The Registar Delhi University vs State
2017 Latest Caselaw 2227 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                                  Judgment reserved on :02.05.2017
                                  Judgment delivered on : 04.05.2017
+      TEST.CAS. 13/2009

       THE REGISTAR DELHI UNIVERSITY

                                                                ..... Petitioner

                         Through        Ms. Beenashaw Soni, Adv.

                         versus

       STATE

                                                              ..... Respondent

                         Through        Mr. Siddharth Dutta, Adv for R-1.

                                        Mr. Rajeev Sharma and Ms. Shalu
                                        Lal, Advs for R-2.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR

INDERMEET KAUR, J.

1 This petition seeks probate of a Will of deceased Savitri Uggrasain

dated 25.08.2001. The petition has been filed by the Registrar, University of

Delhi who was the executor of the said Will. The deceased was wife of late

Uggrasain who had died on 03.03.2005. She was a resident of F-17, Hauz

Khas Ecnlave, New Delhi (subject matter of probate petition). In her Will

dated 25.08.2001, she has described it as her last Will and Testament. She

had detailed her assets both moveable and immoveable. Her immoveable

assets comprised of the suit property. Her moveable assets are various

jewellery and bank deposits, details of which find mention in para 6 of the

petition beside other equipments like a television, VCR, paintings etc. In

terms of this Will, the asset which has to come into the hands of the

petitioner is the aforenoted immoveable property. The valuation report qua

this property had been obtained from the Sub-Division Office; this property

has been valued at Rs.1,66,67,226/-.

2 The petition further avers that at the time of her death, the deceased

was a widow. She had died issueless. She left behind other close relatives

who are the legal heirs of her deceased husband who have also been arrayed

as parties i.e. respondents No. 2 to 8. The Will has been attested in the

presence of two witnesses; it is duly registered. Probate petition has

accordingly been filed.

3 The memo of parties reflects that the list of surviving close relations of

the deceased include the five siblings of her deceased husband; Inder Jit,

Vikaram Jit, Styajit and Brahamjit are the brothers of her deceased husband.

Rani Taneja is her sister. Anuradha Sen Gupta and Arun Chaudhary are the

legal representatives of the brother of her pre-deceased husband. All the

respondents have been served. This had been noted in the order dated

02.06.2011.

4 On 23.08.2011, the Court had noted that no one has filed objections.

Matter had been listed for ex-parte affidavit by way of evidence. In the

course of these proceedings, the affidavit of PW-1 was taken on record. PW-

1 was an attesting witness to the said Will. The said Will had been proved as

Ex.PW-1/1. PW-1 on oath stated that this Will had been executed by

deceased Savitri Uggrasain in her presence and in the presence of second

attesting witness Bharat Deepak. She had identified the signatures of the

deceased at point 'A' on Ex.PW-1/1. Her signatures were identified at point

'B' and that of the second attesting at point 'C'. The thumb impressions of

the deceased were proved at point 'D'. PW-1 had stated that she recognized

the signatures and thumb impression of the deceased; the second attesting

witness had also signed in her presence; further deposition being that the

deceased was in a sound disposing mind at the time when she had executed

this Will. There was no cross-examination effected of this witness inspite of

opportunity given.

5 Sonia Jain (PW-2) from the office of Sub-Registrar had proved the

registration of this Will which stood registered in the record of the Sub-

Registrar, Vikas Sadan, New Delhi.

6 The affidavit of Registrar of University of Delhi (PW-3) was also

taken on record. He had filed this probate petition. He had proved the death

certificate of the deceased as Ex.PW-3/1.

7 Today before this Court, learned counsel for respondents submits that

they have filed objections and attention has been drawn to an objection dated

16.12.2009 filed by Inderjit and Vikaramjit as also another objection dated

07.04.2010 filed by Vikaramjit. A perusal of these so called objections show

that there are no objection to the Will. There is no averment in these

objections which anywhere states that the testator had not executed the Will

or that the Will was not valid or genuine. There is no such objection taken.

Learned counsel for the respondents submits that they are not really

challenging the Will. They have no dispute qua the Will; the only submission

is that the object and terms of the testament as also the true intent of the

testator be implemented in letter and spirit; the money which shall accrue

from the proceeds of the said property should be used by the petitioner for

the purpose as has been entailed in the Will. This direction sought for by the

respondents appears to be wholly acceptable to the petitioner who submits

that the intent of the testator shall be implemented in true letter and spirit.

8 The petitioner is accordingly granted a probate of the Will dated

25.08.2001 subject to his furnishing the Court Fee and Administration Bond

along with two sureties in accordance with law.

9 No further orders are called for in this petition. It is disposed of.

INDERMEET KAUR, J MAY 04, 2017 A