Hanu Faujdar v. State and Ors.

(v) Relief.”

6. Out of the four principal issues, three were to be proved by the petitioner, whereas issue no.3, whether the Will is a forged or fabricated document, was to be proved by the respondents.

7. All four issues are intricately intertwined, so they are considered together for holistic adjudication.

8. The petitioner examined himself as PW-1 and two other witnesses, namely Mr. Deepak Kumar as PW-2, and Mr. Bhola Dutt Sharma as PW-3.

9. PW-2, Mr. Deeepak Kumar appears to be a Data Entry Operator in the Office of the Sub-Registrar, VIII, Geeta Colony, Delhi; PW-3, Mr. Bhola Dutt Sharma, is one of the attesting witnesses to the Will. The other attesting witness, Mr. Narayan Singh Faujdar, who was the younger brother of the testator, had passed away in the year 2008 in a car accident.

10. The petitioner has also relied on documents which have been duly exhibited during the course of the trial. The original Will has been exhibited as Ex. PW-1/D. Some photographs of the testator in Australia have also been exhibited, besides copies of the house tax receipts, etc.

11. In order to prove her case, respondent no.4 has examined herself as R4W-1 and another witness, namely Mr. Abhinav Bhushan, who is stated to be the brother-in-law of respondent no.2 and purportedly was an acquaintance of the testator, as R4W-2. The respondents, however, have not placed on record any documents.

12. Mr. Vikas Arora, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the Will has properly been proved. The objections raised by respondent no. 4 are not supported by evidence, whether documentary or otherwise. He contends that the respondents have failed to establish that the execution of the Will was vitiated by any undue influence or unsoundness of the testator’s mind. He has placed reliance on the decisions in the cases of Janki Narayan Bhoir vs. Narayan Namdeo Kadam[1]; Ram Niwas Rana & Ors. vs. Anil Kumar & Ors.2; Merete Simonsen vs. State and Anr.,[3] to submit that once the valid execution of a Will is proved by way of evidence tendered by one of the attesting witnesses, the same should not be doubted merely on the basis of some purported aspersion cast by the other parties.

13. Mr. Manas Syal, learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 2 to 4, however, controverts the aforesaid submissions, and contends that the testator lacked the mental capacity and the petitioner has concealed the medical history of the testator. According to him, various other material facts, such as the execution of a prior Will dated 01.05.2000, which give rise to suspicion about the valid execution of the present Will, have been deliberately suppressed by the petitioner. He further submits that there are various irregularities in the Will itself, such as variations in the signatures of the testator, besides the variations in the signatures of one of the attesting witnesses, namely Mr. Bhola Dutt Sharma.

14. During the course of arguments, he has taken the Court through the signatures which are purported to have been affixed by the testator as well as by one of the attesting witnesses, Mr. Bhola Dutt Sharma, on the present as well as the prior Wills respectively. According to him, if those signatures are carefully examined, they would clearly indicate that they were not made by the same persons. Learned counsel further submits that the dispositions made in the will are unnatural and unfairly excluded the legal heirs of the testator, and the same have not been properly explained by the petitioner. He, therefore, contends that the instant petition deserves to be dismissed.

15. Mr. Manas Syal has placed reliance on a decision in the case of Meena Pradhan & Ors. vs. Kamla Pradhan & Anr.4, where the Court has held that any circumstance raising suspicion legitimate in nature would qualify as a suspicious circumstance for example, a shaky signature, a feeble mind, an unfair and unjust disposition of property, the propounder himself taking a leading part in the making of the Will under which he receives a substantial benefit, etc.

16. Mr. Manas Syal also submits that in the instant case, it has come on record that the petitioner himself played an instrumental role in the alleged execution of the Will; he took the testator to the Office of the Sub-Registrar, VIII, Delhi, and the attesting witness is a close associate of the petitioner. He, therefore, contends that under these circumstances, the alleged execution of the Will suffers from material illegality.

17. I have considered the submission made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

18. The legal position and with respect to the law for the grant of a letter of administration under Section 276 of the Succession Act, this Court, in the case of Dr. Sri Krishan v. the State,[5] has held as under:

2025:DHC:6805 prove it on the basis of cogent evidence. Thus, there is distinction in terms of the evidentiary burden to be discharged by the parties in a probate case. Whereas, the burden to dispel the suspicious circumstances concerning the Will is to be discharged by the propounder of the Will; however, the burden to prove the judicially determinable elements of undue influence, fraud, forgery etc. qua the Will in question falls upon the person who alleges the same.”

