Prof. B.R. Grover vs The State

Valmiki J Mehta, J.—This Testamentary Case was filed seeking probate of the Will dated 22.7.1994 of late Smt. Lajwanti Grover, wife of late Sh. Haveli Ram Grover. The petition was originally filed by the named executor - Mr. B.R. Grover, a son and a beneficiary under the Will. On the death of Sh. B.R. Grover during the pendency of the case, he was substituted by Brigadier Surinder Kumar Grover, another son of deceased Smt. Lajwanti Grover, and also one of the beneficiary under the Will dated 22.7.1994. The probate petition therefore will become a petition for grant of letters of administration with the Will annexed inasmuch as the executor of the Will is no longer alive. Sh. Haveli Ram Grover married twice. The first wife (hereinafter referred to as the ''first wife'' inasmuch as none of the counsel could disclose the name of the first wife nor the name appears in the judicial record) died sometime in 1918. There were three children from the first marriage of Haveli Ram Grover namely Smt. Leela Devi Dua (daughter), Smt. Vidyawati (daughter) and Sh. Roshan Lal Grover (son). Smt. Lajwanti Grover was the second wife of late Sh. Haveli Ram Grover. From this second marriage of Sh. Haveli Ram Grover with Smt. Lajwanti Grover, seven children were born i.e. five sons and two daughters. The elder son was Sh. Darbari Lal Grover who expired before the death of Smt. Lajwanti Grover. Sh. Darbari Lal Grover died sometime around in August, 1979 leaving behind his widow - Smt. Santosh Grover and three daughters namely Smt. Anju Choudhary, Smt. Kiran Chaddha and Smt. Neelam Manchanda. The other four sons of Smt. Lajwanti Grover who were alive on the date of death of Smt. Lajwanti Grover on 18.6.1995 were Sh. Baldev Raj Grover (erstwhile petitioner), Sh. Om Prakash Grover (one of the objector), Sh. Sudarshan Kumar Grover (another objector) and Sh. Surinder Kumar Grover (the present petitioner who was substituted for Sh. Baldev Raj Grover the original petitioner). The two daughters are Kumari Amrita Grover and Kumari Shakuntala Grover.

I have given extensive details of the family inasmuch as it will have to be understood as to who are in law entitled to file objections to the Will. Objections have been filed by three persons/sets of persons. Objections firstly are filed by Sh. Roshan Lal Grover, who is the son of the first wife of late Sh. Haveli Ram Grover. The second set of objections have been filed by the legal heirs of the pre-deceased son Sh. Darbari Lal Grover namely Sh. Santosh Grover (widow of Darbari Lal Grover) and Smt. Kiran Chhadha and Smt. Neelam Manchanda, two daughters of Sh. Darbari Lal Grover. One daughter of Sh. Darbari Lal Grover, Smt. Anju Choudhary has given her no-objection to the grant of the probate inasmuch as she is a beneficiary under the Will. Third set of objections are filed by Sh. Om Prakash Grover and Sh. Sudarshan Kumar Grover. Though objections have been separately filed by these two sons of late Smt. Lajwanti Grover, however I am taking objections filed by both these persons, Sh. Om Prakash Grover and Sh. Sudarshan Kumar Grover together inasmuch as objections filed by them are near identical. Sh. Sudharshan Kumar Grover expired during the pendency of the petition and he is represented by his legal heirs including his widow - Smt. Manju Grover.

So far as the objections which have been filed by Sh. Roshan Lal Grover who is the son of the first wife of late Sh. Haveli Ram Grover, these objections have to be dismissed in limine/forthwith inasmuch as Sh. Roshal Lal Grover has no locus standi to file any objections to the Will of Smt. Lajwanti Grover. This I say so because objections are filed either by the legal heirs or others who inherit properties of the deceased under the applicable law of succession or any other person including the legal heirs, who claimed to inherit the property through a different Will or by any other method legally provided. Sh. Roshan Lal Grover does not claim any Will to be executed in his favour, and since as per the Schedule to the Hindu Succession Act, 1956 there are preferential class heirs being the children of Smt. Lajwanti Grover who are alive, Sh. Roshan Lal Grover is not a legal heir and thus has no locus standi to file any objections. Any and every person (except who would be entitled to the estate of the deceased), cannot file objections to the Will. I therefore reject the objections filed by Sh. Roshan Lal Grover.

So far as the objections which are filed by Smt. Santosh Grover alongwith Smt. Kiran Chhadha and Smt. Neelam Manchanda, the legal heirs of Sh. Darbari Lal Grover, these objections in my opinion have also to be necessarily dismissed inasmuch as none of these persons have stepped into the witness box to prove their case whereas on behalf of the petitioner sufficient evidence has been led to prove the due execution of the Will of Smt. Lajwanti Grover. Of course, I would for the sake of formality, discuss the arguments which have been advanced by the Advocate - Mr. Chachra who appears for these legal heirs and for which discussion in this judgment it is assumed that those objections survive in spite of no evidence having been led by the objectors who are legal heirs of Sh. Darbari Lal Grover.

