Manoranjan Singh Bhogal & Ors. v. State

(ii) Whether the petitioner is entitled to grant of probateofthe Will dated 03.10.2008?...OPP

(iii) Relief.”

13. Learned counsel for the petitioners made the following submissions: a) The Will was duly executed by the testatrix. It is a registered document. PW-6 Dheeraj Kumar, produced the summoned registration records and confirmed its registration. b) All the attesting witnesses, PW-3 Jasvinder Kaur, PW-4 Kalpana Chopra and PW-5 Jasbinder Singh Bhogal, have deposed that the testatrix had executed the Will in their presence, while being in a sound and disposing state of mind, thereby proving proper attestation. The testimonies of the attesting witnesses, along with the registration and production of the original Will, fully satisfy the requirements of Section 63 of the Act and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act,

1872. c) Further, one of her sons Amarjeet Bhogal and the Objector No.3 were having matrimonial issues which led to the filing of a divorce petition being HMA No.564/2007 by Amarjeet Bhogal against the Objector No.3. Unfortunately, on 17.07.2008, Amarjeet Bhogal passed away during the pendency of the said divorce petition. d) After the death of Amarjeet Bhogal, the testatrix suffered further harassment at the hands of the Objector No.3. Thereafter, in order to have a full and final settlement, the testatrix agreed to pay a lump sum amount of Rs.50,00,000/- to the Objector No.3 on and for behalf of all the objectors. This led to the execution of a Family Settlement dated 05.10.2008, wherein, the Objector No.3 agreed that on receiving the 03.09.54 said amount in full and final settlement, all the objectors would be left with no right, title or interest in any property of the testatrix and they would vacate the premises E-11, First Floor, Hauz Khas, New Delhi including the Grub-Pub restaurant on the same day. e) In furtherance to the above, on 17.11.2008, the testatrix paid a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- to the Objector No.3 in terms of the Family Settlement before this Hon‟ble Court during the proceedings in Crl. Misc. 3408/2008. On receiving the said amount, the said FIR was ultimately quashed. f) Objector Nos.1-3 have raised baseless objections solely to delay the proceedings.

14. The following submissions have been made by the learned counsel of the Objector Nos.1-3: a) Petitioners have deliberately not impleaded the Objector Nos.1-3 in the present Petition although the Objector Nos.1-3 are necessary parties as they are the heirs of the testatrix through Late Amarjeet Bhogal and also amongst heirs in Class-I in the Schedule of the Act. b) The Will is fabricated and surrounded by suspicious circumstances as the testatrix did not understand English, the language in which the Will is drafted. The testatrix used to sign in Gurmukhi and she was illiterate/not educated. c) The complete exclusion of the Objector Nos.1-3, despite their close familial relationship with the testatrix, is argued to be unnatural. d) The attestation of the Will is not in accordance with law and Petitioner Nos.2, 3 and 5 were appointed as executors of the Will, and 03.09.54 in accordance with law, the present Petition should have been jointly filed by them. However, in the present Petition, the same has not been complied with. Further, the verification is not in accordance with the provisions of verification as encapsulated under Section 280 of the Act. e) The Will could not have been presented for registration or registered on 17.11.2008. f) That a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- paid to the Objector No.3 in terms of the Family Settlement, was only to quash the FIR pending in Crl. Misc. 3408/2008 before this Court.

15. In rejoinder, learned counsel for the Petitioners contends that the relationship between Objector No.3 and the testatrix was extremely strained. She states that the Objector No.3, i.e., Anita Bhogal, harassed the testatrix. It is stated that during the lifetime of her late husband Amarjeet Singh Bhogal, criminal cases had been filed and the harassment increased after the death of Amarjeet Singh Bhogal. She states that several suits were filed by the widow of Amarjeet Singh Bhogal and a complaint was also filed by the widow of Amarjeet Singh Bhogal which resulted in registration of FIR No.432/2005 under Section 498A/506/34 IPC as well as u/s 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961.

