Research › Search › Judgment

Delhi High Court · body

2007 DIGILAW 1880 (DEL)

VIJAY KUMAR MEHRA v. STATE

2007-11-12

GITA MITTAL

body2007
JUDGMENT Gita Mittal, J.-By this judgment, I propose to dispose of the present petition under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 seeking grant of probate/letters of administration of the Will dated 1st January, 1989 executed, by the deceased Smt. Vidyawati Mehra, widow of late Shri J.N. Mehra with the Will annexed. 2. There is no dispute so far as the legal heirs of the deceased and her estate are concerned. It has been established before this Court that late Smt. Vidyawati Mehra was the widow of late Shri J.N. Mehra. She had expired at New Delhi on the 26th March, 1993. Her demise was duly registered with the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. The death certificate has been exhibited on record as Exhibit PW1/1. 3. Deceased Smt. Vidyawati Mehra, was succeeded by the following legal heirs: (i) Son - Shri Vijay Kumar Mehra Petitioner herein (ii) Daughter-Smt. Chandrakanta Respondent No.2 herein (iii) Daughter-Smt. Manju Vij Respondent No.3 herein (iv) Daughter-Smt. Neeru Khurana Respondent No.4 herein (v) Daughter-Smt. Shama Rani Respondent No.5 herein (vi) Daughter-Smt. Rajni Gujral Respondent No.6 herein There is also no dispute to the fact that late Smt. Vidyawati Mehra, at the time of her death owned the immovable property bearing No. 65, Bhagwan Nagar, New Delhi-110014 which consisted of a plot of land admeasuring about 200 sq. yards with a built up ground floor consisting of 7 rooms with kitchen and bath as well as three shops. There is also no material dispute to the movable properties of the deceased, all of which constituted part of her estate and have been set out in Annexure C to the plaint. 4. The petitioner has placed reliance on a writing dated 1st January, 1989 and has asserted that the same was the last Will and testament executed by the deceased Smt. Vidyawati Mehra while in sound disposing mind and of her own free will and accord. This document was also registered with the Sub-Registrar III, New Delhi as document No. 5915 in additional book No. III, Volume 766 at pages 159-160 on 27th of December, 199.3 after the demise of the late Smt. Vidyawati Mehra. 5. By way of the present petition, the petitioner has sought probate of this Will and grant of letters of administration with the Will attached. 6. 5. By way of the present petition, the petitioner has sought probate of this Will and grant of letters of administration with the Will attached. 6. This Court had directed a public notice to be published in the newspapers, the Statesman and the Jansatta, Delhi edition and also issued notices to the Deputy Commissioner (Chief Revenue Controlling Authority) of the area where the property of the deceased were located calling for a report of the valuation of the property. 7. Notice was also issued to the respondents of the filing of the present petition. 8. The office of the Dy. Commissioner (South) Delhi has submitted a report dated 23rd January, 2001 submitting that the value of the estate of late Smt. Vidyawati Mehra for which the petitioner has applied for probate, has been assessed at Rs. twenty lakh six hundred and eighty as per the prescribed rate and upon consideration of the inspection report of the Naib Tehsildar. This report has been exhibited on record in tl1e statement of the petitioner as Exhibit P1/3. 9. So far as the respondent are concerned, the respondents 2 to 5 had entered appearance on service and had filed written statements-cum-objections dated 3rd March, 2001. 10. On a consideration of the pleadings of the parties, this Court had framed the following issues by the order passed on 2nd November, 2001: "I. Whether Smt. Vidyawati, w/o late Sh. J.N. Mehra duly executed the Will dated 1st January, 1989? -OPP 2. Relief?" The parties were put to evidence in respect of their respective contentions. 11. In order to establish the execution of the Will and its attestation in accordance with law, the petitioner has examined both the attesting witnesses, Mr. C.L. Shah and Mr. P. Chandra Sekharan, Advocate who appeared as PWs 5 and 6 respectively. The family doctor Dr. T.K. Chakraborty as PW-7 has been examined to prove the state of mind and health of the petitioner on 1st January, 1989 apart from his own statement. The petitioner has also summoned the record of witnesses from the Punjab and Sind Bank, New Friends Colony, New Delhi; the official/Inspector from the Food and Civil Supplies Department of Government of Delhi who have appeared as PW-l and PW-2 respectively in order to prove the manner in which the deceased was described and known as well as the manner in which she affixed her signatures. To prove the registration of the Will, the petitioner has also summoned the officials from the office of the Sub-Registrar who has appeared as PW-3 12. The respondent No.3 Smt. Manju Vij had appeared as DW3; the respondent No.4 Smt. Chandrakanta as DW2 and the respondent No.5 Shama Rani as DW1 in support of their objections. 13. The respondent No.6 Smt. Rajni Gujral had filed a no objection dated 30th September, 2000 to the grant of probate on 9th October, 2000. After filing her no objection to the grant of probate, respondent No.6 did not contest the present proceedings and was proceeded ex parte by an order passed on 11th of July, 2003. The respondent no. 6 had admitted and accepted the execution and validity of the Will dated 1st January,1989 executed by the deceased Smt. Vidyawati Mehra as her last Will and testament and had clearly stated that she had no objection if probate in respect of this Will dated 1st January, 1989 was granted to the petitioner. These submissions were made in the supporting affidavit as well. 14. Smt. Neeru Khurana, respondent No.4 had initially supported the respondent Nos. 2,3 and 5 in their objections before this Court. At the same time, Smt. Neeru Khurana had also filed Suit No.353/2002 against her brother Shri Vijay Kumar Mehra (petitioner herein) and her other four sisters as defendant Nos. 2,3,5 and 6. In this suit, Smt. Neeru Khurana had stated that Smt. Vidyawati was the absolute owner of the property No. 65, Bhagwan Nagar, New Delhi and that she had died intestate at Delhi on 26th March, 1993. Consequently, it was prayed that the suit property was liable to be partitioned between the parties to the suit. 15. The present petitioner was contesting the suit and had set up the present Will as his defence. 