MACT | Fraud Vitiates All Judicial Acts, Even Without Specific Review Powers: Rajasthan High Court    |     Right of Private Defense Cannot Be Weighed in Golden Scales: Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Appellant in Culpable Homicide Case    |     Pre-Arrest Bail Not a Right but an Exception: Himachal High Court Denied Bail In Dowry Death Case"    |     Service Law | Similarly Situated Employees Cannot Be Denied Equal Treatment: PH High Court Orders Regularization    |     Presumption of Innocence Remains Supreme Unless Clearly Overturned: PH High Court Affirming Acquittal    |     Any Physical Liaison with A Girl Of Less Than Eighteen Years Is A Strict Offense.: Patna High Court Reiterates Strict Stance On Sexual Offences Against Minors    |     Orissa High Court Rules Res Judicata Inapplicable When Multiple Appeals Arise from Same Judgment    |     Mandatory Section 80 Notice Cannot Be Bypassed Lightly:  Jammu & Kashmir High Court Returns Plaint for Non-Compliance    |     Bombay High Court Denies Permanent Lecturer Appointment for Failing to Meet UGC Eligibility Criteria at Time of Appointment    |     Deferred Cross-Examination Gave Time for Witness Tampering, Undermining Fair Trial: Allahabad High Court    |     Dowry Death | Presumption Under Section 113-B Not Applicable as No Proof of Cruelty Soon Before Death : Supreme Court    |     Land Acquisition | Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. (JAL) Liable for Compensation under Supplementary Award, Not Ultra-Tech Cement Ltd.: Supreme Court    |     Non-Mentioning of Bail Orders in Detention Reflects Clear Non-Application of Mind: J&K High Court Quashes Preventive Detention Order    |     Conviction Under Arms Act and Criminal Conspiracy Quashed Due to Non-Seizure of Key Evidence and Failure to Prove Ownership of Box: Jharkhand 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