Gratuity Is a Property Right, Not a Charity: MP High Court Upholds Gratuity Claims of Long-Term Contract Workers Seized Vehicles Must Not Be Left to Rot in Open Yards: Madras High Court Invokes Article 21, Orders Release of Vehicle Seized in Illegal Quarrying Case Even After Talaq And A Settlement, A Divorced Muslim Woman Can Claim Maintenance Under Section 125 CRPC: Kerala High Court Bail Cannot Be Withheld as Punishment: Himachal Pradesh High Court Grants Bail to Govt Official in ₹200 Cr. Scholarship Scam Citing Delay and Article 21 Violation Custodial Interrogation Necessary in Serious Economic Offences: Delhi High Court Denies Anticipatory Bail in ₹1.91 Cr Housing Scam Specific Relief Act | Readiness and Willingness Must Be Real and Continuous — Plaintiffs Cannot Withhold Funds and Blame the Seller: Bombay High Court Even If Claim Is Styled Under Section 163A, It Can Be Treated Under Section 166 If Negligence Is Pleaded And Higher Compensation Is Claimed: Supreme Court When Cheating Flows from One Criminal Conspiracy, the Law Does Not Demand 1852 FIRs: Supreme Court Upholds Single FIR in Multi-Crore Cheating Case Initiating Multiple FIRs on Same Facts is Impermissible: Supreme Court Quashes Parallel FIRs and Grants Bail Protection in Refund Case Not Every Middleman Is a Trafficker: Gujarat High Court Grants Bail in International Cyber Trafficking Case, Cites Absence of Mens Rea Stay in One Corner Freezes the Whole Map: Madras High Court Upholds Validity of Decades-Old Land Acquisition Despite 11-Year Delay in Award Parole Once Granted Cannot Be Made Illusory by Imposing Impossible Conditions: Rajasthan High Court Declares Mechanical Surety Requirement for Indigent Convicts Unconstitutional Once Acquisition Is Complete, Title Disputes Fall Outside Civil Court Jurisdiction: Madhya Pradesh High Court No Appeal Lies Against Lok Adalat Compromise Decree Even on Grounds of Fraud: Orissa High Court Declares First Appeal Not Maintainable Sanction to Prosecute Under UAPA Cannot Be a Mechanical Act: Supreme Court Quashes Jharkhand Government’s Third-Time Sanction Without New Evidence FIRs in Corruption Cases Cannot Be Quashed on Hyper-Technical Grounds of Police Station Jurisdiction: Supreme Court Restores ACB Investigations Quashed by Andhra Pradesh High Court Mere Completion of Ayurvedic Nursing Training Does Not Confer Right to Appointment: Supreme Court Rejects Legitimate Expectation Claim by Trainees University’s Error Can’t Cost a Student Her Future: Supreme Court Directs Manav Bharti University to Issue Withheld Degree and Marksheets Due to Clerical Mistake Disciplinary Exoneration Cannot Shield Public Servant from Criminal Trial in Corruption Cases: Supreme Court Customs Tariff Act | ‘End Use’ and ‘Common Parlance’ Tests Cannot Override Statutory Context: Supreme Court Classifies Mushroom Shelves as ‘Aluminium Structures’ Supreme Court Allows PIL Against Limited Maternity Benefits for Adoptive Mothers to Continue Under New Social Security Code Liberty Cannot Wait for Endless Trials: Supreme Court Grants Bail to Wadhawan Brothers in ₹57,000 Crore DHFL Scam

Delhi High Court Upholds the Sanctity of Testator’s Intent in Granting Probate – ‘A Testamentary Court is Not a Court of Suspicion, But That of Conscience’ Rules Justice Rekha Palli”

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a landmark judgment passed on November 17, 2023, the Delhi High Court upheld the validity of a contested Will, emphasizing the importance of the testator’s intent and mental state in testamentary disputes. Justice Rekha Palli, in her profound observation, stated, “A testamentary court is not a court of suspicion, but that of conscience.”

The case revolved around the Will dated September 27, 2012, of the late Ms. Kanval Dhillon, with her sisters challenging its authenticity. They contested the probate citing concerns over overwriting and cuttings in the Will. The petitioners, close friends of the deceased, sought to validate the Will under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.

The crux of the dispute lay in the interpretation of the Indian Succession Act’s provisions regarding the execution of Wills, specifically Section 63, and the impact of alleged alterations on the Will’s validity. Justice Palli, in her judgment, delved deep into these aspects, underscoring the necessity to consider the testamentary intent and the mental state of the testator.

The court meticulously analyzed the testimonies of witnesses from both sides, including that of Ms. Seema Bansal (PW4), an attesting witness. The evidence reinforced the notion that the testatrix was of sound disposing mind when drafting the Will, despite the familial disputes and subsequent litigations.

Justice Palli’s decision not only elucidates the legal principles governing the execution of Wills but also sheds light on the complex interplay between familial relations and legal rights. The judgment is a testament to the court’s commitment to uphold the true wishes of the testator, ensuring that justice prevails in the realm of testamentary law.

Justice Palli reinforced the notion that minor alterations in a Will do not necessarily mar its validity, especially when the overarching intent remains clear and unambiguous. This judgment sets a precedent for future cases involving contested Wills, emphasizing the need for a balanced and conscientious approach in such sensitive legal matters.

Date of Decision: 17 November 2023

BHUPINDER SINGH & ORS VS  STATE & OTHERS      

Latest Legal News