16. A Family Settlement dated 05.10.2008 was arrived at between the Objectors and the testatrix wherein, a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- was agreed to be paid by the testatrix to the Objectors. The said amount had been admittedly paid to the Objectors. 03.09.54

17. Learned Counsel for the Petitioners has taken this Court through the deed of Family Settlement dated 05.10.2008. It is therefore submitted that there was a valid reason to exclude the Objectors.

18. Heard the learned Counsels for the parties and perused the material on record.

19. PW-1 in his examination-in-chief has stated that one of the Objectors to the Will, i.e., the widow of Amarjeet Singh Bhogal caused immense trauma and humiliation to the testatrix by filing cases against the family. PW-1 has been cross-examined at length. In his cross-examination, it was specifically put to PW-1 that the settlement was only regarding criminal cases and it was not a full and final settlement of all the claims of the Objectors which had been denied by PW-1. “Q.70 I put it to you that the alleged settlement dated 05.10.2008 between JKB and Mrs. Anita Bhogal was only regarding the cases between them?

20. PW-3, 4 and 5 are the attesting witnesses. PW-3 is a lawyer. She states that the testatrix had met her and had expressed her desire to draw a Will. She has also explained as to how she knows the testatrix. She prepared the Will and therefore she is the scribe of the Will. She has categorically stated that the Will was prepared as per the instructions of the testatrix. She stated that contents of the Will were explained to the testatrix in Punjabi as well as in English. She has categorically stated that the testatrix could speak and read English. She also stated that the Will was never discussed in the 03.09.54 presence of anybody else and during discussions only the testatrix and PW-3 were present. PW-3 in her examination-in-chief stated that she attested the Will in the presence of the testatrix.

21. PW-4 and PW-5 were also cross-examined in detail and who have also stated that they have signed the Will in the presence of the testatrix and the testatrix has signed the Will in their presence.

22. The relevant questions posed to PW-3 and their answers are reproduced as under:- “Q.43 Can you tell if at the Sub Registrar Mehrauli you on 12.11.2008 explained the contents of the Will again to JKB?

23. Similarly, the relevant questions posed to PW-4 and their answers are “Q.12 Can you tell if JKB could read English?

English. xxx Q.26 Can you tell if the alleged Will Ex.PW-1/1 was read out or explained to aunty JKB in your presence if so by whom, when and where?

Q.33 I put it to you that your aunty JKB could not understand English very well that is why the lawyer explained in Punjabi to her if at all.

JKB do something she did not want. She was in good health and of sound mind when the Will was signed by all of us. I object to your raising this allegation against me.”

24. Similarly, the relevant questions posed to PW-5 and their answers are “Q.27 I put it to you that your mother JKB could not read English.

Q.49 Did you check that the explanation being made to your mother JKB was in accordance with the actual contents of the Will?

Ex.PW-5/R[2]). Q.97 I put it to you that under this settlement Ex.PW- 5/R[2], Anita Bhogal never gave up any right either for herself or for the children. (Objected to by the counsel for the Petitioners). LC: the objection will be decided by the Hon'ble Court).

Delhi by my mother, Anita Bhogal, Tejinder Singh Ahluwalia, Raj Hans (my mother's lawyer), and their lawyer I think Mr. Gurcharan Singh apart from myself. 03.09.54 I do not remember the exact time when it was signed. The date was the same as stated on the settlement. xxx Q.125 Is it correct that neither you nor any of the other two alleged witnesses to the alleged Will never confirmed with JKB if she had understood or was aware of the contents of the Will.

25. In the opinion of this Court all the ingredients of Section 63 of the Act have been satisfied. Section 63 of the Act reads as under:-

26. Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 lays down the procedure of proving a Will. Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 reads as under:

27. In the opinion of this Court all the ingredients of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 are satisfied. 03.09.54

28. It is also pertinent to reproduce the Memorandum of Settlement dated 05.10.2008 that has been arrived at between the Objectors and the testatrix, which in its entirety reads as under:- “DEED OF FAMILY SETTLEMENT/AGREEMENT THIS DEED OF FAMILY SETTLEMENT is made at New Delhi on this 5th day of October, 2008 BETWEEN SMT.

