Delhi High Court
Kailash Chand & Anr vs Prem Chand & Ors on 4 August, 2026
Author: Neena Bansal Krishna
Bench: Neena Bansal Krishna
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Reserved on: 20th April, 2026
Pronounced on: 04th August, 2026
# CNR No : DLHC010030442025
+ RFA 73/2025 & CM APPL. 22552/2022
1. KAILASH CHAND
S/o LATE NATHU RAM @ NATHU SINGH
R/o H. N0.369, DOONGAR MOHALLA,
SHAHDARA, DELHI.
2. JAGDISH PRASAD @ JAGDISH CHAND
S/o LATE NATHU RAM @ NATHU SINGH
R/o 27/94/8-A, JWALANAGAR,
SHAHDARA, DELHI. .....Appellants
Through: Ms. Nishu Budhiraja, Advocate.
versus
1. PREM CHAND
S/0 SHRITALEWAR SINGH
R/0 27/94/8-A, JWALA NAGAR,
NEAR TIKONA PARK
SHAHDARA DELHI
2. PYARELAL
S/0 LATE NATHU RAM @ NATHU SINGH
R/0 27/94/8-A JWALANAGAR,
SHAHDARA, DELHI
3. MAHENDER KUMAR
S/0 LATE NATHU RAM @ NATHU SINGH
R/0 27/94/8-A JWALANAGAR,
SHAHDARA DELHI
4. SUBHASH
S/0 LATE NATHU RAM @ NATHU SINGH
R/0 27/94/8-A JWALA NAGAR,
RFA 73/2025 Page 1 of 32
Signature Not Verified
DigitallySigned By:RITA
SHARMA
Signing Date:04.08.2026
17:18:37
SHAHDARA DELHI
5. DARSHANA
D/0 LATENATHU RAM @ NATHU SINGH
W/0 HARIKISHAN
R/0 H. NO. 101, SECTOR-8, RAJ NAGAR,
GHAZIABAD, UTTAR PRADESH
6. SHEELA
W/0 RAM SINGH
D/0 LATE NATHU RAM @ NATHU SINGH
R/0H.N0.26,GALIN0. 1,
WARD NO 10, DISTRICT G.B. NAGAR,
UTTAR PRADESH. ....Respondents
Through: Mr. Bhupesh Narula, Ms. Rinku
Narula, Ms. poonam Nagpal, Mr.
Anugrah Ekka, Mr. Kanishk Taneja,
Advocates for R-1.
CORAM:
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA
J U D G M E N T
NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA, J.
1. The present Appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure,
1908 (hereinafter referred to as „CPC‟) has been filed on behalf of the
Appellants against the Judgment dated 15.11.2010, whereby the Petition
preferred by Respondent No.1/Petitioner Sh. Prem Chand under Section
276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 was allowed and he was held
entitled to probate of the Will dated 13.12.2005, registered on 28.12.2005.
Letters of Administration for the management and supervision of the
immovable properties mentioned in Schedule A to the Petition, was
consequently granted in his favour.
RFA 73/2025 Page 2 of 32
Signature Not Verified
DigitallySigned By:RITA
SHARMA
Signing Date:04.08.2026
17:18:37
2. The Petitioner/Respondent No.1 had filed a Petition bearing
No.87/10under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 seeking
probate of the Will dated 13.12.2005, registered on 28.12.2005, executed by
Late Shri Nathu Singh.
3. The brief facts as stated in the Petition, are that the Petitioner/
Respondent No.1 is the son of the deceased, Late Shri Nathu Singh
(hereinafter referred to as “the Testator”), a Hindu, who had expired on
20.01.2008, at Delhi.
4. Late Shri Nathu Singh was survived by six sons namely, Prem Chand
(Petitioner), Mahender Kumar, Jagdish Prasad, Kailash Chand, PyareLal,
Subhash Chand, and two daughters, namely Darshana and Sheela.
5. Late Shri Nathu Singh during his lifetime, executed his first and last
registered Will dated 13.12.2005, registered on 28.12.2005, bequeathing his
land area measuring 2 Bigha, out of Khasra No. 331 (min.) Khewat No.134,
Northern Side, situated in the village of Karkardooma, Illaqa Shahdara,
Delhi and other movable and immovable properties in the favour of his son,
Prem Chand,Petitioner/ Respondent No.1, to the exclusion of all other legal
heirs. The details of the assets bequeathed under the Will, were set out in
Schedule-A, annexed along with the Petition. All other children were
specifically excluded and debarred from claiming any right or benefit, in
respect of his movable or immovable properties.
6. The Petitioner, Prem Chand thus, filed a Petition under S.276 of
Indian Succession Act seeking grant of Probate of registered Will of his
father, Late Shri Nathu Singh.
7. Upon institution of the Probate Petition, citation was issued to the
general public and Notices were served upon all legal heirs of the Testator.
RFA 73/2025 Page 3 of 32
Signature Not Verified
DigitallySigned By:RITA
SHARMA
Signing Date:04.08.2026
17:18:37
8. Respondent No. 4, Mahender Kumar, the brother who was one of
the attesting witnesses to the Will, supported the testament.
9. The Petition was contested by the Appellants/Objectors, namely
Kailash Chand, Pyare Lal, Jagdish Prasad and Darshana, who filed a
common Written Statement denying the execution and validity of the
alleged Will. Also, the Petitioner has suppressed the true facts and has not
come with clean hands.
10. The objections taken were that the Probate Petition is not
maintainable, as the Petition has not been signed properly by the Petitioner/
Respondent No.1. Three different kinds of signatures are found on both, the
Petition and the Affidavit, which made it difficult to determine which one
was the original signature of the Petitioner.
11. Further objection was taken that the properties of the deceased
Testator, had already been partitioned amongst his children during his
lifetime; therefore, no question arises of bequeathing the properties in favour
of the Petitioner/ Respondent No.1. A partition pursuant to the family
settlement, was effected by Late Shri Nathu Singh in the presence of
witnesses, whereby it was agreed that the properties would be allotted to the
respective sons, where they were residing and had the possession thereof.
12. The genuineness of the Will was also contested on the ground that the
Testator was approximately 73 years of age at the time of executing the
Will, but his age is not mentioned in the Will. It does not disclose any
reason for excluding Respondent No. 2 to 8 from inheritance, which creates
doubt regarding its genuineness.