16. The petitioner had filed IA No. 4179/2003 in the present proceedings under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure praying for transfer of Suit No. 353/2002 titled Smt. Neeru Khurana v. Smt. Vijay Kumar Mehra and Others, pending before the Civil Judge to this Court for adjudication a with the present case. This application was allowed on 11th July, 2003 and Suit No. 353/2002 was transferred and listed along with the present case. Upon its transfer to this Court, the suit was registered as CS (OS) No.1354/ 2005 in this Court. 17. This application was allowed on 11th July, 2003 and Suit No. 353/2002 was transferred and listed along with the present case. Upon its transfer to this Court, the suit was registered as CS (OS) No.1354/ 2005 in this Court. 17. It appears that thereafter the respondent No.4 Smt. Neeru Khurana also decided that she did not wish to press her claim in CS(OS) No. 1354/2005 (originally before the trial Court). Consequently, she filed IA No. 7564/2005 in Suit No. 1354/2005 praying for leave to withdraw the suit. A statement was made by her on 23rd September, 2005 to the effect that she was no longer interested in prosecuting the suit before this Court and that she had decided not to oppose the probate case No. 25/2000. Consequently IA No. 7564/2005 which was under Order 23 Rule 1 was allowed and CS(OS) No. 1354/2005 was dismissed as withdrawn on the 23rd of September, 2005. 18. On the same day, the respondent No.4 Neeru Khurana mad~ a statement in the present petition to the effect that she withdrew her objections dated 3rd March, 2005 filed in the present proceedings as also the suit filed by her and that she did not wish to contest the present case. This statement was made by her in support of IA No. 7563/2005 filed in the present proceedings. Consequently, the prayer made in IA No. 7563/2005 was allowed and the objections filed by the respondent No. 4 were permitted to be dismissed as withdrawn. Respondent No.4 has also therefore not opposed grant of the probate to the petitioner. 19. The issues framed on 15th November, 2001 have to be tested in the context of the three-fold objections raised by the respondent Nos. 3 to 5. The same can be summed up thus: "I. The signatures on the propounded Will dated 1st January, 1989 are not of the deceased inasmuch as she used to sign in Hindi as Vidyawati and had never affixed her signatures as Vidyawati Mehra. The signatures on the Will which bears the signature of the testator as Vidyawati Mehra thus are not of the mother of the petitioner and the respondent Nos. 2 to 6. II. Smt. Vidyawati Mehra was not keeping good health and was not in sound disposing mind on 1st January, 1989. III. The signatures on the Will which bears the signature of the testator as Vidyawati Mehra thus are not of the mother of the petitioner and the respondent Nos. 2 to 6. II. Smt. Vidyawati Mehra was not keeping good health and was not in sound disposing mind on 1st January, 1989. III. The Will was unnatural and suspicious for the reason that the petitioner had openly threatened the deceased and had obtained her thumb impression and signatures compelling her to file Civil Suit No. 773/1992 against Shri Vijay Kumar Mehra, the present petitioner in the Court of Civil Judge. The objectors have further asserted that Smt. Vidyawati Mehra was not having cordial and harmonious relations with the petitioner and, consequently, there was no question of her making a bequest in favour of the petitioner. IV. The Will was registered after the death of Smt. Vidyawati Mehra in collusion with the attesting witnesses named on the will dated 1st January,. 1989." 20. As per Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, execution of a Will requires the testator to sign or affix his mark to the Will, or that it shall be signed by some other person in his presence and by his direction. Sub-Section (b) of Section 63 requires that the signature or mark of the testator, or the signature of the person signing for him, shall be so placed that it shall appear that it was intended thereby to give effect to the writing as a Will. Attestation of a Will has been provided under Sub-section (c) of Section 63 which mandates that the Will shall be attested by two or more witnesses, each of whom has seen the testator sign or affix his mark to the Will or has seen some other person sign the Will, in the presence and by the direction of the testator, or has received from the testator a personal acknowledgment of his signature or mark, or the signature of such other person; and each of the witnesses shall sign the Will in the presence of the testator, but it shall not be necessary that more than one witness be present at the same time, and no particular form of attestation shall be necessary. 21. 21. The proof of execution of a Will is stipulated under Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 which mandates that 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 pf giving evidence. 22. The primary question which arises for consideration in the present case is as to whether the document dated 1.1.1989 is the last Will and testament of the deceased Smt. Vidyawati Mehra and that the same was executed by her in accordance with law. The execution of this document has to satisfy the provisions of Section 63 of the Succession Act, 1925 and also Sections 67 and 68 of the Evidence Act. It is well settled that the onus of proof of execution of the Will is on the propounder or the beneficiary thereof. 