Anita Khanna vs The State
2012 Latest Caselaw 384 Del

*IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


+      TEST.CAS. 76/2010
                                  Decided on 19th January, 2012

       ANITA KHANNA                               ..... Petitioner
                             Through:   Ms. Reema Kalra, Adv.
                    versus

       THE STATE                                    ..... Respondent
                             Through:   None.


       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK

A.K. PATHAK, J. (ORAL)

1. Petitioner is daughter of Late Brig. Amrit Kumar Kapila

(hereinafter referred to as „deceased‟). She has filed this petition

under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 for grant of

Letter of Administration in her favour with regard to the Will dated

9th August, 2005 in respect of the estate left behind by the deceased.

2. It is alleged that Late Brig. Amrit Kumar Kapila died on 28 th

August, 2005. Before his death he had executed his last Will dated

9th August, 2005, thereby bequeathing his immovable and movable

properties as disclosed in the schedule, in the manner as has been

detailed in the Will.

3. Respondent no. 2 Dr. Deepak Kapila and respondent no. 3

Mrs. Ranju Dogra are brother and sister of the petitioner and are

legal heirs of deceased besides the petitioner. There was no other

living legal heir of the deceased. The Will has been executed by the

testator in full disposing mind in the presence of respondent no. 2

and Ms. Shradha Bhargawa, who have appended their signatures on

the Will as witnesses.

4. After service of notice upon them, respondent nos. 2 and 3

have filed their respective reply(s) to the petition wherein they have

admitted correctness and genuineness of the Will left behind by

their father Late Brig. Amrit Kumar Kapila. It has been stated in the

reply(s) that "deceased was a person of good physical health and

sound disposing mind at the time of execution of the Will".

5. Citation has also been published in the newspaper "The

Statesman" (English edition) but no one has come forward to file

objections against the grant of Letter of Administration in favour of

petitioner.

6. Petitioner has led evidence by way of affidavits. In her

affidavit, petitioner has duly supported the averments made in the

petition and has reiterated that there is no other legal heir left

behind by the deceased except the petitioner, respondent no. 2 and

respondent no.3. Late Brig. Amrit Kumar Kapila had executed a

Will dated 9th August, 2005 in respect of his assets and properties.

Petitioner has deposed that she identifies the signatures of her father

on the Will as she was conversant with the handwriting and

signatures of his father having seen him signing and writing.

Deceased has bequeathed his immovable and movable properties in

the manner it has been described in the Will. List of properties left

behind by the deceased has been attached along with the affidavit of

the petitioner, which has also been described in Schedule A to the

petition.

7. Ms. Shradha Bhargawa has also stepped in the witness box

as PW2 and has tendered her affidavit in evidence. She has

deposed that Late Brig. Amrit Kumar Kapila had signed the Will

Ex. PW1/2 at point A to D in her presence and in the presence of

other attesting witness, namely, Dr. Deepak Kapila. She has further

deposed that she had signed the Will at point E. As per her

affidavit, testator and the attesting witnesses had signed the Will in

presence of each other. As regards other attesting witness Dr.

Deepak Kapila is concerned, he has admitted the correctness and

genuineness of the Will dated 9th August, 2005.

8. From the evidence adduced by the petitioner and the replies

filed by the respondent nos. 2 and 3. I am satisfied that the testator

had executed the Will in question. I do not find any impediment in

accepting the Will dated 9th August, 2005 (Ex. PW1/2) executed by

Late Brig. Amrit Kumar Kapila and granting the Letter of

Administration with Will annexed, to the petitioner, subject to the

valuation of the properties and petitioner paying requisite court fees

and furnishing administrative bond with one surety to the

satisfaction of the Registrar General of this Court.

9. Petition is disposed of in the above terms.

A.K. PATHAK, J.

JANUARY 19, 2012 ga