13. Further, only one property, namely the land situated at Karkardooma
Village is mentioned on the first page of the Will, and the alleged Will does
RFA 73/2025 Page 4 of 32
Signature Not Verified
DigitallySigned By:RITA
SHARMA
Signing Date:04.08.2026
17:18:37
not mention the numbers and addresses of the other properties, though the
same were well known to Late Shri Nathu Singh.
14. It was further alleged that the Petitioner/ Respondent No.1 prepared
the false Will by concealing material facts, in conspiracy with Respondent
No.4, Mahender, to grab all the assets of the deceased Testator.
15. The Petition was based on totally false, concocted and fabricated
facts, and was liable to be dismissed with heavy cost.
16. The Petitioner in the Replication, re-affirmed the assertions as made
in the Petition.
17. The issues on the pleadings, were framed on10.12.2008, as under:
1. Whether will dt. 28.10.05 executed by Sh. Nathu Singh
is valid and genuinely executed in his sound disposing
mind? OPP
2. Whether the petition is not maintainable in view of the
preliminary objections raised by respondents? OPR 2,3,5
and 7
3. Whether the petitioner is entitled for probate as prayed
for? OPP
4. Relief.
18. The Petitioner, Prem Chand, examined himself as PW-1and deposed
that the Testator had personally approached Advocate Shri D.K. Sharma for
preparation of the Will dated 13.12.2005, registered on 28.12.2005, which
was proved as Ex. PW-1/3. He stated that the Testator intended to bequeath
the property situated at Village Karkardooma, along with his other movable
and immovable properties, in favour of PW-1.
19. He further deposed that the Testator, Mahender Kumar, Advocate
D.K. Sharma and PW-1 had gone to the office of the Sub-Registrar, where
RFA 73/2025 Page 5 of 32
Signature Not Verified
DigitallySigned By:RITA
SHARMA
Signing Date:04.08.2026
17:18:37
the Testator signed and affixed his thumb impressions on the Will and
explained that he was bequeathing the properties to PW-1 as PW-1 had been
looking after him.
20. PW-2,Sh. Mahender Kumar, (Respondent No.4), one of the attesting
witnesses to the Will, corroborated the evidence of the Petitioner about the
execution of the Will and that the Testator had voluntarily executed and
signed the Will,as an attesting witness in the presence of the Testator.
21. PW-3Shri D.K. Sharma, Advocate, who had drafted the Will and
was also the second attesting witness to the Will, deposed that on the
instructions of the Testator, he had first prepared a draft on stamp papers,
but the same was destroyed in the presence of the Testator. Then, afresh
Will was prepared on plain paper, as per his instructions. The Will was read
over to him, before he signed it in his chamber. PW-3 also signed the Will as
an attesting witness.
22. PW-4, Shri D.S. Rawat, UDC from the office of the Sub-Registrar,
Geeta Colony, produced the original register and deposed that the Will had
been registered on 28.12.2005,videRegistration No.9595, Book No.III,
Volume No.723.
23. The Respondents examined RW-1, Mr. Jagdish Prasad who deposed
that an oral partition had taken place, amongst the sons of the deceased.
24. RW-2, Pyare Lal & RW-3, Ram Phool Singh, in their respective
testimony, denied that the deceased had resided with or was exclusively
looked after by the Petitioner. He however, admitted that the Petitioner had
never been disowned by the deceased, though he volunteered that only
Subhash had been formally disowned.
RFA 73/2025 Page 6 of 32
Signature Not Verified
DigitallySigned By:RITA
SHARMA
Signing Date:04.08.2026
17:18:37
25. RW-4, Kailash Chand, Appellant admitted that no specific share or
identifiable portion had ever been allotted by the Testator, to any particular
son. He also admitted that the deceased Testator continued to carry on his
milk business from Shop No.500, Bara Bazar and regularly attended the
shop, till a few months prior to his death.
26. The learned ADJ, upon appreciation of the oral and documentary
evidence, observed that the deceased Testator was in a sound disposing
state of mind at the time of execution of the testament and that the plea of
prior partition, remained wholly unsubstantiated. It was held that the
Petitioner had successfully discharged the burden and had duly proved the
execution and attestation of the Will.
27. Consequently, the Probate Petition was allowed and the Petitioner,
Prem Chand, was held entitled to probate of the Will Ex. PW-1/3. He was
granted Letters of Administration for the management and supervision of
the immovable properties mentioned in Schedule A to the Petition, subject
to payment of the requisite court fee and furnishing of an administration
bond-cum-surety bond.
28. Aggrieved by the aforesaid Judgment, the present Appeal has been
preferred by the Objectors/Appellants, namely, Kailash Chand and Jagdish
Prasad.
29. The grounds of challenge are that the learned ADJ failed to
appreciate the suspicious circumstances surrounding the alleged Will. It was
contended that the Testator had several legal heirs and there existed no
plausible reason for exclusion of the remaining children from succession.
RFA 73/2025 Page 7 of 32
Signature Not Verified
DigitallySigned By:RITA
SHARMA
Signing Date:04.08.2026
17:18:37
30. The Petitioner, being the sole beneficiary, had actively participated in
the preparation, execution and registration of the Will, thereby casting a
heightened burden upon him, to dispel every legitimate suspicion.
31. Further, the Will disclosed an unnatural disposition by excluding the
remaining legal heirs, without assigning any reason. The registration of the
Will, by itself, neither proved its due execution nor dispelled the
surrounding suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will.
32. Moreover, the Petitioner’s evidence suffered from material
inconsistencies. Particularly, PW-1 had admitted that their deceased father
gave oral direction to distribute the properties equally amongst all the
brothers, which was inconsistent with the recitals of the Will.
33. A reference is also made to the inherent contradictions in the
testimony of PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3in regard to the preparation and
execution of the Will.
34. It was further submitted that the Testator, being of advanced age and
suffering from cataract and cancer, lacked the requisite testamentary
capacity to execute the Will. Moreover, the inclusion of the acquired
property comprised of Khasra No. 331 Min., Village Karkardooma, cast a
serious doubt on the authenticity of the testament.