JOGINDER KAUR Widow of Sh. Kartar Sing, R/o, E-11, Hauz Khas, New Delhi, hereinafter called the FIRST PARTY, which include her legal heirs, successors, nominees, administrators, representatives and assigns on one hand AND SMT.

ANITA BHOGAL Widow of Sh. Amarjeet Singh R/o, E-11, First Floor, Hauz Khas, New Delhi, hereinafter called the SECOND PARTY, which include her legal heirs, successors, nominees, administrators, representatives and assigns on the other hand.

AND WHEREAS the Second Party and late Sh. Amarjeet Singh have two children Ms. Simran Bhogal born on 02.11.1995 and Master Prithvi born on 03.11.1999.

AND WHEREAS certain litigation is going on between the First Party & the Second Party, the details of which are given below:- 03.09.54 i) The First Party has filed a civil suit for perpetual injunction against the Second Party as well as against Sh. Manoranjan Singh, Smt. Bela Singh and Sh. Amarjeet Singh (the husband of the Second Party). Sh. Amarjeet Singh has since died on 17.7.2008. This matter is pending disposal before the Hon‟ble Court of Sh. Siddharth Mathur, Civil Judge, Delhi. This matter is pending disposal for 20.10.2008. ii) The Second Party has also filed a civil suit for permanent injunction against the First Party with the prayer to restrain the First Party from evicting the Second Party from the premises without due process of law. This matter is pending disposal before the Hon‟ble Court of Sh. Siddharth Mathur, Civil Judge, Delhi. This matter is pending disposal for 20.10.2008. iii) On the complaint of the Second Party the state has also filed FIR/matter against the First Party vide FIR No. 432/2005 under Section 498A/506/34 IPC as well as u/s 3 of the Dowry Prohibition Act. In this matter charges had already been framed against the First Party as well against Sh. Amarjeet Singh (Sh. Amarjeet Singh since has died on 17.7.2008). This matter is pending disposal before the Hon‟ble Court of Ms. Rubi Alka Singh, M.M., Patiala House Courts, New Delhi. This matter is pending disposal for 16.01.2009. iv) Against the framing of the charge, the First Party has also filed a revision petition u/s 397 IPC in the Hon‟ble High Court of Delhi. This matter is pending disposal for 24.02.2009. v) Prior to above mentioned cases First Party had filed a petition u/s 482 CrPC to quash the FIR and charge sheet. The same has since been withdrawn by the First Party. 03.09.54 vi) The First Party had also filed one criminal complaint against the Second Party as well as against her father, the same had also been dismissed. vii) Sh. Amarjeet Singh also filed a petition for divorce u/s 13(1)(a) on the ground of cruelty against the Second Party. Sh. Amarjeet Singh since died on 17.07.2008, the said matter, which was pending disposal before the Hon‟ble Court of Ms. Seema Maini, ADJ, Delhi, was dismissed/abated on 22.08.2008.

NOW THE FIRST & SECOND PARTY HAVE DECIDED TO SETTLE THE MATTER AMICABLY ON THE FOLLOWING TERMS AND CONDITIONS:- NOW THIS DEED IS WITNESSETH AS UNDER;-

1. That the First Party has agreed to pay a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- (Rupees Fifty Lac Only) to the Second Party in all, by way of Demand Draft for Rs.50,00,000/-. The First Party agrees to pay this amount for the benefit of the Second Party and her two children namely Ms. Simran aged about 13 years and Master Prithvi Singh aged about 9 years through her natural and legal guardian i.e. the Second Party.

