Judicial Review Is Not A Substitute For Examiner’s Judgment: Delhi High Court Rejects DJSE Candidate’s Plea Over Alteration of Marks Part-Payments Extend Limitation - Each Payment Revives Limitation: Delhi High Court Non-Stamping Renders A Document Inadmissible, Not Void – Defect Is Curable Once Duty Is Paid: Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Specific Performance MP High Court Upholds Ladli Behna Yojana Criteria; Rules Registration Deadlines and Age Limits Fall Under Executive Domain Criminal Courts Are Not Recovery Agents: Orissa High Court Grants Bail in ₹3.5 Crore Land Fraud Cases Citing Article 21 and Terminal Illness 304 Part I IPC | Sudden Fight Between Brothers Over Mud House Construction: Jharkhand High Court Converts Murder Conviction To Culpable Homicide When Rape Fails, Section 450 Cannot Stand: Orissa High Court Acquits Accused of House-Trespass After Finding Relationship Consensual Concurrent Eviction Orders Will Not Be Reopened Under Article 227: Madras High Court Section 128 Contract Act | Surety’s Liability Is Co-Extensive: Kerala High Court Upholds Recovery from Guarantors’ Salary Custodial Interrogation Not Warranted When Offences Are Not Punishable With Death or Life: Karnataka High Court Grants Anticipatory Bail to Deputy Tahsildar in Land Records Case Order VIII Rules 3 & 5 CPC | Silence Is Admission: State’s Failure To Specifically Deny Hiring Amounts To Acceptance: JK HC Consumer | No Complete Deficiency In Service — Excess Rainfall Also To Blame: Supreme Court Halves Compensation In Groundnut Seed Crop Failure Case Development Cannot Override The Master Plan: Supreme Court Nullifies Cement Unit CLU In Agricultural Zone Negative Viscera Report Is Not a Passport to Acquittal: Madras High Court Confirms Life Term of Parents for Poisoning Mentally Retarded Daughter Observations Have Had a Demoralising and Chilling Effect: Allahabad High Court Judge Recuses from Bail Matter After Supreme Court’s Strong Remarks Controversial YouTube Remarks On ‘Black Magic Village’ Not A Crime: Gauhati High Court Quashes FIR Against Abhishek Kar “Failure To Specifically Deny Allegations Amounts To Admission”: J&K High Court Reiterates Law Under Order VIII CPC Section 293 Cr.P.C. Does Not Bar Examination of Expert When DNA Report Is Disputed: MP High Court Medical Evidence Trumps False Alibi: Allahabad HC Upholds Conviction In Matrimonial Murder Where Strangulation Was Masked By Post-Mortem Burning Helping Young Advocates Is Not A Favour – It Is A Need For A Better Justice System: Rajasthan High Court Section 82 Cr.P.C. | Mere Non-Appearance Does Not Ipsi Facto Establish Absconding: Punjab & Haryana High Court Sets Aside Order Declaring Student Abroad as Proclaimed Person

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

 

Latest Legal News