35. It was lastly submitted that the learned ADJ had erroneously rejected
the Respondents’ plea of prior oral partition, despite the oral evidence led in
support thereof, which demonstrated that the Testator had already
distributed his properties, during his lifetime.
36. It was therefore, stated that the Petitioner had failed to discharge the
burden and that the learned ADJ committed a manifest error in accepting the
RFA 73/2025 Page 8 of 32
Signature Not Verified
DigitallySigned By:RITA
SHARMA
Signing Date:04.08.2026
17:18:37
alleged Will as the last valid testament of the deceased. The impugned
Judgment, therefore, is liable to be set aside.
37. Per contra, Petitioner/Respondent No.1, 3 and 4 in their common
Reply to the present Appeal have supported the impugned Judgment and
submitted that the Will stands proved in accordance with the requirements
of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and Section 68 of the
Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
38. The execution and attestation of the Will has been duly proved
through the testimony of the attesting witnesses. Furthermore, the
registration of the Will has been corroborated from official records and there
exists no material circumstance, which would justify rejection of the
testament.
39. It was further stated that no medical evidence whatsoever, has been
produced to establish that the Testator lacked testamentary capacity on the
date of execution of the Will. Mere old age, illness or subsequent medical
treatment, cannot invalidate an otherwise duly executed testamentary
instrument.
40. It has also been submitted that the defense of prior partition, remains
wholly unsubstantiated. The evidence of Petitioner/Respondent No.1, itself
demonstrates that no written partition was ever affected and no witness was
able to specify the date, manner or terms of the alleged partition.
41. It was lastly submitted that the suspicious circumstances alleged by
the Appellants, were adequately explained from the evidence on record. No
ground is established, warranting interference with the findings of the
learned ADJ.
RFA 73/2025 Page 9 of 32
Signature Not Verified
DigitallySigned By:RITA
SHARMA
Signing Date:04.08.2026
17:18:37
Submissions heard and record perused.
42. Admittedly, Late Sh. Nathu Singh died on 20.01.2008 and was
survived by six sons, namely, the Petitioner and Respondent Nos. 2 to 6, and
two daughters, namely, Respondent Nos. 7 and 8. Respondent Nos. 2, 3, 5
and 7 have contested the Petition, whereas Respondent No. 6, Sh. Subhash,
and Respondent No. 8, Smt. Sheela, furnished their respective “No
Objection”to the grant of Probate/Letters of Administration in favour of the
Petitioner, Prem Chand, on the basis of the Will dated 13.12.2005.
Respondent No.4, Sh.Mahender Kumar (brother), deposed in favour of the
Petitioner.
43. The following questions arise for consideration in the present Appeal:
(i) Whether the execution and attestation of the Will dated
13.12.2005 stand duly proved in accordance with Section 63
of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 read with Section 68 of
the Indian Evidence Act, 1872?
(ii) Whether the Testator was in a sound disposing state of mind
at the time of execution of the Will dated 13.12.2005?
(iii) Whether the Will is surrounded by suspicious
circumstances?
(iv) Whether the plea of prior oral partition of the properties of
the Testator stands established from the evidence on
record?
(v) Whether the impugned Judgment suffers from any illegality,
perversity or misappreciation of evidence warranting
interference by this Court in appellate jurisdiction?
RFA 73/2025 Page 10 of 32
Signature Not Verified
DigitallySigned By:RITA
SHARMA
Signing Date:04.08.2026
17:18:37
I. Whether the execution and attestation of the Will dated 13.12.2005
stand duly proved in accordance with Section 63 of the Indian Succession
Act read with Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act?
44. The first aspect in the Probate Petition is to establish due execution of
the Will. Section 63 of Indian Succession Act, 1925 provides the requisites
of a valid Unprivileged Wills. It reads as under:
“63. Execution of unprivileged wills.-Every testator, not
being a soldier employed in an expedition or engaged in
actual warfare, 1*[or an airman so employed or engaged,]
or a mariner at sea, shall execute his will according to the
following rules:-
(a) The testator shall sign or shall affix his mark to the
will, or it shall be signed by some other person in his
presence and by his direction.
(b) The signature or mark of the testator, or the signature
of the person signing for him, shall be so placed that
it shall appear that it was intended thereby to give
effect to the writing as a will.
(c) The will shall be attested by two or more witnesses,
each of whom has seen the testator sign or affix his
mark to the will or has seen some other person sign the
will, in the presence and by the direction of the
testator, or has received from the testator a personal
acknowledgment of his signature or mark, or of the
signature of such other person; and each of the
witnesses shall sign the will in the presence of the
testator, but it shall not be necessary that more than
one witness be present at the same time, and no
particular form of attestation shall be necessary.”
RFA 73/2025 Page 11 of 32
Signature Not Verified
DigitallySigned By:RITA
SHARMA
Signing Date:04.08.2026
17:18:37
45. The essential requirements for the valid execution of a Will are:
firstly, that it must have the signatures of the testator, thereby authenticating
his intention to execute the Will. Secondly, the Will must be attested by two
or more witnesses, each of whom should have seen the testator sign or put
his mark on the Will. Thirdly,the Will must be signed by the witnesses in the
presence of the testator, but it is not necessary that more than one witness
should be present at the same time.
46. To prove the execution of Will, PW-1, Prem Chand, the petitioner
deposed that their father, was the absolute owner of various movable and
immovable properties and while being in a sound disposing state of mind
and fully conscious of the nature and consequences of his acts, voluntarily
executed the Will Ex.PW1/3 out of his own free volition, without any
coercion, undue influence or pressure from any person, in his favour.
47. PW-1 Prem Chand also proved details of the properties constituting
the estate of the deceased, Testator were set out in Schedule-A, Ex.PW1/4.
The properties included House No.27/94/8A, Jwala Nagar, Shahdara, House
No.27/94/8C, Jwala Nagar, property bearing No.369, DoongarMohalla,
property bearing No.325/1, Farash Bazar, land comprised in Khasra No.331
Min. situated in Village Karkardooma, Shop No.500/3 situated at Bara
Bazar, the amounts lying in the bank accounts maintained by the deceased,
the LIC policy standing in his name and every other movable and
immovable asset forming part of his estate.