19. The evidence adduced by PW-3, one of the attesting witnesses to the Will, indicates that all the requirements for the valid execution of a Will under Section 63 of the Succession Act were fulfilled at the time of the execution of the present Will; the Will is in writing and is signed by the testator and two attesting witnesses. All the three persons are stated to have affixed their marks on the Will in the presence of one another.

20. The Court, at this stage, also takes note of the significance of registration of a Will. There exists a presumption that registered documents are genuine, and the said presumption extends even to Wills once the requirements under Section 68 of the Evidence Act, 1872 (the Evidence Act) are fulfilled. The onus, thereafter, to establish that the Will is not genuine or is vitiated by suspicious circumstances, lies on the person challenging the Will. It is all the more so in the present case, where the pleadings alleging suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the Will are unsupported by satisfactory evidence. It is only once that the respondents are able to satisfy the Court, prima facie, that the purported execution was suspicious, that the onus of proving that the execution was valid shifts on the petitioner. Reference in this regard, can be made to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Metapalli Lasum Bai v Metapalli Muthaih.[7] 2025 INSC 879

21. In the affidavit of evidence, respondent no.4- R4W-1, Mrs. Reema Verma, has stated inter alia that the earlier Will dated 01.05.2000 has not been placed on record by the petitioner with deliberate intent. The testator being maternal grandfather of respondent no. 4, is stated to have had close affinity for her and her deceased mother. The testator had equally loved and cared about his two daughters namely Ms. Indu Singh and Ms. Padma Kumar. Various other facts have been mentioned in the affidavit of evidence so as to also indicate that one of the attesting witnesses to the Will i.e. Mr. Bhola Dutt Sharma was an employee of the petitioner and is the caretaker of the property in question.

22. Mrs. Reema Verma has also been cross-examined, and during her cross-examination, it has come on record that this witness had last met the testator when she was studying in school.

23. Another witness whom the respondent no. 4 has examined is R4-W[2], i.e., Mr. Abhinav Bhushan. This witness, in his affidavit of evidence, has stated that the testator was suffering from mental trauma and had difficulty in performing his day-to-day tasks. It is his version that the testator had suffered trauma as a result of the death of his family members; first, he lost his daughter, Ms. Indu Singh, followed by the death of his wife in 2000, and, thereafter, the death of his second daughter, namely Ms. Padma Kumar, in the year 2007. Under these circumstances, he asserts that the testator was not of sound mind at the time of execution of the Will.

24. During his cross-examination, Mr. Abhinav Bhushan has admitted that he has not personally seen the testator, but has averred that when he met the testator after the year 1998, the latter would tell him that he is not feeling well as he had some heart ailment. However, he has also admitted that he had not attended any event that took place in the house or in the family of testator ever, including between the years 1998 and 2008.

25. Looking at the depositions made by the aforesaid witness, the veracity of his evidence seems to be doubtful, considering that there is no evidence to establish that he was close enough to the testator as to know of his mental condition at the time of the alleged execution of the Will. The said witness’s deposition that the testator was severely affected by the death of his first daughter seems to be doubtful, considering that the said daughter died in the year 1980, when the said witness was less than five years old.

26. The next question to be determined by the Court is whether the Will was executed in accordance with the statutory requirements under the Succession Act. The relevant portions of the Will are extracted below, for reference: “WILL This will is made at Delhi on this the 5th day of November 2007, by me, Devi Singh Faujdar, aged 83 years, son of Late Shri Kishori Lai, resident of 180 Madhuvan, Delhi - 110092 (hereinafter called the(„Testator‟). I hereby revoke all my previous WILLS, TESTAMENT AND CODCIL if any, made by me at any time hereto before and declare this WILL to be my LAST WILL AND TESTAMENT, I believe all will honour it. Life is but short and nobody knows when it may come to an end. I have already crossed the age of 83 years and it is in the best interest of my family that arrangements regarding properties, both moveable and immovable, in my name be made in my life time so that there may not be any dispute or unpleasant happenings among my legal heirs regarding the devolution of my properties after my death. My wife and two daughters have already pre-deceased me and 1 have an only son Shri Hanu Faujdar as my surviving Legal heir. I am the Joint owner (50:50) along with my son Shri Hanu Faujdar of property bearing No.180, Madhuvan, Delhi-92. My 50% and since my share of the above property is self-acquired therefore I am free to bequeath the same (My 50% Share) to anyone whom I wish. Date 05/11/2007 Dated 05/11/2007 I, the Testator, voluntarily therefore hereby declare that I hereby leave, give, devise and bequeath my complete 50% share of the immovable property bearing No. 180 Madhuvan, Delhi-92 to my son Shri Hanu Faujdar. I further bequeath all my moveable properties including Jewellery, Bank Accounts and Fixed Deposit Receipts presently in my name, and including future assets, if any acquired by me hereafter and forever unto my above said son Shri Hanu Faujdar. I hereby specifically cancel/revoke the Will dated 1st May 2000 given in respect of my 50% share in property No. 180, Madhuvan, Delhi-

92 Jointly in favour of my son Hanu Faujdar and my daughter Padma Kumar as my daughter Padma Kumar has expired on 20th April 2007. Any objections raised by any of my legal heirs or any other representative regarding this will shall be deemed as Null, Void and ineffective. And whereas I declare that I have made this WILL in my full senses without any kind of undue pressure, coercion or threat from any quarter whatsoever.”

