Delhi High Court
Deepak Gupta vs Rajeev Agarwal & Anr on 17 November, 2025
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment Reserved on: 13.11.2025
Judgment pronounced on:17.11.2025
+ FAO 428/2010
DEEPAK GUPTA .....Appellant
Through: Ms. Shweta Saini, Advocate
Versus
RAJEEV AGARWAL & ANR .....Respondents
Through: None.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA
JUDGMENT
CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA, J.
1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 299 of the
Indian Succession Act, 1925 (the Act), against Annexure A-1, i.e.,
judgment dated 13.08.2010 in Probate Case No. 152/2008,
whereby probate of the Will dated 09.03.2006 has been granted in
favour of respondent no. 1/ the petitioner, who claimed that the
will had been executed by the testator in a sound disposing state of
mind.
2. Brief facts germane to the adjudication of this appeal are
as follows:- The dispute concerns the estate of late Krishana
Nandan Gupta (the testator), who passed away on 25.04.2008.
During his lifetime, he acquired property bearing no.WZ-125, Gali
No. 7, Jail Road, Shiv Nagar, Delhi, and executed a registered Will
dated 09.03.2006 relating to the property. The wife of the testator
predeceased him on 18.11.2005, and he was survived by three
sons, who are the parties in this case.
2.1. A petition under Section 276 of the Act was filed by the
respondent no. 1/petitioner, being a beneficiary in the Will, for the
grant of probate/letter of administration in respect of the estate left
by the testator, stating that by virtue of the said Will, the testator
had bequeathed the entire ground floor of the property to him.
2.2. The appellant/objector filed objections, alleging that the
Will dated 09.03.2006 was forged, tampered with at various pages
after it had been registered, and that respondent no.1/petitioner had
concealed material facts. It was contended that when he obtained a
certified copy of the Will from the office of the Sub-registrar, it
was found different from the Will produced before the Court. It
was contended that respondent no.1/petitioner could not seek
probate since he had not been named executor in the Will.
2.3. Based on the pleadings, the trial court framed the
following issues on 09.02.2009:-
" (a) Whether the Will dated 09.03.2006 as propounded by the
petitioner was validly executed by the deceased Krishana Nandan
Gupta in his sound disposing mind and the same is his last Will
and testament?
(b) Relief."
2.4. The parties went to trial on the aforesaid pleadings. On
behalf of the petitioner, PW1 to 3 were examined. The objector
examined himself as RW1. The original will was marked A, and
the certified copy as B.
2.5. On a consideration of the oral and documentary evidence
and after hearing both sides, the trial court held that the Will,
though containing minor post-registration alterations, remained
valid, as the changes were signed by the testator. The alterations
were merely clarification regarding the custody of the ground-floor
property documents. The Will was duly proved by respondent no.
1/petitioner by examining the attesting witness (PW-2), and the
registering officer (PW-3). The testator's soundness of mind was
also proved by the evidence on record. It was further found that the
absence of an appointed executor did not prevent the beneficiary
(respondent no. 1/petitioner) from seeking probate. Accordingly,
probate was granted, and a letter of administration was ordered
upon payment of stamp duty and execution of required bonds.
Aggrieved, the appellant/objector has filed the present appeal.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the
document sought to be probated by respondent no. 1/petitioner was
an altered Will (Mark A), which differed from the certified copy of
the registered instrument dated 09.03.2006 (Mark B). It was
argued that the surrounding circumstances regarding the
preparation and execution of the Will were suspicious and
inadequately examined. Moreover, it was contended that probate
could not be granted for the altered Will because such alterations
are contrary to the provisions of the Act.
3.1. It was submitted that PW-2, the attesting witness, has
categorically stated that no corrections had been made to the Will
in his presence, thereby undermining the genuineness of the altered
document propounded for probate. Reference was made to Section
71 of the Act, and it was submitted that, as it is clear that
alterations had been made and so the trial court ought not to have
granted probate.
4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. There was no
representation for the respondent.
5. A perusal of Mark A and Mark B shows that in Mark A,
there is, infact, an alteration. However, modification/addition only
clarifies that the original documents of the ground floor property
would remain in the custody of respondent no. 1/petitioner instead
of the appellant/objector. The handwritten addition also bears the
signature of the testator alongside it. The alleged discrepancies
between the original and the certified copy, particularly the minor
handwritten additions such as the words "ground floor", does not
in any way affect the validity of the Will. These corrections are
marginal in nature, duly signed, and do not alter the testator's
intent. Hence, no suspicious circumstances surround these
modifications. It is evident that the testator intended to bequeath
the ground floor of the property to respondent no. 1/petitioner, and
the modifications or additions do not detract that intention.
Moreover, the additions are duly signed by the testator, which
further supports their genuineness.
6. Before the trial court, the respondent no. 1/petitioner
adduced evidence to establish the authenticity and validity of the
Will. The execution of the Will is supported by the testimony of
Mukul Jain (PW-2), an attesting witness. According to PW-2, the
testator called him on 09.03.2006 to witness the execution of the
Will. PW-2 deposed that the testator was of sound mind and in
good health at the time of the execution and that the Will was
signed in his presence as well as the presence of the other attesting
witness. The testimony of PW-2 that he does not know the person
who drafted the Will does not cast doubt on its validity, as he
confirmed the two crucial legal requirements: (i) that the testator
was of sound disposing mind, and (ii) that the execution was
voluntary. This testimony directly supports the due execution of
the Will.
7. The registration of the Will was further confirmed by Shri
Chitranjan (PW-3), an official from the office of the Sub-Registrar.
His testimony establishes that the Will was duly registered in
accordance with statutory requirements, thereby lending additional
credibility to its authenticity.
8. The contention of the appellant/objector that the Will is
forged and fabricated is wholly unsubstantiated. No evidence has
been adduced by the appellant to support the claim of forgery or to
show a contrary intention of the testator or that the testator was not
in sound mind or that the signing was involuntary. On the other
hand, the evidence led by the respondent no. 1/petitioner strongly
upholds the Will's genuineness and proper execution.
9. In view of the foregoing discussion, I find no infirmity,
illegality, or perversity in the impugned judgment granting probate
of the Will dated 09.03.2006 in favour of respondent no.
1/petitioner. The trial court's findings are based on a correct
appreciation of the evidence and proper application of the law.
10. The appeal, sans merit, is dismissed. Application(s), if
any pending, shall stand closed.
CHANDRASEKHARAN SUDHA
(JUDGE)
NOVEMBER 17, 2025
p'ma/er