23. However, if an objection is taken by any person to the effect that the Will was forged or that it was obtained under undue influence. or coercion or by playing a fraud, the onus to so prove is on the person who alleges it to be so [Ref I (2006) SLT 214=1 (2006) CLT 208 (SC)=JT 2006 1 SC 225, Mathew Oommen v. Suseela Mathew (para 8); III (2003) CLT 146 (SC)=IV (2003) SLT 916= AIR 2003 SC 3109 , Ramabai Padmakar Patil (dead) by LRs and Ors. v. Rukminibai Vishnu Vekhande and Ors., (Para 8 and 9)]. 24. A Will is required to be proved like any other document except for the fact that it has to be proved after the death of the testator. Hence the person executing the document is not alive to give testimony in support thereof. The propounder, in the absence of any suspicious circumstance surrounding the execution of the Will, is required to prove the testamentary capacity and the signatures of the testator. 25. In AIR 1995 SC 2086 , Vrindavanibai Sambhaji Manev. Hence the person executing the document is not alive to give testimony in support thereof. The propounder, in the absence of any suspicious circumstance surrounding the execution of the Will, is required to prove the testamentary capacity and the signatures of the testator. 25. In AIR 1995 SC 2086 , Vrindavanibai Sambhaji Manev. Ramchandra Vithal Ganeshkar and Ors., the Court considered the large body of the case law on the issue as to what are considered as suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the Will which require the propounder to explain them to the satisfaction of the Court before the Will can be accepted as genuine. Some of the suspicious circumstances of which the Court took note of are: "(1) The propounder taking a prominent part in the execution of a Will which confers substantial benefits on him; (2) Shaky signature; (3) A feeble mind which is likely to be influenced; (4) Unfair and unjust disposal of property." It was also observed by the Court that when a Court is dealing with testamentary cases where there is a large and consistent body of testimony. evidencing the signing and attestation of the Will, but where it is suggested that there are circumstances which raise a suspicion and make it impossible that the Will could have been executed, the correct line of approach is to see that the improbability, in order to prevail against such evidence, must be clear and cogent and must approach very nearly to, if it does not altogether constitute, an impossibility. 26. In the case before the Apex Court, it was held that the motive for making the Will was not relevant and also the fact that the testatrix made a Will at the age of 50 cannot be considered as a suspicious circumstance reflecting on its genuineness. In II (1996) CLT 353 (SC)= 1996 (9) SCC 324 , Joyce Primrose Prestor (Mrs.) (Nee Vas) v. Vera Marie Vas (Ms) and Others, the Court held that so far as a holographed Will is concerned, there is a greater presumption of the. Will being regularly executed. The propounder would be required only to formally prove the Will for which very little evidence is required. The Court is required to look at the nature of the Will, pleadings of the parties, facts admitted or proved and the presumptions available. Will being regularly executed. The propounder would be required only to formally prove the Will for which very little evidence is required. The Court is required to look at the nature of the Will, pleadings of the parties, facts admitted or proved and the presumptions available. The Court placed reliance on the earlier pronouncement reported at AIR 1964 SC 529 , Shashi Kumar Ba11erjee and Ors. v. Subodh Kumar Banerjee since deceased and after him his Legal Representatives and Ors., a decision rendered by the Constitutional Bench. In this case, the Court has noticed that as the caveator alleges undue influence, fraud and coercion, the onus is on him to prove the same. Even where there are no such pleas, but the circumstances give rise to doubts, it is for the propounder to satisfy the conscience of the Court. The suspicious circumstances may be as to the• genuineness of the signatures of the testator, the condition of the testators mind, the depositions made in the Will being unnatural, improbable or unfair in the light of relevant circumstances or there maybe other indications in the Will to show that the testators mind was not free. In such a case the Court would naturally expect that all legitimate suspicious should be completely removed before the document is accepted as the last will of the testator. In this behalf, the Court held thus: "4. xxx In such a case the Court would naturally expect that all legitimate suspicion should be completely removed before the document is accepted as the last Will of the testator; If the propounder himself takes part in the execution of the Will which confers a substantial benefit on him, that is also a circumstance to be taken into account, and the propounder is required to remove the doubts by clear and satisfactory evidence. If the propounder succeeds .. in removing the suspicious circumstances the• Court would grant probate, even if the Will might be unnatural and might cut off wholly or in part near relations. It is in the light of these settled principles that we have to consider whether the• appellants have succeeded in establishing that the Will was duly executed and attested." The issues in the present case have to be considered in the light of these well settled principles. 27. The objections raised by the contesting respondent Nos. It is in the light of these settled principles that we have to consider whether the• appellants have succeeded in establishing that the Will was duly executed and attested." The issues in the present case have to be considered in the light of these well settled principles. 