48. PW-1,Prem Chand further deposed that during the latter part of his
life, the Testator had been residing with him at House No.27/94/8A, Jwala
Nagar, Shahdara and that he alone had been attending to his day-to-day
requirements, medical treatment and overall care. Owing to the affection and
RFA 73/2025 Page 12 of 32
Signature Not Verified
DigitallySigned By:RITA
SHARMA
Signing Date:04.08.2026
17:18:37
confidence reposed in him, the Testator consciously decided to bequeath his
entire estate in his favour and executed the aforesaid Will Ex.PW1/3 in his
favour.
49. PW-1 further deposed that the Will was drafted on the instructions
given by the Testator; executed after he understood its contents and
thereafter, and was duly attested in accordance with law. It was further
deposed that after execution of the Will Ex.PW1/3, the Testator personally
appeared before the office of the Sub-Registrar, admitted execution of the
testament and got the same registered on 28.12.2005.
50. In terms of Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, a Will, being
a document required by law to be attested, required the proof by at least one
attesting witness to establish its due execution. In the present case, the
Petitioner examined both the attesting witnesses to the Will.
51. PW-2, Sh. Mahender Kumar (Respondent No. 4), was the elder
brother of the Petitioner/beneficiary, who was actively involved in the
preparation of the Will as well as was one of the attesting witnesses to the
Will. He corroborated the testimony of PW-1 and deposed that the Testator
had personally instructed the Advocate to prepare the Will. He further stated
that the contents of the Will were read over and explained to the Testator,
who, after understanding the contents, voluntarily executed it in his
presence, and that he thereafter, signed the Will as an attesting witness, in
the presence of the Testator.
52. PW-3, Shri D.K. Sharma, Advocate, who drafted the Will and was
also the second attesting witness, deposed that on the instructions of the
Testator, he had initially prepared a draft of the Will on stamp paper, which
was subsequently destroyed in the presence of the Testator. Thereafter, a
RFA 73/2025 Page 13 of 32
Signature Not Verified
DigitallySigned By:RITA
SHARMA
Signing Date:04.08.2026
17:18:37
fresh Will was prepared on plain paper, in accordance with the Testator’s
instructions. The contents of the Will were read over and explained to the
Testator, who, after admitting the same to be correct, signed the Will in his
chamber. PW-3 also signed the Will as an attesting witness, in the presence
of the Testator.
53. The testimony of PW-3 established that the deceased personally
disclosed the manner in which he desired to bequeath his estate and
executed the document only after acknowledging its correctness.
54. The registration of the Will was proved byPW-4, Sh. D.S. Rawat,
UDC from the office of the Sub-Registrar, Geeta Colony, Delhi, who
deposed that the Will Ex. PW-1/3 was registered in their office, on
28.12.2005.
55. All the witnesses were duly cross-examined by the Appellants, but no
contradiction in the execution of the Will, could be elicited. The evidence on
record, when appreciated in its entirety, consistently indicates that the
deceased himself conceived the intention of executing the Will, personally
furnished instructions for its preparation, understood its contents after the
same had been read over and explained to him, voluntarily executed the
testament and thereafter appeared before the office of the Sub-Registrar for
its registration.
56. The testimony of the attesting witnesses inspires confidence and
remains substantially unshaken in cross-examination. No material has been
brought on record to cast any doubt upon the mental alertness or
understanding of the deceased at the time of execution of the Will. These
circumstances unmistakably indicate that the deceased voluntarily, was fully
RFA 73/2025 Page 14 of 32
Signature Not Verified
DigitallySigned By:RITA
SHARMA
Signing Date:04.08.2026
17:18:37
conscious of the nature and effect of the testamentary disposition and the
Will was prepared at his instance.
57. It is therefore, held that the Will Ex.PW-1/3, in terms of S.68
Indian Succession Act and S.63 Evidence Act, is duly established.
II. Whether the Testator was of Sound Mind at the Time of Execution of
Will:
58. The Appellants have next questioned the testamentary capacity of the
deceased Testator by contending that, having regard to his advanced age and
his ailments of cataract and cancer, he was incapable of understanding the
nature and effect of the testamentary disposition.
59. PW-1, Prem Chand, the Petitioner,in his cross-examination, admitted
that the Testator had suffered from cancer and had received treatment at
Dharamshila Cancer Hospital. He, however, denied that the Testator was not
in his senses or lacked testamentary capacity at the time of execution of the
Will. He clarified that the Testator underwent cataract surgery at Jain
Hospital, about one to one-and-a-half years, after execution of the Will.
60. PW-2, Sh. Mahender Kumar, in his cross-examination denied that the
Testator was suffering from cancer at the relevant time or that he suffered
from any physical or mental incapacity, which rendered him incapable of
executing the Will.
61. Likewise, PW-3, Sh. D.K. Sharma, Advocate, during his cross-
examination, also denied that the Testator suffered from any physical or
mental incapacity, and that cataract surgery was conducted only after one to
one-and-a-half years from execution of the Will; he denied that the deceased
was suffering from cancer at the relevant time.
RFA 73/2025 Page 15 of 32
Signature Not Verified
DigitallySigned By:RITA
SHARMA
Signing Date:04.08.2026
17:18:37
62. Nothing material could be elicited during the cross-examination of
PW-1, PW-2 or PW-3 so as to discredit their testimony regarding the
physical and mental state of the Testator, at the time of execution of the
Will.
63. The Appellants, on the other hand, have claimed that the Testator was
suffering from cancer and, therefore, did not possess the requisite mental
capacity to execute the Will.
64. In this regard, RW-1, Sh. Jagdish Prasad, and RW-4, Sh. Kailash
Chand, both sons of the Testator, deposed that prior to his demise on
20.01.2008, he was suffering from cancer and was undergoing treatment at
Dharamshila Hospital and Research Centre, Vasundhara Enclave, Delhi.
Their testimony, however, merely establishes that the Testator was suffering
from cancer and was undergoing treatment prior to his demise in January,
2008. It does not establish that he was suffering from cancer on 13.12.2005,
when the Will was executed, or that any such ailment had impaired his
mental faculties or testamentary capacity at the relevant time.
