Government Can Resume Leased Land For Public Purpose; 'Substantial Compliance' Of 60-Day Notice Sufficient: Kerala High Court Revenue Can't Cite Pending Litigation to Justify One Year of Adjudication Inaction: Karnataka High Court Limitation | 1,142 Days of Silence: Orissa High Court Rejects Litigant's Claim That His Lawyer Never Called SC/ST Act's Bar on Anticipatory Bail Does Not Apply When Complaint Fails to Make Out Prima Facie Case: Karnataka High Court Oral Agreement for Sale Cannot Be Dismissed for Want of Stamp or Registration: Calcutta High Court Upholds Injunction Finance Company's Own Legal Manager Cannot Appoint Arbitrator — Award Passed by Such Arbitrator Is Non-Est and Inexecutable: Andhra Pradesh High Court District Court Cannot Remand Charity Commissioner's Order: Bombay High Court Division Bench Settles Conflicting Views Framing "Points For Determination" Not Always Mandatory For First Appellate Courts: Allahabad High Court Delhi HC Finds Rape Conviction Cannot Stand On Testimony Where Victim Showed 'Unnatural Concern' For Her Alleged Attacker Limitation in Partition Suit Cannot Be Decided Without Evidence: Karnataka High Court Cheque Dishonour Accused Can Probabilise Defence Without Entering Witness Box — Through Cross-Examination And Marked Documents Alone: Madras High Court Contributory Negligence | No Driving Licence and Three on a Motorcycle Cannot Mean the Victim Caused the Accident: Rajasthan High Court LL.B Degree Cannot Be Ground to Deny Maintenance to Divorced Wife: Gujarat High Court Dried Leaves and Branches Are Not 'Ganja': Delhi High Court Grants Bail Under NDPS Act Family Court Judge Secretly Compared Handwriting Without Telling Wife, Then Punished Her Hesitation: Delhi High Court Quashes Divorce Decree Co-Owner Can Sell Undivided Share in Joint Property Without Consent of Other Co-owners — Sale Deed Valid to Extent of Transferor's Share: Orissa High Court Mandatory Safeguards of Section 42 NDPS Cannot Be Bypassed — Even When 1329 Kg of Hashish Is Seized: Gujarat High Court Affirms Acquittal

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