27. The objections raised by the contesting respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 5 would require to be considered as against the evidence which has been led by the petitioner. As noticed above, the principles which would guide adjudication are well settled. Undoubtedly, the burden to prove due execution and attestation of the Will lies on the propounder who has also to explain any suspicious circumstances in the execution of the Will. Such suspicion must be inherent in the transaction itself. The onus to establish any doubt that may arise from conflict of testimony which becomes apparent on the investigation of the transaction. So far as the allegation that the Will was executed under undue influence is concerned, proof thereof rests upon the person making such allegation. Signature and execution of the Will 28, Shri C. L. Shah and Shri P. Chandra Sekharan have stepped into the witness box as PW 5 and PW 6 respectively to prove the execution of the Will and its attestation. Shri Chaman Lal Shah, PW -5 in his examination-in chief on affidavit stated that he knew Smt. Vidyawati Mehra, who is the mother of the present petitioner before the execution of the Will. According to this witness, the Will was executed by Smt. Vidyawati Mehra in the afternoon of 1st January, 1989 in the presence of Mr. P. Chandra Sekharan, Advocate and himself. They were invited by the testator to witness its execution. The Will was drafted by Mr. P. Chandra Sekharan who got it typed. Only PWs 5 and 6 were present when the executant Smt. Vidyawati Mehra signed the Will in their presence. This witness categorically stated that the testator was in a sound state of mind and she affixed her signatures first; then the same was signed by PW-5 as witness and signed lastly by Mr. . Chandra Sekharan, Advocate. The witness proved the Will and identified the signatures of the testator as well the signatures of Mr. P. Chandra Sekfmran, Advocate and his own thereon which was tendered in evidence as Exh. PW2/1. 29. . Chandra Sekharan, Advocate. The witness proved the Will and identified the signatures of the testator as well the signatures of Mr. P. Chandra Sekfmran, Advocate and his own thereon which was tendered in evidence as Exh. PW2/1. 29. In his cross-examination, the witness explained that the family of late Smt. Vidyawati Mehra were his family friends; that he knew Shri Vijay Kumar Mehra since 1980 but was not good friends with him. In his cross-xamination, Shri CL. Shah, PW-5 has explained that Smt. Vidyawati Mehra and his mother were close friends and that is how he knew the deceased. The witness stated that his mother introduced him to the petitioner. 30. PW 5 was asked to identify the signatures of the deceased on the record of the bank which was on this Courts record as Exh. PW 1/7. He also identified her signatures in this record. 31. It has come in the cross-examination of this witness that the contents of the Will were also explained in vernacular to Smt. Vidyawati Mehra in his presence by Mr. P. Chandra Sekharan, Advocate before she signed it and that the witness had also explained the same to her. He not only deposed that the Will was signed in the house of the deceased, but pointed out that she signed the same in the puja sthal located therein. 32. In the cross-examination of PW-5, it has also come that the deceased was examined by Dr. T.K. Chakraborty, the family doctor on 1st January, 1989 and that the testator had shown a certificate issued by the doctor regarding her state of health. The witness also supported the registration and stated that he had gone to the office of the Sub-Registrar, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi where his signatures were taken on record. This witness denied all allegations of being an interested witness on the ground that he was a friend of the present petitioner. 33. Mr. P. Chandra Sekharan, Advocate who has appeared as PW-6, has corroborated the testimony of PW-5 in all material particulars. His examination-in-chief on affidavit was tendered in evidence as Exhibit PW6/X. In his cross-examination, he affirmed that he had known the family of late Smt. Vidyawati Mehra since 1984 including the petitioner. The witness has stated that he had drafted the Will as per her instructions and had go the same typed. His examination-in-chief on affidavit was tendered in evidence as Exhibit PW6/X. In his cross-examination, he affirmed that he had known the family of late Smt. Vidyawati Mehra since 1984 including the petitioner. The witness has stated that he had drafted the Will as per her instructions and had go the same typed. At the time of execution of the Will, only the testator; Shri C.L. Shah, PW 5 and this witness were the persons present. He has also corroborated PW 5 in the manner in which the contents were explained in I vernacular before each signed the same. The witness has deposed that he explained the contents of the Will both at the time of drafting and before the execution of the Will by her and that the DW-5 had also explained the documents of the Will in vernacular. This witness also affirmed that the Will was executed in the Puja Sthal at around 4.00 p.m. and that the deceased was medically examined by Dr. T.K. Chakraborty. DW-6 also deposed that he was a neighbour of the deceased testator and several meetings took place between testator and him. 34. This witness also confirmed that the original Will was kept with PW-5 Shri Chaman Lal Shah by the deceased and that they were directed by the deceased not to disclose the existence of the Will to her family till she passed away. The witness also proved the registration of the Will and confirmed the fact that he had gone to the Sub-Registrars office where he signed the proceedings sheet when his statement was recorded by the SubRegistrar. PW-5 identified the signatures of Smt. Vidyawati Mehra Exh. on Exhibit PW-1/7. 35. So far as the execution of the Will is concerned, the primary ground taken by the respondent Nos. 3 and 5 for urging that the Will has not been signed or executed by the deceased Smt. Vidyawati Mehra is based on the manner in which her signatures appears on the document. The signatures on the document bears the full name of the deceased that is Vidyawati Mehra in vernacular. 36. The objectors have raised a dispute with regard to these signatures appearing on the Will. It is their submission that the deceased used to sign as only Vidyawati and never signed as Vidyawati Mehra. The signatures on the document bears the full name of the deceased that is Vidyawati Mehra in vernacular. 