65. Similarly, the ground that the Testator was suffering from cataract
does not advance the case of the Appellants. RW-2, Sh. Pyare Lal, admitted
in his cross-examination that the Testator underwent cataract surgery only in
the year 2006. There is no evidence whatsoever on record to establish that
on 13.12.2005, the cataract had impaired his vision to such an extent that he
was incapable of understanding or executing the Will. Even assuming that
the Testator was suffering from cataract at the relevant time, the same would
not, by itself, establish any mental or cognitive impairment affecting his
capacity to execute the testament.
RFA 73/2025 Page 16 of 32
Signature Not Verified
DigitallySigned By:RITA
SHARMA
Signing Date:04.08.2026
17:18:37
66. Moreover, PW-3, Sh. D.K. Sharma, Advocate, had deposed that the
Will was read over to the Testator and he signed it after understanding its
contents. The Will itself also carries an endorsement to the effect that ‘this
WILL is made out without any force, fear and undue influence’ and that the
Testator had executed the same ‘with my free will and without any pressure’
with his ‘sound and disposing mind.’ The said recitals, read together with the
testimony of PW-3, further reinforce the voluntary nature of the
testamentary act.
67. Significantly, despite specifically alleging that the deceased was
incapable of executing the Will, the Appellants failed to produce any
medical record or examine any treating doctor to establish that the deceased
was suffering from any ailment, as claimed, at the time the Will was
executed in 2005, which impacted his mental faculties, rendering him
incapable of understanding the contents of the Will.
68. Furthermore, the evidence of the Appellants’ own witnesses belies the
plea of incapacity. RW-2, Sh. Pyare Lal, admitted in his cross-examination
that the Testator continued to attend the shop until about two months prior to
his demise on 20.01.2008. Likewise, RW-1, Sh. Jagdish Prasad, admitted
that the Testator continued to carry on his milk business from Shop No. 506,
Bada Bazar, until the year 2008. Though RW-1 volunteered that he had
purchased the said shop in the year 1993, by paying the consideration to his
father, his testimony nevertheless establishes that the Testator remained
actively engaged in the business until shortly before his demise. These
circumstances are wholly inconsistent with the allegation that he lacked the
mental capacity to execute the testament on 13.12.2005.
RFA 73/2025 Page 17 of 32
Signature Not Verified
DigitallySigned By:RITA
SHARMA
Signing Date:04.08.2026
17:18:37
69. Mere old age, impaired eyesight or subsequent illness cannot, by
themselves, lead to an inference that a testator lacked the mental capacity to
execute a valid Will.
70. In Sridevi v. Jayaraja Shetty, (2005) 2 SCC 784, the Supreme Court
observed that the mere fact that the testator was 80 years of age and died
within 15 days of execution of the Will, was insufficient to doubt his
testamentary capacity, when the attesting witnesses and the scribe had
consistently deposed that he was in a sound state of mind and possessed his
physical and mental faculties.
71. The relevant consideration is whether the testator was capable of
understanding the nature and effect of the disposition at the time when the
testament came to be executed. On the evidence produced on record, there
is no material to conclude that the deceased was deprived of such
understanding, on 13.12.2005.
III. Whether there existed Suspicious Circumstances around the
Execution of Willwarranting its rejection:
72. The Appellants have assailed the genuineness of the Will by relying
upon various alleged suspicious circumstances, namely, the active
participation and undue influence of the Petitioner, exclusion of the other
natural heirs, inclusion of the acquired land situated at Village
Karkardooma, the alleged oral instructions of the Testator stated to be
inconsistent with the recitals of the Will.
73. It is a settled proposition of law that where suspicious circumstances
surround the execution of a Will, the onus lies upon the propounder to dispel
RFA 73/2025 Page 18 of 32
Signature Not Verified
DigitallySigned By:RITA
SHARMA
Signing Date:04.08.2026
17:18:37
the same by cogent and satisfactory evidence. The circumstances relied
upon by the Appellants are, therefore, considered hereinafter.
(a) Whether the Will was executed under Undue Influence of the
Petitioner:
74. The principal submission advanced on behalf of the Appellants is that
Prem Chand, the sole beneficiary under the Will, actively participated in its
preparation, execution and registration and that such participation, by
itself, constitutes a suspicious circumstance sufficient to discredit the
testament.
75. In Kavita Kanwar v. Pamela Mehta, AIR 2020 SC 2614, while
considering the plea of active participation of the propounder in the
preparation of the Will, the Supreme Court held that participation of the
beneficiary is only one of the many suspicious circumstances, which may be
explained by the propounder. The question, therefore, is whether the
evidence on record, sufficiently explains the said circumstance.
76. PW-1, as well as PW-2, Sh. Mahender Kumar, consistently deposed
that it was the Testator who was inclined to execute the Will. He himself
had called PW-3, Sh. D.K. Sharma, Advocate and had got the Will prepared.
PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3, in their respective testimony, established that the
deceased personally furnished instructions for the preparation of the
testament, disclosed the manner in which he intended to bequeath his estate
and voluntarily executed the document after its contents had been read over
and explained to him. The material on record, therefore, consistently
indicates that the decision to execute the Will originated from the deceased
Testator himself.
RFA 73/2025 Page 19 of 32
Signature Not Verified
DigitallySigned By:RITA
SHARMA
Signing Date:04.08.2026
17:18:37
77. So much so, PW-3, Sh. D.K. Sharma, Advocate, had explained that
earlier, on the Testator’s instructions, the Will had been prepared on a stamp
paper but subsequently, on his wish, the Will written on stamp paper was
torn and it was redrafted on a plain paper. There is no serious challenge to
any of these aspects. The said circumstance further demonstrates that the
Testator retained independent control over the preparation of the testament
and was not acting under the direction or influence of any other person.
78. Moreover, it cannot be overlooked that as per PW-2, Sh. Mahender
Kumar, the other brother, Sh. Subhash, was also present outside the Office
of the Sub-Registrar. The very fact that Sh. Mahender Kumar, who has
admittedly not been given any share in the property under the Will, was
actively involved in the preparation and registration of the Will and has
consistently deposed in support of the testament, further negates the
allegation that the Petitioner alone orchestrated the testamentary disposition.
79. Significantly, no material has been brought on record to establish that
the contents of the Will were dictated by the Petitioner or that the
instructions embodied therein did not emanate from the deceased himself.