27. A perusal of the Will indicates that the same has been signed by the testator on each page. Two attesting witnesses have also affixed their signatures to the Will, and the same is duly registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, VIII, Geeta Colony, Delhi. PW-3, Mr. Bhola Dutt Sharma, one of the attesting witnesses, has sworn that the signatures of the attesting witnesses as well as the testator were affixed on the Will in the presence of one another. Therefore, it is seen that the requirements under Section 68 of the Evidence Act and Section 63 of the Succession Act have been fulfilled by the petitioner. Moreover, the same has also been proved by way of the evidence adduced by PW-2, a member of the staff at the Office of the concerned Sub-Registrar. The other attesting witness to the Will could not be examined because of his death prior to the institution of the present petition.

28. There does not seem to be any unnatural or suspicious circumstance that needs to be explained by the petitioner herein. There is no evidence whatsoever to support the contention of the respondents either that the testator was of unsound mind at the time of the alleged execution of the Will or that any suspicious circumstance exists so as to vitiate the execution. Considering that the petitioner has proved the valid execution of the Will under Section 68 of the Evidence Act and Section 63 of the Succession Act, and the legal position enunciated by this Court in its decision in Dr. Sri Krishan, the objections raised by the respondents do not seem to sustain.

29. The Court has perused the signature of the testator and of the attesting witness Mr. Bhola Dutt Sharma, in the aforesaid Wills. A prima facie perusal thereof does not indicate any material variation between therein. If the respondents had any doubt whatsoever in this regard, the necessary steps for examination of the signatures by a forensic laboratory should have been resorted to. However, recourse has not been taken to the said course of action.

30. It also be noted that half of the portion of this house is already registered in the name of the petitioner. In all possibility, the testator desired to bequeath the remaining portion in the name of his only surviving son. It is for this reason that even the exclusion of other legal heirs cannot be said to have been material bearing under the facts of the present case.

31. Furthermore, considering the totality of the facts of the case and the evidence led by the parties, the allegations of the petitioner’s active involvement in trhe execution of the Will do not raise any suspicion of the Court in respect of its execution. Threfore, the Court has no reason to doubt the valid execution of the Will.

32. Therefore, all issues are decided in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents. In light of the foregoing discussion, the issues are decided as follows: i. Issue No. (i): in the affirmative in favour of the petitioner and against the respondents; ii. Issue No. (ii): in the affirmative in favour of the petitioner and against iii. Issue No. (iii): in the negative in favour of the petitioner and against iv. Issue No. (iv): in the negative in favour of the petitioner and against v. Issue No. (v): as stated in the following paragraphs.

33. Under the aforesaid circumstances, there is no impediment in granting the letter of administration with respect to the property in question.

34. At this stage it is pertinent to note herein that this Court in the case of Sh. Raj Rani Bhasin vs. State,[8] has held that the person to whom a letter of administration is granted does not thereby, become entitled to the property or estate of the deceased/testator and the estate still succeeds according to the law of succession applicable to the deceased/testator. The primary objective of a letter of administration issued by the Court, is to authorize the appointed administrator to gather and consolidate the assets of the deceased or testator. It also allows the administrator to interact with relevant authorities where such assets are held or recorded, enabling the realization of those assets and facilitating their transfer to the rightful successors in accordance with the applicable laws of succession. It was further held that the administrator is required to, from time-to-time, to file accounts in the Court with respect to the administration of the estate and/ or as to how the estate has been settled/ transferred to the successors in accordance with the law of succession applicable to the deceased and upon the administrator defaulting in the same, the Court retains the power to revoke the grant. For the sake of clarity, Paragraph no.9 of the aforesaid decision reads as under:

35. In view of the aforesaid, the Court directs that the letter of administration be issued in favour of the petitioner by the concerned applicable Court fee.

36. Ordered accordingly. The instant petition stands disposed of along 158(200) DLT 713 with other pending applications. The parties to bear their own costs.

PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV (JUDGE) SEPTEMBER 26, 2025 aks/amg