36. The objectors have raised a dispute with regard to these signatures appearing on the Will. It is their submission that the deceased used to sign as only Vidyawati and never signed as Vidyawati Mehra. For this reason, according to the objectors, the signatures on the document were not of the deceased mother of the parties. 37. The petitioner has summoned and proved the various records including the record from the bank, ration card and even her gas connection to prove that Smt. Vidyawati Mehra was known by her full name that is Vidyawati Mehra and she was signing the full name that is Vidyawati Mehra and Vidyawati on some occasions. 38. The petitioner summoned the record pertaining to the Saving Bank Account No. 164 which was held by Smt. Vidyawati Mehra in the Punjab and Sind Bank, New Friends Colony Branch, New Delhi. The Jetitioner had also summoned the record relating to the locker account No. l66 which was also held in the name of Smt. Vidyawati Mehra. On the basis )f these records, the PW -1 Shri Man Mohan, Computer Terminal Operator )f the Punjab and Sind Bank who produced the same stated that Smt. lidyawati was holding a saving bank account No. 164 which was opened on 28th December, 1979 (Exh. P-1). In respect of this saving account, the account holder had made an application dated 28th December, 1979 which has been proved on record as Exh. P-11. The deceased had given her specimen signatures for opening this account. The deceased had signed both the applications and given two specimen signatures which consisted of her full name that is Vidyawati Mehra. Even on the locker account, the deceased had given a specimen signatures on 3rd May, 1988 as Vidyawati Mehra and signed instructions also by her full name. 39. Perusal of Exh. P-3 (also marked as Exh. PW-1/7 by the Court Commissioner recording evidence on 28th November, 2002) would show that it relates to the period from 1979 till 1990. It appears that the deceased has signed as both Vidyawati Mehra and Vidyawati over all these years. Her signatures as Vidyawati Mehra were identified on Exh. PW-1/5as well on this exhibit. P-3 (also marked as Exh. PW-1/7 by the Court Commissioner recording evidence on 28th November, 2002) would show that it relates to the period from 1979 till 1990. It appears that the deceased has signed as both Vidyawati Mehra and Vidyawati over all these years. Her signatures as Vidyawati Mehra were identified on Exh. PW-1/5as well on this exhibit. The testimony of this witness was based on record inasmuch as the deceased had not opera tea the locker in the presence of this witness. The locker was operated as noticed above on large number of occasions till her death when the deceased had signed on thirteen occasions as Vidyawati Mehra and on four occasions as Vidyawati between the period 29th December, 1979 and 8th May, 1988 as per Exh. .P-3 (Exh. PW/1 6 as well). 40. A bare comparison of the signatures appearing on the Will dated 1st January, 1989, the document which has been proved on record as Exh. 6/1 as against the signatures which appear on Exh. PW1-1/6 (also marked Exh. P-3, PW - 1/7) and Exh. PW - 2 would show that they bear the signatures of the same person. There is, therefore, no reason to disbelieve the testimony of PW 4, Shri Vijay Kumar Mehra; PW-5 Chaman Lal Shah and PW6 Mr. P. Chandra Sekharan that the Will dated 6th January, 1989 was signed and executed by the deceased. 41. Shri S.P. Bakshi, Inspector from Food and Supplies Department, Circle No.5, Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi appeared as PW-2 was another witness examined by the petitioner in support of his contention that the deceased was known as Smt. Vidyawati Mehra. He had produced the• muster register from his office with regard to the issuance of ration cards and proved that the ration card has been issued in the name of Smt. Vidyawati Mehra who was the resident of 65, Bhagwan Nagar, New Delhi 110 014 and that she was the head of the family. The photocopy of the relevant extracts of the register brought by him and proved in Court has been marked Exh. PW-4. 42. Ex. PW-6/1 that is the Will in question, runs into two pages and the full signatures of the testator Smt. Vidyawati Mehra appeared at mark A on the first page of this document and mark B of the second page of this document. 43. PW-4. 42. Ex. PW-6/1 that is the Will in question, runs into two pages and the full signatures of the testator Smt. Vidyawati Mehra appeared at mark A on the first page of this document and mark B of the second page of this document. 43. So far as the signatures on the Will dated 1st January, 1989 are concerned, the same were put to the respondent Nos. 3 and 5 in their cross-examinatioh.Srrit, Chander Karita who appeared as OW-2 in her cross, examination on 20th February, 2007 admitted that the signatures at mark B of Exh. PW-6/1 was that of her mother. It is noteworthy that the Will in question has been marked as Exh. PW-6/1 as well as Exh. PW-1/5. Again, Smt. Manju Vij, respondent No. 3 who appeared as OW-3 in her cross-examination on 19thMay~ 2006, stated that she could recognise and identify the signatures of her mother. She categorically stated that the signatures at Mark B on the second page of Exh. PW-6/1 were of her mother and, that the same was her reply to the signatures of her mother appearing at page 1 of Exh. PW-6/I. 44. It may be appropriate to notice that in order to prove their contentions, the respondents have filed a list of witnesses dated 6th May, 2003. The respondent had cited a hand writing expert as a witness at serial No.6 to prove the signatures of Smt. Vidyawati Mehra on their behalf. The respondents failed to produce any such witness. 