It is alleged that
the deceased/testator had inherited from her father
Sh.Rajinder Singh, properties, the details of which are
given in Schedule which comprised of property i.e.
basement, ground floor and second floor situated at R-11,
Test Cas. No.40/2009 Page 1 of 5
Nehru Enclave, Kalkaji, New Delhi-19, bank account
No.10561 in Punjab and Sind Bank, Hemkunt Branch, New
Delhi, a car Hundai Santro, bearing registration No.DL 3
CAQ 7311, jewellery items (gold chain, ring, ear-rings,
gajra), furniture and fixtures. The total valuation of the
entire property left behind by the deceased is given as
Rs.82,75,711.46 p.
2. It is alleged that the deceased/testator before her death
had made a Will on 18.4.2009 bequeathing the entire
movable and immovable properties in favour of the present
petitioner as she was not survived by any other legal heir
being the widow and not having any room of her own. On
filing the present petition, notice was issued to the Chief
Revenue Officer calling for the valuation report, which has
been submitted by the Appellate Collector, Tehsildar,
Kalkaji on 3rd December, 2009 valuing the entire assets of
the deceased/testator at Rs.1,67,22,600/-. The said
valuation has not been challenged by anybody and
therefore is exhibiting the correct valuation of the assets
both movable and immovable properties of the
deceased/testator.
3. Citation was issued in English as well as Hindi newspapers
namely 'Statesman' (English edition) and 'Dainik Jagran'
(Hindi edition) vide order dated 26.8.2009. Despite
publication having been effected in the newspapers on
08.10.2009, copies of which have been placed on record,
Test Cas. No.40/2009 Page 2 of 5
objections were not received from any quarter so far as the
Will of the deceased/testator is concerned.
4. There being no contest to the Will of the deceased/testator,
the petitioner was directed to file evidence by way of
affidavit in support of her case. The petitioner had filed her
own affidavit exhibited as Ex.PW1/A which was proved by
her by entering into the witness box as PW-1. The affidavit
itself has been exhibited as Ex.PW1/A and the death
certificate of the deceased/testator was also exhibited as
Ex.PW1/1. The death certificate of the deceased/testator
establishes that she had died on 27.4.2009. The Will of the
deceased/testator was witnessed by two witnesses namely
Dr.Sunil Tangri and Dr.V.P.Kaushik. The petitioner in
order to prove the Will of the deceased has filed an affidavit
of Dr.Sunil Tangri who appeared as PW-2 also, he testified
that Will Ex.PW2/1 was made by the deceased/testator
voluntarily bequeathing her entire immovable and movable
assets in favour of her real sister/the present petitioner. It
has been mentioned in the Will by the deceased/testator
that she has no issue of her own and her mother had
expired in 1984, her father expired in 2008 and thus she
was survived by her sibling, the present petitioner. She
had bequeathed the entire movable and immovable
properties, details of which are given in the schedule of
properties in favour of the present petitioner. It is also
Test Cas. No.40/2009 Page 3 of 5
testified by Dr.Sunil Tangri that at the time when the
deceased had made the Will, she was of sound mind.
5. Section 68 of the Evidence Act, 1872 reads as under:-
"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.]"
6. In the instant case, although both the attesting witnesses
are available but after having chosen to examine, one
witness to the Will namely Dr.Sunil Tangri, the execution of
the Will dated 18.4.2009 by the deceased/testator in favour
of the present petitioner is duly proved. There is absolutely
no challenge to the ex parte proof of the Will purported to
have been made by the deceased/testator. I therefore, hold
that producing the aforesaid evidence as the proof and due
execution of the Will dated 18.4.2009 by the
deceased/testator is duly proved. There is no impediment
to the grant of probate in favour of the present petitioner.
7. I accordingly grant the probate in favour of the present
petitioner appointing her as an administrator for
Test Cas. No.40/2009 Page 4 of 5
administrating the estate, details of which are given in
Annexure 'B' to the petition of the deceased testator.
8. The valuation report having been exhibited, the petitioner is
directed to furnish the requisite administration bond and
surety bond and complete the necessary formalities in this
regard. Any deficiency in the court fees, in the light of the
valuation report, shall also be rectified.
9. Post the matter before the Joint Registrar on 16.7.2010.
V.K. SHALI, J.
APRIL 22, 2010
RN