2. That the Second Party undertakes to use the abovestated amount for the benefit of herself and both the children.

3. That the First Party shall move a petition u/s 482 CrPC for the quashing of the complaint pending against her in the Hon‟ble Court of Ms.RubiAlka Singh in the Hon‟ble High Court and the Second Party shall cooperate and give consent subject to fulfilment of other terms and conditions contained inn this agreement, for the said quashing inn favour of the First Party and in all and smooth quashing of the proceedings. 03.09.54

4. That the First Party shall move the abovestated petition for quashing at the earliest and not later than seven working days from the date of signing of this Agreement/Deed for Settlement positively and the Second Party shall sign all papers required for the said quashing petition without any hitch and delay as the time is the essence of the Agreement.

5. That the aforesaid amount of Rs.50,00,000/- by D.D. shall be given to the Second Party in the Hon’ble High Court i.e. before the Hon’ble High Court Judge on the date when the Hon’ble High Court finally pass the quashing order in favour of the First Party. On receiving the amount in full and final settlement, the Second Party shall have no right, title or interest on the property of Smt. Joginder Kaur i.e. First Party. The Second Party shall vacate the premises E-11, First Floor, including the Grub-Pub restaurant, on the same day.

6. That the First Party shall move the petition u/s 482 CrPC along with the agreement in the Hon‟ble Court for quashing.

7. That both the parties shall withdraw all other civil as well as criminal cases and also the complaints pending against each other.

8. That all the moveable assets and immoveable property and other assets whatever and where ever they may or they may be in the name of late Sh. Amarjeet Singh shall be inherited, succeeded to by the Second Party for self and her two children.

9. That the First Party agrees to take over discharge any and all liabilities, whether in the nature of debt, taxes, duties and other commitments of any kind, of late Sh. Amarjeet Singh. 03.09.54

10. That both the parties have agreed that they will keep and maintain the harmony in the family, till this agreement is finally enforced. As per the desire of the First Party the Second Party undertakes to keep the interest of her kids above all.” (emphasis supplied)

29. A perusal of the above Memorandum of Settlement dated 05.10.2008 shows that a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- was received by the Objector No.3 as full and final settlement of all her claims. In any event, the affidavit of evidence does not indicate that the Testatrix was not in a fit state of mind. In fact, the evidence suggests that the Testatrix knew what she was doing and she was firm in excluding the Objectors from the benefits of the properties held by her in her individual capacity.

30. The Apex Court in Meena Pradhan& Ors. v. Kamla Pradhan &Anr., 2023 (9) SCC 734, has observed as under:-

31. Now, this Court shall ask the second question as to whether the Will is surrounded by any suspicious circumstances or not. Material on record indicates that the relationship between the Testatrix and Objector No.3 was strained. Objection No.3 is the daughter in law of the Testatrix and even during the subsistence of marriage between the Objector No.3 and the son of the Testatrix, there were multiple cases between the parties, including a divorce Petition and several criminal cases and a Memorandum of Settlement dated 05.10.2008 was entered into between the parties.

32. In the instant case, the Petitioner has examined PW-3, PW-4 and PW- 5, who are the attesting witnesses. They deposed that the testatrix executed the Will in their presence and that they attested the Will in the presence of the testatrix.

33. The Memorandum of Settlement dated 05.10.2008 and the testimony of PW-1 indicates that the wife of Late Amarjeet Singh Bhogal, i.e., Anita Bhogal, had very strained relationship with her mother-in-law and she had filed criminal cases against the testatrix. In these circumstances, it cannot be 03.09.54 said to be unnatural for the daughter-in-law who has been paid Rs.50,00,000/- to be excluded by the testatrix from other properties.

34. In the opinion of this Court, there is no suspicious circumstance surrounding the Will and the facts of the case shows that it is quite natural on thess part of the mother-in-law to exclude the estranged daughter-in-law from the properties owned by her. The evidence of PW-1 and the other attesting witnesses are cogent and nothing has been shown to this Court which points out towards any unnatural or suspicious circumstance which can vitiate the Will.

35. In view of the above, the petition is allowed.

36. Subject to the Petitioners filing the requisite Court fee and furnishing the bond, probate be granted in favour of the Petitioners.

37. The Petition is disposed of, along with all the pending applications, if any.

SUBRAMONIUM PRASAD, J FEBRUARY 06, 2026 hsk/jr