Delhi High Court
Dr Rajendra Dev Panwar vs The State (Nct Of Delhi) on 14 September, 2017
$~20
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Date of Decision:14th September, 2017
+ FAO 403/2015
DR RAJENDRA DEV PANWAR ..... Appellant
Through: Mr.B. Mohan and Mr.Siddharth
Aggarwal, Advocates
versus
THE STATE (NCT OF DELHI) ..... Respondent
Through: Mr.Sanjoy Ghose, Addl. Standing
Counsel for GNCTD with
Mr.Dhananjay Rana and Ms.Nidhi
Raman, Advocate
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE J.R. MIDHA
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
1. The appellant has challenged the impugned judgment dated 14th
August, 2015 whereby the Trial Court dismissed the petition for grant of
probate of Will dated 5th July, 2005 of late Dr.Rajni Mathur.
2. The appellant applied for probate of the Will dated 5 th July, 2005 of
late Dr. Rajni Mathur, who was working as a Lecturer in the College of
Vocational Studies, Delhi University. The appellant was working as a
Principal in the aforesaid College. Late Dr.Rajni Mathur expired on 13th
April, 2013. The Will dated 5th July, 2005 of late Dr.Rajni Mathur is hand-
written and is mainly in Hindi language with some English words. The
learned Trial Court dismissed the petition on the ground that there is no valid
execution of the Will by the testatrix and attestation by the two witnesses
and there are suspicious circumstances.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant urged at the time of hearing that the
Will was written the testatrix on 5th July, 2005 but was executed by her on
6th August, 2005 in the presence of the two witnesses who attested the Will
as witnesses in her presence and in the presence of each other. He further
submitted that there are no suspicious circumstances.
4. The original Will has been seen from the record of the Trial Court.
The original Will is a two-page hand-written document. The heading of the
Will contains the title "Will" and the date of "5th July, 2005", meaning
thereby that the Will was written on 5th July, 2005. At the end of the Will,
the testatrix signed the Will and again mentioned the date of 5th July, 2005
below her signature. The date of "5th July, 2005" mentioned at the end is the
date of execution of the Will and not the date of the drawing of the Will as
contended by the learned counsel for the appellant.
5. Both the witnesses have put their signatures as witnesses to the Will
and have written the date of "6th August, 2005" below their signatures
meaning thereby that they were not present when the Will was signed by the
testatrix on 5th July, 2005. However, PW-2 and PW-3 signed the verification
along with the petition in which they stated that the testatrix had signed the
Will in their presence. PW-2, in reply to the Court question, deposed that no
one signed the Will in his presence, whereas PW-3 deposed in reply to the
Court question that the testatrix came with the Will in the library and he
signed the Will on her request and thereafter, PW-2 also signed the Will.
He further deposed that the testatrix signed the Will in his presence.
6. This Court is of the view that the Will dated 5th July, 2005 was
executed by the testatrix, Dr. Rajni Mathur on 5 th July, 2005 and the same
was signed by the two witnesses on 6th August, 2005 who did not see the
deceased executing the Will. As such, Will has not been executed and
attested by the two witnesses in the presence of each other. The submission
made by the learned counsel for the appellant that the Will was executed on
6th August, 2005 and not on 5th July, 2005 is not supported by any evidence.
7. Rule 3 of the Original Side Practice Direction No.4 of 1974
"Testamentary and Interstate Jurisdiction" requires the petitioner to disclose
the names of members of the family or other relatives upon whom the estate
would have devolved in case of an intestacy along with their present place of
residence. However, the petitioner did not disclose the names of the
members of the family and all other relatives in the probate petition filed
before the Trial Court. The petitioner has filed CM No.32890/2017 to
amend the petition, which is not permissible at this stage.
8. There is no merit in the appeal, which is hereby dismissed. Learned
counsel for the petitioner seeks refund of the Court fees deposited with the
District Judge. The appellant is at liberty to file an appropriate application
for refund of the Court-fees before the District Judge which shall be
considered in accordance with the applicable rules. The pending application
is dismissed.
9. Copy of this judgment be given dasti to the counsel for the parties
under signatures of the Court Master.
September 14, 2017 J.R. MIDHA, J.
Dev
