JUDGMENT
V.S. Aggarwal, J.
1. Satish Chander Gupta, hereinafter described as
the petitioner has filed the petition for grant of
probate of the will dated 30th October, 1981 of Mrs.
Bishan Devi or in the alternative for grant of Letters
of Administration pertaining to the will referred to
above.
2. The facts alleged are the Mrs. Bishan Devi,
who was governed by the Mitakhara School of Hindu Law
died at Delhi on 2nd January, 1988. She had executed
her last will at Delhi on 30th October, 1981 in
presence of two witnesses, namely Hemlata and Rajiv
Gupta. At that time, she was in full possession of
her mind and senses. Respondents 2 to 6 are the sons
and daughters of the deceased. In addition to that
Kailash Chandra and Ramesh Chandra, her two sons had
pre-deceased her. Respondents 7 to 13 are the
children of the said pre-deceased sons of Mrs. Bishan
Devi. It is the claimed that because of the said will
applicant is entitled to administer the estate of the
deceased Bishan Devi. Hence the present petition.
3. Contest has been offered basically by
respondents 3 and 7 to 10. They had denied the
execution of the said will while respondents 2,4,5,
6, 10,11, 12 and 13 had filed their no objection for
grant of the probate.
4. On 25th January, 2001 this court had granted
last opportunity to respondent no. 3 to be examined as
a witness but on payment of Rs. 10,000/- as costs. But
on 10th July, 2001 there was no appearance on behalf
of either of the respondents hence they were proceeded
ex parte.
5. Keeping in view the pleadings of the parties on
26th October, 1993 this court had framed the following
issues:-
1(a) Whether Smt. Bishn Devi executed a
will in favor of the petitioner on
20.10.1981 as alleged in para no. 3 of the
petition?
1(b) If so, whether the same is legally and
validly executed will.
2. To what relief, if any, the petitioner
is entitled?
6. Issues 1(a) and 1(b) : Both the issues are
inter connected and therefore can conveniently be
taken up together. In support of these issues, the
petitioner examined Ms. Hemlata. She stated that
deceased Bishan Devi was the sister of her father.
She had executed a will Ex. PW1/1. The witnesses
added that she had signed this will as an attesting
witness in the presence of Bishan Devi at point ‘B’.
Rajiv Gupta had also signed the will. First of all it
was Bishan Devi who had signed the will. The witness
was cross-examined but it cannot be termed that by
virtue of cross-examination the testimony of the
witnesses had been shaken. In this process will must
be held to have been duly proved. There is no other
evidence on the record to indicate that the will can
be termed to be bogus or sham or it was not validly
executed. Issues therefore are decided in favor of
the petitioner.
7. For these reasons recorded above the petition
is allowed and petitioner is granted probate of will
dated 30th October, 1981 purported to have been
executed by Bishan Devi. In other words the petition
is allowed. It would be so done when the petitioner
pay the necessary court fees.