Coming to the objections of Sh. Om Prakash Grover (who argued his case in person) and Sh. Sudarshan Kumar Grover (who is now deceased and was represented through his widow Smt. Manju Grover during the final arguments) such objections as argued before me, were primarily on the ground that Smt. Lajwanti Grover was not the owner of the property bearing No.33/12, East Patel Nagar, New Delhi and therefore she could not bequeath the same. These arguments raised on behalf of Sh. Om Prakash Grover and the legal heirs of Sh. Sudarshan Kumar Grover are liable to be dismissed on the ground that a Probate Court does not go into the title of the properties. A Probate Court only examines the validity of the Will, i.e. essentially execution of the Will, attestation of the Will, and the sound disposing mind of the testator (which will include the aspect of any surrounding circumstances qua the Will which may show lack of sound disposing mind of the executor). Therefore, I reject the objections filed on behalf of Sh. Om Prakash Grover and Sh. Sudarshan Kumar Grover inasmuch as the only point urged before me is with regard to the title of the East Patel Nagar property, and which aspect cannot be examined in a probate petition. I am informed that there is already a partition suit which is pending where not only the legal heirs of Smt. Lajwanti Grover are parties, but in such suit the legal heirs from the first marriage of Sh. Haveli Ram Grover are also parties. These issues of title to this property as to whether Smt. Lajwanti Grover did own or did not own the East Patel Nagar property or whether the said property belonged to larger HUF would be heard and disposed of in that suit. I make no pronouncement on such issues which are subject matter of that partition suit inasmuch as a Court hearing a testamentary case has only to see the validity of the Will of Smt. Lajwanti Grover.

Therefore, in reality there are no objections at all before this Court because so far as the objections of Sh. Roshan Lal to the Will of Lajwanti Grover are concerned they stand dismissed on the ground of lack of locus standi, so far as the objections of the legal heirs of Sh. Darbari Lal Grover are concerned they would stand dismissed inasmuch as no evidence has been led on their behalf, and so far as the objections on behalf of Sh. Om Prakash Grover and late Sh. Sudarshan Kumar Grover are concerned they would stand dismissed inasmuch as the only issue urged was with respect to title of the property at East Patel Nagar and which cannot be an issue in a probate petition.

Independently of the fact that there are no objections, let me now examine as to whether the Will of late Smt. Lajwanti Grover has been proved to have been executed by late Smt. Lajwanti Grover, attested as per law and, whether Smt. Lajwanti Grover was in a sound disposing mind, hastening to add that this has to be considered in the light of the fact that there is no evidence to the contrary led on behalf of those objectors who matter or if led by Om Prakash Grover, no arguments have been addressed except on the aspect of lack of title of Smt. Lajwanti Grover to the East Patel Nagar property.

The Will in question dated 22.7.1994 was scribed by an Advocate-Dr. S.P. Sharma. It is not disputed, evidence having been led to this effect, that Dr. S.P. Sharma had been representing late Smt. Lajwanti Grover in various litigations. Therefore, Dr. S.P. Sharma is not a stranger and it is natural for a person to have a Will executed by a lawyer known to that person i.e. Smt. Lajwanti Grover in this case. Dr. S.P. Sharma has entered the witness box and affirmed the factum with regard to his scribing the Will as per the instructions of late Smt. Lajwanti Grover. Dr. S.P. Sharma has also proved and exhibited the rough notes made by him as Ex.PW4/A, and which rough notes were taken on the directions of Smt. Lajwanti Grover and pursuant to which he thereafter got the Will prepared. Dr. S.P. Sharma has also deposed with regard to the Will having been executed in his presence by Smt. Lajwanti Grover and attested in his presence by both the witnesses. Dr. S.P. Sharma has also deposed as to the sound deposing mind of the deceased testator.

The petitioner has also led the evidence of the attesting witness, one Sh. Surinder Kumar Sharma who was the clerk of Dr. S.P. Sharma. This clerk has deposed with regard to the Will having executed in his presence and he having attested the Will in the presence of testator. He has also deposed that both the attesting witnesses signed the Will in the presence of Smt. Lajwanti Grover and that Smt. Lajwanti Grover executed the Will in the presence of both the attesting witnesses. He has also deposed with respect to the sound disposing mind of Smt. Lajwanti Grover.