The mere fact that the Petitioner accompanied the Testator at the time of
execution or registration of the Will cannot, by itself, establish undue
influence. The allegation of undue influence, therefore, remains a mere
assertion unsupported by any cogent evidence.
80. The circumstances attending the registration of the Will further
reinforce the voluntary nature of the testamentary act. PW-2, Sh. Mahender
Kumar, had deposed in his Affidavit of Evidence that the Sub-Registrar had
also verified the facts from the Testator regarding the execution of the Will
and its contents, and had confirmed that the Testator was executing the Will
RFA 73/2025 Page 20 of 32
Signature Not Verified
DigitallySigned By:RITA
SHARMA
Signing Date:04.08.2026
17:18:37
with his free consent, without any coercion, pressure or misrepresentation
and in a sound disposing state of mind. There is essentially no cross-
examination on this aspect of PW-2.
81. Another significant aspect, which cannot be overlooked or ignored, is
that the Will was duly registered, a fact which has been deposed by PW-2,
Mr. Mahender Kumar, as well as, PW-3, Mr. D.K. Sharma, Advocate. The
Registered Will Ex PW1/3, which has the signatures of the witness, i.e. PW-
2, Mr. Mahender Kumar and Mr. D.K. Sharma, not at one place but in two
places in consonance with their testimony that they had signed the Will in
the presence of the Registrar, after he had convinced himself about the
genuineness of the Will. It is another factor, which lends support to the
genuineness of the Will.
82. Mere participation of a beneficiary in facilitating the execution or
registration of a Will does not, by itself, constitute a suspicious
circumstance. Unless such participation is accompanied by credible
evidence of coercion, fraud, undue influence or manipulation affecting the
free volition of the testator, it cannot invalidate an otherwise duly proved
testament. No such circumstance has been established in the present case.
Consequently, the objection founded upon the alleged active participation of
the petitioner is liable to be rejected.
(b). Exclusion of the other natural heirs:
83. The Appellants have next contended that the Will is inherently
unnatural, since it excludes almost all the remaining legal heirs and
bequeaths the entire estate in favour of Prem Chand.
84. This contention, by itself, cannot invalidate the testament. It is well
settled that a testator enjoys complete testamentary freedom to dispose of his
RFA 73/2025 Page 21 of 32
Signature Not Verified
DigitallySigned By:RITA
SHARMA
Signing Date:04.08.2026
17:18:37
estate in the manner considered appropriate by him. Mere exclusion of one
or more natural heirs, without anything further, does not constitute a
suspicious circumstance. The Court is concerned with the genuineness of the
testament and not with the fairness or wisdom of the disposition made
therein.
85. The legal position has consistently been recognized by the Courts. In
P.P.K. Gopalan Nambiar v. P.P.K. Balakrishnan Nambiar, 1995 Supp (2)
SCC 664 : AIR 1995 SC 1852,the Supreme Court held that it is the duty of
the propounder of the Will to remove all genuine suspicious circumstances,
but there must be real, germane and valid grounds for suspicion, and not the
fantasy of the doubting mind. Once the propounder dispels such suspicious
circumstances, the Court has to give effect to the Will, even if it appears
unnatural in the sense that it excludes, wholly or partly, the testator’s near
relations.
86. ThereafterinRabindra Nath Mukherjee v. Panchanan Banerjee;(1995)
4 SCC 459,the Supreme Court observed that the circumstance of deprivation
of natural heirs should not, by itself, raise any suspicion because the whole
idea behind execution of the Will is to interfere with the normal line of
succession.
87. The said principle was reiterated in Uma Devi Nambiar v. T.C.
Sidhan, (2004) 2 SCC 321, where the Supreme Court held that “A Will is
executed to alter the ordinary mode of succession and by the very nature of
things it is bound to result in either reducing or depriving the share of
natural heirs. If a person intends his property to pass to his natural heirs,
there is no necessity at all of executing a Will. It is true that a propounder of
the Will has to remove all suspicious circumstances. Suspicion means doubt,
RFA 73/2025 Page 22 of 32
Signature Not Verified
DigitallySigned By:RITA
SHARMA
Signing Date:04.08.2026
17:18:37
conjecture or mistrust. But the fact that natural heirs have either been
excluded or a lesser share has been given to them, by itself without
anything more, cannot be held to be a suspicious circumstance especially
in a case where the bequest has been made in favour of an offspring.”
88. The same principle was applied by the Supreme Court in Mahesh
Kumar (Dead) by LRs v. Vinod Kumar, (2012) 4 SCC 387,wherein it was
held that making a Will in favour of one son (the propounder), to the
exclusion of other sons, is not a suspicious circumstance when the
propounder had looked after his old aged parents while the other son had
never bothered about them. Since the children had neglected the father
during his last days, exclusion of other siblings and bequeathing entire estate
to only one child will not draw an inference of suspicion or invalidate the
will.
89. Likewise, in Hari Singh v. State, 2010 SCC OnLine Del 4269, the
Delhi High Court held that the mere disinheritance of natural heirs cannot,
by itself, constitute a suspicious circumstance. Moreover, Courts are not
expected to be satisfied that a bequeathal is rational or not; what has to be
considered is whether the bequest was so unnatural that the Testator could
not have made it. They have to be mindful of the fact that the Courts have to
uphold the wishes expressed and not the wisdom behind the same.
90. More recently, in Neelam Singh v. Dr Sudha Sinha, 2022 SCC
OnLineJhar 1231, it was held that the degree of proof and appreciation of
evidence is based on preponderance of probability, depending on the
evidence on record taken as a whole. Where there is overwhelming evidence
establishing the due execution of the Will, the mere exclusion of a natural
heir cannot invalidate it.
RFA 73/2025 Page 23 of 32
Signature Not Verified
DigitallySigned By:RITA
SHARMA
Signing Date:04.08.2026
17:18:37
91. In the present case, the material on record discloses a plausible
explanation for the disposition made under the Will. The relevant part of the
Will reads as under:
92. PW-1, Sh. Prem Chand, deposed that his brother, Sh. Subhash, had
been disowned by the Testator way back in 1996. He further deposed that all
the properties were self-acquired by the Testator, who was well within his
right to dispose of the same in any manner, to any person, for or without
consideration, in the manner prescribed under law. PW-1 also deposed that
he had borne all the medical expenses of the deceased and that the Testator
had declared the mode of transfer of his properties by executing the Will
RFA 73/2025 Page 24 of 32
Signature Not Verified
DigitallySigned By:RITA
SHARMA
Signing Date:04.08.2026
17:18:37
before the Sub-Registrar. The testimony of PW-1 is fully corroborated by
PW-2, Sh. Mahender Kumar, the other brother.
