Mrs. Veena Nirmal Singh vs State

V.K. Shali, J.—This is a petition filed by Smt. Veena Nirmal Singh wife of Mr. Nirmal Singh, R/o R-11, Nehru Enclave, Kalkaji, New Delhi-19 for grant of probate of a Will dated 18.4.2009 made by the widowed sister Neelam Sahni who died on 07.4.2009. It is stated in the petition that the deceased/testator Smt. Neelam Sahni was widow and she did not have any issue from the wedlock. It is alleged that the deceased/testator had inherited from her father Sh. Rajinder Singh, properties, the details of which are given in Schedule which comprised of property i.e. basement, ground floor and second floor situated at R-11, Nehru Enclave, Kalkaji, New Delhi-19, bank account No. 10561 in Punjab and Sind Bank, Hemkunt Branch, New Delhi, a car Hyundai Santro, bearing registration No. DL 3 CAQ 7311, jewellery items (gold chain, ring, ear-rings, gajra), furniture and fixtures. The total valuation of the entire property left behind by the deceased is given as Rs. 82,75,711.46 p.

It is alleged that the deceased/testator before her death had made a Will on 18.4.2009 bequeathing the entire movable and immovable properties in favour of the present petitioner as she was not survived by any other legal heir being the widow and not having any room of her own. On filing the present petition, notice was issued to the Chief Revenue Officer calling for the valuation report, which has been submitted by the Appellate Collector, Tehsildar, Kalkaji on 3rd December, 2009 valuing the entire assets of the deceased/testator at Rs. 1,67,22,600/-. The said valuation has not been challenged by anybody and therefore is exhibiting the correct valuation of the assets both movable and immovable properties of the deceased/testator.

Citation was issued in English as well as Hindi newspapers namely ''Statesman'' (English edition) and ''Dainik Jagran'' (Hindi edition) vide order dated 26.8.2009. Despite publication having been effected in the newspapers on 08.10.2009, copies of which have been placed on record, objections were not received from any quarter so far as the Will of the deceased/testator is concerned.

There being no contest to the Will of the deceased/testator, the petitioner was directed to file evidence by way of affidavit in support of her case. The petitioner had filed her own affidavit exhibited as Ex.PW1/A which was proved by her by entering into the witness box as PW-1. The affidavit itself has been exhibited as Ex.PW1/A and the death certificate of the deceased/testator was also exhibited as Ex.PW1/1. The death certificate of the deceased/testator establishes that she had died on 27.4.2009. The Will of the deceased/testator was witnessed by two witnesses namely Dr. Sunil Tangri and Dr. V.P. Kaushik. The petitioner in order to prove the Will of the deceased has filed an affidavit of Dr. Sunil Tangri who appeared as PW-2 also, he testified that Will Ex.PW2/1 was made by the deceased/testator voluntarily bequeathing her entire immovable and movable assets in favour of her real sister/the present petitioner. It has been mentioned in the Will by the deceased/testator that she has no issue of her own and her mother had expired in 1984, her father expired in 2008 and thus she was survived by her sibling, the present petitioner. She had bequeathed the entire movable and immovable properties, details of which are given in the schedule of properties in favour of the present petitioner. It is also testified by Dr. Sunil Tangri that at the time when the deceased had made the Will, she was of sound mind.

Section 68 of the Evidence Act, 1872 reads as under:

Proof of execution of document required by law to be attested.- If a document is required by law to be attested, it shall not be used as evidence until one attesting witness at least has been called for the purpose of proving its execution, if there be an attesting witness alive, and subject to the process of the Court and capable of giving evidence.

[Provided that it shall not be necessary to call an attesting witness in proof of the execution of any document, not being a Will, which has been registered in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), unless its execution by the person by whom it purports to have been executed is specifically denied.]

In the instant case, although both the attesting witnesses are available but after having chosen to examine, one witness to the Will namely Dr.Sunil Tangri, the execution of the Will dated 18.4.2009 by the deceased/testator in favour of the present petitioner is duly proved. There is absolutely no challenge to the ex parte proof of the Will purported to have been made by the deceased/testator. I therefore, hold that producing the aforesaid evidence as the proof and due execution of the Will dated 18.4.2009 by the deceased/testator is duly proved. There is no impediment to the grant of probate in favour of the present petitioner.

I accordingly grant the probate in favour of the present petitioner appointing her as an administrator for administrating the estate, details of which are given in Annexure ''B'' to the petition of the deceased testator.

The valuation report having been exhibited, the petitioner is directed to furnish the requisite administration bond and surety bond and complete the necessary formalities in this regard. Any deficiency in the court fees, in the light of the valuation report, shall also be rectified.

Post the matter before the Joint Registrar on 16.7.2010.