Since no affirmative evidence at all has been led on behalf of those objectors who are the legal heirs as per Hindu Succession Act, 1956 of late Smt. Lajwanti Grover as to lack of any sound disposing capacity of Smt. Lajwanti Grover to execute the Will, I have to believe the affirmative depositions made by the witnesses on behalf of the petitioners. Merely because the testator was of an old age of 89 years, in my opinion, the same in itself cannot mean that she was not of a sound disposing mind because not only there is no affirmative evidence led on behalf of the relevant objectors to show lack of sound disposing mind, there is a positive evidence led on behalf of the petitioner to show that Smt. Lajwanti Grover was in a fit mental state to execute the Will. I may only add that on behalf of Sh. Om Praksh Grover, the only plea urged during final arguments was with regard to the lack of alleged ownership of late Smt. Lajwanti Grover of the property of East Patel Nagar, New Delhi and no arguments have been addressed with respect to lack of soundness of mind of Smt. Lajwanti Grover at the time of execution of the Will.

The upshot of the discussion is that the Will of Smt. Lajwanti Grover, Ex.PW2/A has been duly proved to have been executed by late Smt. Lajwanti Grover in the presence of attesting witnesses, the attesting witnesses signed in her presence, and, Smt. Lajwanti Grover was of sound disposing mind. I may also add that there is sufficient explanation given on behalf of the petitioner, by leading evidence to the effect of both the attesting witnesses; as well as scribing of the Will, that since the hands of Smt. Lajwanti Grover were shaking therefore Smt. Lajwanti Grover put her thumb impression on the Will instead of signing the same.

On the aspect of the validity of the Will I must add that there are no suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will. This I say so because the legal heirs of the first wife of Sh. Haveli Ram Grover were disinherited by the Will inasmuch as Smt. Lajwanti Grover had her own progeny through late Sh. Haveli Ram Grover. In such circumstances it is surely not unnatural to discard the children of the first wife. Further Sh. Darbari Lal Grover has been proved on record, and in fact admitted in more or less terms, to have separated from the family long back and that he was living separately. There is also some evidence on record of Sh. Darbari Lal Grover having been given a particular property in Delhi by the father Sh. Haveli Ram Grover. In my opinion aforesaid facts are therefore sufficient reasons even to disinherit the branch of Sh. Darbari Lal Grover generally. I am using the expression "generally" deliberately inasmuch as in the Will, Smt. Lajwanti Grover has made a provision for bequeathing that share which came to her through Sh. Darbari Lal Grover in the two properties at Himachal Pradesh and Delhi, to the daughter of Sh. Darbari Lal Grover namely Smt. Anju Choudhary. In reality therefore Smt. Lajwanti Grover has acted fairly because whatever she derived from the branch of her son Sh. Darbari Lal Grover on account of her being the legal heir of the son, she has bequeathed that inheritance of her effectively to that very branch of Sh. Darbari Lal Grover by bequeathing the same to one of the legal heirs (namely the daughter) of Sh. Darbari Lal Grover, Smt. Anju Chaudhary. With regard to the immovable properties existing at East Patel Nagar, Smt. Lajwanti Grover has bequeathed the same to her three sons namely Sh. Om Prakash Grover, Sh. Sudarshan Kumar Grover and Sh. Surinder Kumar Grover and two daughters namely Smt. Amrita Grover and Smt. Shakuntla in equal shares. Sh. Baldev Raj Grover was a bachelor, and therefore, Smt Lajwanti Grover thought it fit not to bequeath anything in the East Patel Nagar property to the said Sh. Baldev Raj Grover, and Sh. Baldev Raj Grover was given share of the property in Himachal Pradesh. In any case, Sh. Baldev Raj Grover himself had originally filed this probate petition and therefore, he has no objection to the Will. I must observe that I am indeed surprised at the so-called objections which have been filed on behalf of Sh. Om Prakash Grover and late Sh. Sudarshan Kumar Grover because by objecting to the Will they will get a lesser share in the East Patel Nagar property, however, for whatever reason they have chosen to file objections of course which were limited to challenge of the ownership of late Lajwanti Grover to this East Patel Nagar property. I have already observed above that a Court hearing probate case does not go into the title of the property. Therefore, the Will executed by Smt. Lajwanti Grover cannot be said in any way to be unnatural inasmuch as she has given valid reasons in the Will to give her different properties/shares therein to her different persons/legal heirs and details of which have been given above. I therefore hold that there is nothing unnatural in Smt. Lajwanti Grover having executed the Will dated 22.7.1994.

Now let me for the sake of formality discuss the arguments which have been raised by Mr. Chachra, Advocate on behalf of the legal heirs of Sh. Darbari Lal Grover namely respondents no. 10 and 11 and who are the daughters of late Sh. Darbari Lal Grover. As already stated above these arguments are purely in deference to the arguments urged by Mr. Chachra before me because I have already observed above, that in the absence of these objectors having stepped into the witness box to prove their case I have no reason to disbelieve affirmative testimonies on behalf of the witnesses of the petitioner.