45. In view of this documentary evidence supported by the oral evidence of the witness and admissions of the objectors, I have no hesitation in holding that the signatures appearing at points A and B on the Will Exhibit 6/1 are the signatures of the deceased Smt. Vidyawati Mehra. Fitness of the deceased 46. The respondent Nos. 3 to 5 have in their objections stated that the deceased was not in a sound disposing mind for the reason that she had suffered a paralytic attack in the year 1988. Undoubtedly, the objectors have contradicted each other on this aspect. Smt. Shama Rani, respondent No.5, entered the witness box as OW-I. Her examination-in-chief on affidavit was tendered and exhibited as OW-l/X and she was cross-examined before the Local Commissioner o!, 28th September, 2005. Undoubtedly, the objectors have contradicted each other on this aspect. Smt. Shama Rani, respondent No.5, entered the witness box as OW-I. Her examination-in-chief on affidavit was tendered and exhibited as OW-l/X and she was cross-examined before the Local Commissioner o!, 28th September, 2005. In her cross-examination, she made a vague statement that in July, 1998, the deceased was admitted in the Jeevan Nursing Home and that she did not, remain in hospital even for a day. The witness admitted that the hospital was near her house and that the deceased remained in coma for only few hours. According to DW I, thereafter, she remained under treatment for two-three months. The witness DW-l further stated that after this paralytic attack in July, 1988, Smt. Vidyawati Mhra started visited her house after three four months of the attack. The witness categorically stated that she had no deformity or infirmity in her body. 47. Even if this witness was to be believed that Smt. Vidyawati Mehra suffered a paralytic stroke in July, 1988, according to her the deceased was in sound health after two-three months of such attack. In the plaint filed by Smt. Shama Rani in Suit No. 773/1992, she has stated in para 7 that the deceased was ailing for the last eight months or so. There is not an iota of evidence to suggest that the deceased was unwell, incapacitated or not in sound disposing mind in January, 1989 when the Will was executed by the deceased. 48. So far as Smt. Chander Kanta DW-2 is concerned, she tendered her examination-in-chief on affidavit as Exh. DW-2/X and stated in her cross-examination that there was no dispute amongst the petitioner, herself and their mother. With regard to her state of health, this witness also vaguely stated that her mother had a paralytic attack in July, 1998 and that she want to see her mother after one or two days of the same when she was in hospital in coma. The witness did not know when she was shifted from hospital to the house and stated that she had only visited hospital once when she was in coma for two-three days. The witness thus completely contradicts the deposition of DW-1 who stated that the witness was hospitalised only for two-three hours. However, even DW - 2 stated that she became well and was doing her work. 49. The witness thus completely contradicts the deposition of DW-1 who stated that the witness was hospitalised only for two-three hours. However, even DW - 2 stated that she became well and was doing her work. 49. So far as the state of health of the deceased was concerned, Smt. Manju Vij, DW-3 was cross-examined on 22nd March, 2006 and 19th May, 2006. She stated that she met with the mother for the last time on 18th January, 1992 when accompanied by the petitioner, Smt. Vidyawati Mehra visited the Manju Vij, DW-3 at her house on 18th January, 1992. According to this witness, Smt. Vidyawati Mehra was in good health and absolutely normal and talking in a normal way. Laterit was stated that Smt. Vidyawati Mehra had her first paralytic attack on 17th July, 1998 and that at that time she was taken to the hospital. This witness did not know who took her to hospital and could not recollect the next date as to when she went to see her mother. She stated that it was one or two days after that she went to visit at home when the petitioner and his family were there. The witness confirmed that the deceased recognised her and was in her senses at the time of visit. 50. In her cross-examination on 19th May, 2006, Manju Vij-DW-3 categorically stated that after 1988 till December, 1991, or before having paralytic attack in January, 1992, Smt. Vidyawati Mehra was absolutely fit and normal. She also stated that during this time the deceased contested litigation against her tenants and also appeared in Courts. 51. Mr. Arvind Nigam, learned Counsel for the petitioner, has pointed out that in fact respondent No.5 Shama Rani did not have good relations with her mother Smt. Vidyawati Mehra and has gone to the extent of stating in her cross-examination as DW -1 that the case filed by her mother against the tenants were wrong. 52. So far as the contentions of the respondent Nos. 2 to 5 that because Smt. Vidyawati Mehra suffered a paralytic attack in 1988, therefore she was not having a sound disposing mind, is concerned, there is no cogent or reliable evidence in support of the fact that Smt. Vidyawati Mehra suffered any paralytic attack in 1988. The evidence of these respondents is vague and contradictory with each other. 53. 2 to 5 that because Smt. Vidyawati Mehra suffered a paralytic attack in 1988, therefore she was not having a sound disposing mind, is concerned, there is no cogent or reliable evidence in support of the fact that Smt. Vidyawati Mehra suffered any paralytic attack in 1988. The evidence of these respondents is vague and contradictory with each other. 53. This contention of the respondent is liable to be disbelieved in the face of the documentary evidence which has been placed on record by the respondents themselves. The respondent No.5 has proved in her evidence the plaint filed by her in Suit No. 773/1992 filed by Shri Vidyawati Mehra and Smt. Shama Devi v. Shri Vijay Kumar Mehra, Smt. Manju Vij, Neeru Khurana, Smi. Rani Mehra (119) Part-1. 