Cruelty Need Not Be Physical: Mental Agony and Emotional Distress Are Sufficient Grounds for Divorce: Supreme Court Section 195 Cr.P.C. | Tribunals Are Not Courts: Private Complaints for Offences Like False Evidence Valid: Supreme Court Limitation | Right to Appeal Is Fundamental, Especially When Liberty Is at Stake: Supreme Court Condones 1637-Day Delay FIR Quashed | No Mens Rea, No Crime: Supreme Court Emphasizes Protection of Public Servants Acting in Good Faith Trademark | Passing Off Rights Trump Registration Rights: Delhi High Court A Minor Procedural Delay Should Not Disqualify Advances as Export Credit When Exports Are Fulfilled on Time: Bombay HC Preventive Detention Must Be Based on Relevant and Proximate Material: J&K High Court Terrorism Stems From Hateful Thoughts, Not Physical Abilities: Madhya Pradesh High Court Denies Bail of Alleged ISIS Conspiracy Forwarding Offensive Content Equals Liability: Madras High Court Upholds Conviction for Derogatory Social Media Post Against Women Journalists Investigation by Trap Leader Prejudiced the Case: Rajasthan High Court Quashes Conviction in PC Case Absence of Receipts No Barrier to Justice: Madras High Court Orders Theft Complaint Referral Under Section 156(3) Cr.P.C Rajasthan High Court Emphasizes Rehabilitation, Grants Probation to 67-Year-Old Convicted of Kidnapping" P&H High Court Dismisses Contempt Petition Against Advocate Renuka Chopra: “A Frustrated Outburst Amid Systemic Challenges” Kerala High Court Criticizes Irregularities in Sabarimala Melsanthi Selection, Orders Compliance with Guidelines Non-Payment of Rent Does Not Constitute Criminal Breach of Trust: Calcutta High Court Administrative Orders Cannot Override Terminated Contracts: Rajasthan High Court Affirms in Landmark Decision Minimum Wage Claims Must Be Resolved by Designated Authorities Under the Minimum Wages Act, Not the Labour Court: Punjab and Haryana High Court Madras High Court Confirms Equal Coparcenary Rights for Daughters, Emphasizes Ancestral Property Rights Home Station Preferences Upheld in Transfer Case: Kerala High Court Overrules Tribunal on Teachers' Transfer Policy Failure to Formally Request Cross-Examination Does Not Invalidate Assessment Order: Calcutta High Court

Delhi High Court Sets Aside Trial Court Order, Grants Probate of Will Dated 2007: Emphasizes on Removing Suspicious Circumstances for Will Acceptance

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant judgment pronounced on February 5, 2024, the Delhi High Court overturned the Trial Court’s decision, granting probate of a Will dated April 4, 2007, in the case of Vijender Singh versus State & Ors. The case, marked by complexities of property rights and legitimacy of a will, highlights the intricate legal standards applied to testamentary disputes.

The appellant, Vijender Singh, had challenged the Trial Court’s decision dated April 26, 2018, which dismissed his probate petition concerning a will executed by his mother, Smt. Lado. The disputed properties are located in Village Khizrabad, New Delhi.

The case pivoted on the Indian Succession Act, 1925, with crucial references to Sections 63 and 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The appellant’s counsel, Mr. Sunil Choudhary, argued that the Trial Court failed to recognize the Will as a legally enforceable document, being unduly influenced by minor contradictions.

Respondent No. 3 contested the Will’s authenticity, claiming it to be a fake document and alleging ancestral rights over the properties.

Justice Shalinder Kaur, while delivering the judgment, noted, “The first fundamental aspect is whether the testatrix understood the contents of the Will.” The Court meticulously examined the testimonies and evidence, emphasizing the principles governing the proof of a Will as established in various Supreme Court decisions.

The High Court identified that the Will’s execution was proven in accordance with the pertinent sections of the Indian Succession Act and the Indian Evidence Act. It was found that the suspicious circumstances noted by the Trial Court were not substantial enough to override the evidence proving the Will’s authenticity.

The High Court set aside the impugned order of the Trial Court, accepting the appeal and granting probate of the Will subject to the payment of requisite stamp duty and fee. The Court ordered, “The appellant/petitioner is exempted from furnishing any security bond.”

Date of Decision:  05.02.2024

VIJENDER SINGH VS STATE & ORS

 

Similar News