One objection which was raised by Mr. Chachra, Advocate was that the affidavit filed in support of the probate on first date was defective inasmuch as the affidavit contains the date of Will as 27.7.1994 instead of 22.7.1994. Similar arguments were also urged on behalf of Sh. Om Prakash Grover. In my opinion, this argument is really of no substance inasmuch as surely this is nothing but a typographical error inasmuch as it is not disputed that original Will itself was filed at the time of filing of the probate petition. Once original Will was filed there was no reason why in the affidavit the date of the Will would have been written as 27.7.1994 and not 22.7.1994, except of course because of a typographical error. I thus reject this argument urged on behalf of Mr. Chachra and also raised by Om Prakash Grover.

The second main head of argument was that on account of alleged lack of due attestation of the Will dated 22.7.1994. This lack of due attestation as argued exists on an alleged inconsistency that the attesting witness Sh. Surinder Kumar Sharma at one place said that he signed the Will first (although he was at serial no.2 in the attesting witnesses portion) and at another place he had said the he first signed the Will and thereafter the other attesting witness Smt. V.B. Chanana signed the Will. Surely, minor inconsistencies always crop up in a civil case, however what has to be seen is totality of circumstances alongwith the facts of each case. Taken at the best even assuming Sh. Surinder Kumar Sharma could have lied as to the serial-wise attestation of the Will, however it is settled law that doctrine of Falsus in Uno Falsus in Omnibus has no application in India i.e. merely because the witness lies on one point his total testimony has not to be discarded. Of course, in my opinion, I do not think that the witness Sh. Surinder Kumar Sharma can be said to be lying as one has to consider the fact that as many as 8 years had passed from the execution of Will by Smt. Lajwanti Grover and its attestation by Sh. Surinder Kumar Sharma and the deposition in this Court. I would accordingly like to attach no weight to this argument and which is accordingly rejected.

Another argument urged on behalf of Mr. Chachra was that the rough notes, Ex.PW4/A, do not tally with the Will which is executed inasmuch as the Rajender Nagar property was already sold at the time of making of the Will, and the notes refer to the share of Smt. Lajwanti Grover in this property, showing that there are suspicious circumstances in making of the Will. Surely, rough notes which are prepared are basically to indicate the substance of the Will to be made, and rough notes need not exactly have the language of the Will itself. A reference to the share of Smt. Lajwanti Grover in the Rajender Nagar property when in the rough notes is stated as the share in this property, this aspect has been clarified in the Will to be the share of the property in terms of the monies available on the sale of the property. Once again therefore this argument of any alleged inconsistency in just one line of the rough notes which runs into over three pages, is hardly a circumstance to disbelieve the Will.

The final argument urged on behalf of Mr. Chachra was that where the thumb impression of Smt. Lajwanti Grover is put, it is not written whether it is a left thumb impression or right thumb impression. Mr. Chachra also sought to rely upon judgment in the case of Smt. Kamla Kunwar Vs. Ratan Lal and Others, to argue that if there is no mention of which thumb is the thumb impression, Courts must examine the Will more carefully because then there would be suspicious circumstances. Besides the fact that in my opinion, it is of only little relevance to write that whether it was a left thumb impression or right thumb impression, the facts of the Kamla Kunwar (supra) case are different inasmuch as in the said case there were various other documents to compare the thumb impressions of the deceased with the thumb impression on the Will. It was in such circumstances that it was found that once there are various documents, the aspect of the mentioning of the RTI (Right Thumb Impression) became relevant in Kamla Kunwar (supra) case. Therefore, besides the issue of facts of Kamla Kunwar (supra) being different, I for one do not think that in the facts of the present case non-mentioning of the factum as to whether the thumb impression was a left hand thumb impression or right hand thumb impression would make any difference especially as the clients of Mr. Chachra, Advocate (as respondents no. 10 and 11) have not supported their own case because they have not even bothered to step into the witness box. A person who has no courage to face the test of cross-examination, has to, in my opinion, necessarily fail. I therefore even reject this argument urged on behalf of respondents no.10 & 11.

In view of the above, I hold that Will dated 22.7.1994 of late Smt. Lajwanti Grover stands proved as it has been duly executed and attested, and Smt. Lajwanti Grover was in sound disposing mind at the time of execution of the Will. I hold that this Will, Ex.PW2/A stands duly proved. The issues no. 1 and 2 in this case are accordingly decided holding the Will dated 22.7.1994 of Smt. Lajwanti Grover duly proved. Accordingly, let letters of administration issue in favour of the present petitioner, Sh. Surinder Kumar Grover in accordance with law on Sh. Surinder Kumar Grover filing the necessary administration/surety bond. Court fees will be paid as per law before drawing up of the letters of administration by the Registry. The probate petition is thereof allowed by issuing of letters of administration in favour of Sh. Surinder Kumar Grover with respect to the Will, Ex.PW2/A, of Smt. Lajwanti Grover dated 22.7.1994.