54. This suit was purportedly filed by Smt. Shama Rani on behalf of her mother Smt. Vidyawati Mehra as well as herself. The plaint is dated 18th August, 2000. The averments made by Smt. Shama Rani the respondent No.5, who was plaintiff No.2 in this plaint in paras 7 and 9 deserves to be considered in extenso and read thus: "7. That for the last eight months or so, the plaintiff No.1 is lying under total coma and she can not understand good or bad and looking to her condition and services which plaintiff No.2 is rendering to the plaintiff No. I, the defendant No.1 has started apprehending that the property may not at any moment be bequeathed by the plaintiff No.1 to the plaintiff No.2, if at any moment she regains conscious. xxx xxx xxx 9. That the plaintiff No.1 being under unconscious condition, cannot safeguard her interest, rights, and title in the "aforementioned house and in case, the defendant No.1 succeeded in making manipulations and transferred/ alienate or dispose of the aforementioned house, the plaintiffs will suffer an irreparable loss and injury which cannot be compensated in terms of money and which will give rise to multiplicity of litigations." Thus, according to Smt. Shama Rani, Smt. Vidyawati Mehra was lying in hospital since January, 1992 when the plaint was filed. Consequently, Smt. Shama Rani was filing the suit as her guardian so long she was lying in hospital having suffered an attack of paralysis and was in coma. There is no mention of the alleged paralytic attack in the year 1988 anywhere in this plaint. Consequently, Smt. Shama Rani was filing the suit as her guardian so long she was lying in hospital having suffered an attack of paralysis and was in coma. There is no mention of the alleged paralytic attack in the year 1988 anywhere in this plaint. On the contrary, in para 7 a categorical stand was taken that the mother was ill only for the last eight months. 55. In this suit, Smt. Shama Rani had prayed for a decree of perpetual injunction against the defendant No.1 restraining him from transferring, alienating, selling or in any way creating any interest in favour of anybody with regard to the house bearing Municipal Number 65, Bhagwan Nagar, New Delhi. 56. His noteworthy that Smt. Shama Rani filed the suit in 1992 through Mr. Shaktmtala Devi, Advocate who was the lawyer of the tenant against Smt. Vidyawati Mehra and was opposing Smt. Vidyawati Mehra. 57. DW 1 has also not stated the correct facts with regard to filing of the suit bearing No. 773/1992 which was dated 24th August, 1992. The plaint in the suit has been exhibited in record as Exh. PW-1/PA. The witness has stated that even though she became aware of the existence of the Will for the first time on 7th July, 1992 when Mr. P. Chandra Sekharan told her about its existence. She has neither mentioned the mothers alleged sickness in July, 1988 nor about the existence of the Will in the plaint which was filed by her on 24th August, 1992. 58. It is also in the evidence of the objectors that the deceased was actively pursuing litigation against her tenants. Smt. Shama Devi, DW-1 has stated that her mother was examined and cross-examined in August, 1991 in Suit No. 73/1994 in the Court to Smt. Savitri Rao, Civil Judge, Delhi. This fact amply evidences the healthy mental state of the deceased. 59. To prove the state of mind and health of the deceased, the petitioner has examined Dr. T.K. Chakraborty as PW-7. The examination-in-chief on affidavit has been proved on record as Exh. PW-7/X. This witness has proved that he was a family doctor of late Smt. Vidyawati Mehra and used to examine her as and when she visited his clinic at 44, Bhagwan Nagar, New Delhi. He deposed that late Smt. Vidyawati Mehra was a patient of diabetes. The examination-in-chief on affidavit has been proved on record as Exh. PW-7/X. This witness has proved that he was a family doctor of late Smt. Vidyawati Mehra and used to examine her as and when she visited his clinic at 44, Bhagwan Nagar, New Delhi. He deposed that late Smt. Vidyawati Mehra was a patient of diabetes. According to DW-7, Smt. Vidyawati Mehra visited his residence for her usual checkup on 1st January, 1989 and that he had examined her. The witness had deposed that her blood pressure on checkup was found to be all right and. being satisfied with her physical condition, Dr. T.K. Chakraborty issued her a •fitness certificate dated 1st January, 1989 which has been proved on record as Exh. PW-1/2. 60. In the cross-examination, the witness stated that he was a general physician and that he did not have a record to show that the deceased was under his treatment. He was basing his testimony on his personal knowledge. The witness could not recollect as to whether Smt. Vidyawati Mehra ever had a paralytic stroke from 1981 to 1989 and that he did not ask her the reason for which she required the medical fitness certificate. The witness clarified that Exh. PW-1/2 was not a medical certificate but was merely a fitness certificate and that there was no legal requirement for keeping a record for issuance of such a certificate. The witness also explained that because of the reason that the deceased Smt. Vidyawati Mehra visited Dr. T.K. Chakraborty at his residence the fitness certificate was not issued on a letter head. However, he confirmed his stamp and signatures. 61. So far as the stand of the respondents/objectors are concerned, Mr. M.A. Khan; learned Counsel has placed strong reliance on the provisions of Clause 1.3.3 of Chapter 1 of Code of Medical Ethics to urge that the certificate which has been given by Mr. P. Chandra Sekharan PW -7 which has been proved as PW-7 II, does not satisfy the mandatory requirements of a medical certificate which have been supported by the Medical Council of India. As noticed above, the doctor as PW-7 has explained the nature of the certificate which was given by him and the reason for the same not being on his letter head and the reasons thereof. As noticed above, the doctor as PW-7 has explained the nature of the certificate which was given by him and the reason for the same not being on his letter head and the reasons thereof. There is no requirement of either any provisions of the Succession Act, 1925 or The Indian Evidence Act, 1872 that a certificate of fitness has to accompany the Will. The doctor has stepped into the witness box and stated he has closely examined late Smt. Vidyawati Mehra on 1st January, 1989 and that the certificate only records her fitness. The evidence of the doctor was corroborated by the evidence of the attesting witness. 