93. It has further emerged from the cross-examination of PW-1 that the
Testator had disclosed the reasons to the Sub-Registrar for not bequeathing
the properties to the other children. PW-3, Sh. D.K. Sharma, likewise
deposed that the Testator had told him that he was not giving the properties
to anyone else, as they were intending to sell the properties.
94. The evidence, therefore, consistently establishes that the Testator
himself furnished cogent reasons for the disposition made under the Will
and that the exclusion of the remaining heirs was a conscious and deliberate
decision on his part.
95. Much has been argued on behalf of the Appellants that PW-1 had
admitted in his cross-examination that the Testator had told him that he
should follow the instructions of elder brother, PW -2, Sh. Mahender
Kumar, and look after the properties after the deceased, and that he should
distribute the properties in equal proportions, as per the instructions of Sh.
Mahender Kumar, amongst the brothers.
96. The said admission, however, does not advance the case of the
Appellants. The honest statement of PW-1 reflects that there was no
manipulation or undue influence exerted upon the Testator, but it was the
Testator who intentionally bequeathed all the properties to the Petitioner.
The Testator may have desired that the Petitioner, after his demise, must
take care of the brothers and also effect an equitable distribution, but that
was his wish and not the contents of the bequest, wherein all the movable
and immovable properties were bequeathed to the Petitioner.
RFA 73/2025 Page 25 of 32
Signature Not Verified
DigitallySigned By:RITA
SHARMA
Signing Date:04.08.2026
17:18:37
97. The evidence consistently indicates that the deceased intended to
preserve his estate and consciously chose to bequeath the same in favour of
Prem Chand. The Appellants have not produced any cogent material to
establish that the disposition was the result of coercion, undue influence, or
any circumstance inconsistent with the free volition of the deceased. Their
challenge rests primarily upon the fact of exclusion itself, which, in law, is
insufficient to dislodge an otherwise, valid testament.
98. Consequently, the exclusion of the remaining legal heirs cannot, in
the facts and circumstances of the present case, be regarded as an
unexplained suspicious circumstance, so as to cast any doubt upon the
genuineness or validity of the Will.
(c) Reference to the one Karkardooma property and not the other
properties owned by the Testator:
99. The Appellants have further contended that the specific mention
ofonly one land comprised in Khasra No.331 Min., Village Karkardooma,
and not the other properties in the Will itself renders the testament doubtful,
since the said land had admittedly been acquired by the Delhi Development
Authority decades prior to the execution of the Will.
100. PW-1, Prem Chand, deposed that this Karkardooma property stood in
the name of the deceased, at the time when the Will was executed. He,
however, admitted that possession thereof had already been taken over by
the Delhi Development Authority pursuant to acquisition proceedings
undertaken during the years 1970-71. PW-1 further denied that the deceased
had already received compensation in respect of the acquired land.
101. The fact that one of the properties referred to in the Will had earlier
been acquired by the Delhi Development Authority does not, by itself, cast
RFA 73/2025 Page 26 of 32
Signature Not Verified
DigitallySigned By:RITA
SHARMA
Signing Date:04.08.2026
17:18:37
any doubt upon the validity of the testament. Even assuming that the said
property did not ultimately form part of the estate available for succession,
its inclusion cannot invalidate an otherwise duly proved Will or constitute a
suspicious circumstance affecting its genuineness.
102. Besides specifically referring to the land situated in Village
Karkardooma, the Will also contained a general bequest in respect of all
movable and immovable assets belonging to the Testator, including his bank
accounts and properties which might thereafter devolve upon Prem Chand.
While the Testator may not have specified the details of the other movable
and immovable properties in the Will itself, the details of the same have
been furnished by PW-1 in his testimony as Schedule A, Ex. PW-1/4. The
Testator’s intention to bequeath all his properties was clearly manifest in the
Will, the authenticity of which has been established by the Petitioner. Mere
non-mentioning of details of all the properties cannot take away the
voluntariness in the execution of the Will.
103. The issue before a Probate Court is not whether the Testator
possessed a valid title to every property mentioned in the Will, but whether
the testament truly represents his last testamentary intention; the
jurisdiction exercised in Probate proceedings is confined to determining the
genuineness and due execution of the Will. The questions relating to title,
ownership, acquisition proceedings or the extent of the interest of the
deceased in any particular property, lie outside the scope of probate
jurisdiction and are required to be adjudicated independently in appropriate
proceedings.
104. The jurisdiction of the Probate Court is confined to examining the
genuineness and validity of the testament and not disputes relating to title or
RFA 73/2025 Page 27 of 32
Signature Not Verified
DigitallySigned By:RITA
SHARMA
Signing Date:04.08.2026
17:18:37
ownership over the estate. In Sameer Kapoor v. State, (2020) 12 SCC 480,
the Supreme Court reiterated that probate proceedings are concerned only
with the proof of the Will and do not adjudicate proprietary rights in the
properties comprised therein.
105. Consequently, neither the inclusion of the acquired Karkardooma
property nor the non-specification of the remaining properties in the body of
the Will, constitutes a suspicious circumstance warranting rejection of the
testament.
(d) Effect of registration of the Will:
106. The Appellants have also contended that the learned Trial Court
attached undue significance to the fact that the Will, was registered.
107. It is well settled that registration is neither mandatory for the validity
of a Will nor sufficient, by itself, to prove its due execution and attestation.
Nevertheless, where a Will has otherwise been proved in accordance with
law, registration constitutes a relevant corroborative circumstance while
appreciating its genuineness.
108. In the present case, the registration of the Will does not stand in
isolation. PW-4, Sh. D.S. Rawat, UDC from the office of the Sub-Registrar,
Geeta Colony, Delhi, produced the original register and proved from the
official record that the Will was registered on 28.12.2005, vide Registration
No. 9595, Book No. III, Volume No. 723. The official registration record
duly corroborates the evidence of the attesting witnesses. No material has
been brought on record to suggest that the registration proceedings were
manipulated or that the official record was fabricated.
