Anuj Varma v. State

1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to Reporter or not?

3. Whetherthe judgment should be reported in the Digest? G.S.SiSTAg^l. i. {ORAL)

1. This is a petition under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act seeking grant of probate with respect to Will dated 12.01,1999 of late Sh.Kailash Behari Lai Varma. Notice was issued to the State as well as to the Chief Revenue Controlling Authority and citation was published in The Hindu' Delhi and Chennai edition. The counsel appearing for the close relations being respondent Nos.[3] and 4 had made stai:ement in this court on 13.07.2011 that they have no objection for grant of probate in favour of the petitioner.

2. Despite service, none has entered appearance on behalf of responcienL no.2, nor any objection has been filed.

3. The petitioner has filed affidavit by way of evidence of the petitioner, Sh.Anui Varma, who has deposed that his father late 2011:DHC:18404 i Sh.Kaiiash Behari Lai Varma died;0.n 21,.03.2008. Copy:of the death certificate of Sh.Kaiiash Behari Lal Varma has been exhibited as PW-1/2. He has further deposed; that his father left behind an unregistered Will dated 12.b[5].|1999 ExvPW-l/il and at the time of his death he had left b.ehind,the following legal heirs;. (!) Anuj Varma (son), petitioner herein.'

(ii) Mrs, Ritu Pr-asad (married daughter) respondent no.2

(iii) Ms.Mitu Varma (unmarried daughter) respondent no.3

4. Affidavit'by v\/ay of evidence, has been fifed by Sh.Chandra f/iohan Lai, one of the attesting', vyltnesse.s,' who,'has;. ae)3,psed [that- the testator was •hi,s cousin bro^hir!.On 12;;Oil',l.§9'9',t|ie^'jt;estatar'car-ne' to his'office and requested;h!irTi::to prepareja^Will,\A/i};h:;^esp;fct;t to:property. He has further'dsipjosed -ti^ai; the. vvas, prepared.by:hi;rn in 'his iiffice; as'p^r tNe in^fuctiohs of lirie testator. This witness has "further •d^:!^osed^ ^hiiir tl'ie testator rdad and' signed the,y\/ill in his presence and in. t:her pr^esence of Sh.Seshadri Shekhar Ray, advocate, who wks also.presehtNn his: office at that time. The witness has further deposed that after Sh.Kaiiash Behari Lai Verma signed the-Will, the.Will was witnessed by the deponent and thereafter by Sh.Seshadri Sheir-fhar Ray, in his presence. The Will was thereafter kept by him. in his office under instructions from the testator to be given tc his son Anuj Varma or Tesi Csse-:<'3/2011 Page 2:^f'r daughter Mitu Varma in the event of his death. Affidavit by way of evidence has also been filed by the second attesting witness, Sh.Seshadri Shekhar Ray, wherein he has deposed that the testator was the eider brother of his father-in-law. Sh.Seshadri Shekhar Ray has further.deposed that the Wiii was signed by the testator,n his presence and in the presence of Sh.Chandra Mohan Lai, another attesting witness, and both the attesting witnesses signed in the presence of the testator. Mr.Chandra Mohan Lai is aiso present in court today. He submits that the testator was in sound disposing mind at the time when the Will was signed by him and the testator died after 9years of executing the Will.

5. In view of the testimony of the petitioner and both the attesting witnesses, it is proved that Shri Kailash Behari Lai Varma executea Will dated 12.01.1999 which was his last Will. Accordingiy. the present petition is allowed. On filing the necessary Court Fee, probate be granted in favour of the peLiUoner.

6. Petition stands disposed of.