109. The learned Trial Court itself recorded an observation that no page
number was mentioned in the register produced by PW-4 and that although
RFA 73/2025 Page 28 of 32
Signature Not Verified
DigitallySigned By:RITA
SHARMA
Signing Date:04.08.2026
17:18:37
the Will was stated to be registered from pages 74 to 77, the Will actually
consisted of two pages. PW-4 explained that the said discrepancy of
pagination had occurred, on account of a typing error. The explanation is
satisfactory and the minor discrepancy does not affect the authenticity of the
official record, particularly when PW-4’s testimony was confined to proving
the official record, which he duly produced.
110. Thus, the minor discrepancy regarding pagination of the Registration
Register,is satisfactorily explained and does not affect the authenticity of the
official record.
111. PW-4 further denied the suggestion that the Testator and the
witnesses had not appeared before the Sub-Registrar or that the formalities
were completed at the window. The Slip No. 41958 dated 28.12.2005
mentioned on the first page of the Will, with a corresponding entry in the
relevant register, independently corroborates the fact that the Will was
presented and registered on 28.12.2005.
112. Accordingly, although the registration of the Will cannot by itself
establish its validity, it furnishes an additional corroborative circumstance
which, when read together with the evidence proving the due execution and
attestation of the testament, lends further assurance to its genuineness.
113. Viewed cumulatively, none of the circumstances relied upon by the
Appellants, whether individually or collectively, give rise to any legitimate
suspicion regarding the execution or genuineness of the Will. The
circumstances relied upon stand either satisfactorily explained from the
evidence on record or are legally insufficient to invalidate an otherwise duly
proved testament. This Court, therefore, concurs with the finding of the
RFA 73/2025 Page 29 of 32
Signature Not Verified
DigitallySigned By:RITA
SHARMA
Signing Date:04.08.2026
17:18:37
learned ADJ that the Appellants have failed to establish the existence of
any suspicious circumstance warranting rejection of the Will.
IV. Whether prior partition was established from the evidence on record?
114. Considerable emphasis has also been laid by the Appellants upon the
plea that the deceased had already partitioned his properties amongst his
sons during his lifetime and that, consequently, no occasion survived for the
execution of the Will.
115. It is no doubt settled that a family arrangement or partition may be
oral and in such a case, no compulsory registration is required. In Kale v.
Deputy Director of Consolidation, (1976) 3 SCC 119, the Supreme Court
recognised that a family arrangement may be arrived at orally. However, the
party asserting such an arrangement must establish, by cogent evidence, that
a definite and concluded partition had in fact taken place and had thereafter
been acted upon by the parties.
116. In the present case, the plea of oral partition, remains wholly
unsubstantiated. The Appellants have failed to produce any
contemporaneous document, family settlement, memorandum, revenue
record or any other independent evidence, supporting the alleged partition.
Equally, none of the witnesses examined on behalf of the Appellants was
able to state with certainty the date, manner or terms of the alleged partition.
117. RW-1, Sh. Jagdish Prasad, deposed that their father, Sh. Nathu Ram
@ Nathu Singh, had divided the properties in his lifetime, amongst all the
legal heirs and that the possession of the respective parts and portions were
given to the respective shareholders as per his own sweet will and choice
and this fact had been told by Late Mr. Nathu Ram, to his relatives and
RFA 73/2025 Page 30 of 32
Signature Not Verified
DigitallySigned By:RITA
SHARMA
Signing Date:04.08.2026
17:18:37
friends. In his cross-examination, however, RW-1 was confronted with his
Written Statement, wherein there was no specific plea of oral partition. He
further admitted that no written Partition Deed or any other document
evidencing such partition had ever been executed.
118. Additionally, RW-3, Sh. Ram Phool Singh, in his cross-examination,
admitted that no partition ever took place in his presence, but that he was
informed by Sh. Nathu Ram that he had partitioned his properties amongst
his sons. Likewise, RW-2, Sh. Pyare Lal, admitted in his cross-examination
that there was no document prepared regarding the partition. He also did not
remember the year in which the properties were allegedly partitioned.
119. Thus, what emerges from the testimony and the admissions of the
Appellants’ own witnesses, is that the brothers were residing in separate
portions, to which the Testator may have conceded or had no objection, but
merely because they were occupying different portions does not imply that
there was any partition, whether oral or otherwise, between the parties.
There may have been an arrangement where they were all living in the
respective portions, but there is not an iota of evidence to establish that any
concluded partition had ever taken place. The admissions made by the
Objectors themselves, undermine their plea.
120. The plea of prior oral partition, therefore, rests upon vague and
inconsistent assertions, unsupported by any cogent evidence.
V. Whether the impugned Judgment suffers from such illegality, perversity
or misappreciation of evidence as would warrant interference by this
Court.
RFA 73/2025 Page 31 of 32
Signature Not Verified
DigitallySigned By:RITA
SHARMA
Signing Date:04.08.2026
17:18:37
121. In view of the foregoing discussion, it is held that the Petitioner has
succeeded in proving the due execution and attestation of the Will in
accordance with Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 read with
Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The deceased Testator was in a
sound disposing state of mind at the time of execution of the testament.
None of the circumstances relied upon by the Appellants constitutes a
suspicious circumstance warranting rejection of the Will and the plea of
prior oral partition also remains wholly unsubstantiated.
122. The findings and the conclusions recorded by the learned ADJ are
founded upon proper appreciation of the evidence and are in consonance
with the settled principles governing proof of testamentary instruments. No
perversity, illegality or material irregularity has been demonstrated so as to
warrant interference in appellate jurisdiction. The impugned Judgment,
therefore, calls for no interference.
Conclusion:
123. In the light of the above discussion, the Judgment dated 15.11.2010 of
the learned Additional District Judge, Delhi, granting Probate of Will is
hereby, affirmed. The Appeal, being devoid of merit, is accordingly
dismissed.
124. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of, accordingly.
(NEENA BANSAL KRISHNA)
JUDGE
AUGUST 04, 2026/RS
RFA 73/2025 Page 32 of 32
Signature Not Verified
DigitallySigned By:RITA
SHARMA
Signing Date:04.08.2026
17:18:37