62. I find that even if PW-7 Dr. T.K. Chakraborty is disbelieved, on the strength of the cross-examination of the respondent Nos, 3 to 5 the petitioner would have to succeed. The respondents have led no credible evidence that the deceased suffered any kind of paralytic attack in July, 1998 as averred by them. On the contrary, they have hopelessly contradicted each other. In any case, they have categorically stated that shortly after July, 1988, the deceased was good health, hearty and was visiting their houses; was attending Court cases and discharging social obligations. She has admittedly been cross-examined in Court in 1991. It is not the case of the respondents themselves that the deceased was incapacitated physically or mentally on 1st January, 1989 or that she was not in a sound disposing mind. Therefore, this submission on behalf of the respondents must necessarily failed. 63. These facts also amply establish that Smt. Vidyawati Mehra was not incapacitated and was fully• conscious at the time she made and executed Exhibit PW 6/1. Challenge to the testimony of the petitioner and the attesting witnesses 64. The petitioner also filed his examination-in-chief on affidavit and has appeared as PW-4 in the witness, box. He tendered his affidavit in evidence which was marked Exh. PW-4/X. This wih1ess has proved that he had Cordial relations with the deceased who was cohabiting with him. He proved also the death certificate in respect of the demise of Smt. Vidyawati Mehra on 26th March, 1993 as Exh. PW-1/1 and; that the deceased was a Hindu at the time of her death. He has proved the Will and the certificate issued by the doctor. He proved also the death certificate in respect of the demise of Smt. Vidyawati Mehra on 26th March, 1993 as Exh. PW-1/1 and; that the deceased was a Hindu at the time of her death. He has proved the Will and the certificate issued by the doctor. It has come in the testimony of the petitioner that he was not aware about the execution of the Will by his mother and came to know about this fact only from Shri CL. Shah, Chartered Accountant after her demise. He was not aware of the execution of the Will by his mother during her life-time. The witness has submitted that the Will was executed by the mother of the parties while she was in sound mind and health in the presence of the witnesses who have attested the same and that the same was executed without any force, pressure, coercion or undue influence while she was residing at a fixed place at 65, Bhagwan Nagar, New Delhi -110014. 65. PW-4 has also proved the valuation of the assets of the property left by the deceased which was the subject matter of the Will dated 1st January, 1989. This witness proved the certificate dated 23rd January, 2001 issued by the Tehsildar, Headquarters, New Delhi confirming the value of the property at Rs. 20,00,680/-. 66. The petitioner as PW 4 also proved the signatures of the deceased in the record of the bank as Smt. Vidyawati Mehra and the ration card issued by the Delhi Administration which indicates the name of Smt. Vidyawati Mehra as head of the family. The witness proved the fact that she was having a saving bank account No. 1644 (Old number) in Punjab and Sind Bank, New Friends Colony, New Delhi and also a locker bearing account No. 166 and the signatures of the mother Smt. Vidyawati Mehra on the original Will. 67. The testimony of this witness could not be shaken by the respondents in the cross-examination. On the contrary, he has established that both he and his wife were looking after the deceased. This witness deposed that Smt. Vidyawati Mehra was ill only from 31st January, 1992 till 26th March, 1993 when she was looked after by the petitioner, his wife and also a full time maid for which the petitioner was paying Rs. 800/- per month apart from lodging, boarding and food. 68. This witness deposed that Smt. Vidyawati Mehra was ill only from 31st January, 1992 till 26th March, 1993 when she was looked after by the petitioner, his wife and also a full time maid for which the petitioner was paying Rs. 800/- per month apart from lodging, boarding and food. 68. The witness denied all suggestions that Smt. Vidyawati Mehra was not well from July, 1988 till death or that she was of unsound mind. The petitioner also denied all suggestions that he had ever threatened the mother in 1992 to dispose of the property on the basis of the signatures on blank paper or that he did not look after the mother as both he and his wife were employed. This witness also stated that he had incurred the expenses on the mothers treatment. 69. So far as the testimony of the petitioner as PW-4 is concerned, the only contradiction on which the respondents have heavily relied is his statement that Shri C.L. Shah and Mr. P. Chandra Sekharan were not known to him. This witness in the later part of the statement has denied the suggestion that Shri C.L. Shah and Mr. P. Chandra Sekharan were his close friends or that the Will was prepared in collusion by the petitioner with them. 70. I find that it has also come in the testimony of PWs5 and 6 that they were not friends of the petitioner. Appearing as PW-S, Shri C.L. Shah has clearly stated that his mother was the friend of the deceased Smt. Vidyawati Mehra and that is how he knew Smt. Vidyawati Mehra. This witness had clearly stated that Shri Vijay Kumar Mehra was not his good friend but that he merely knew him. Mr. P. Chandra Sekharan, PW-6, has stated that he knew the family of late Smt. Vidyawati Mehra since 1984. 8 This witness also denied that he had deposed falsely to help the petitioner who was his friend. 71. In my view there is no contradiction in the three statements. The explanation for the petitioners statement is to be found in the statements of PWs 5 and 6. Certainly the respondents have not been able to prove that PWs 5 and 6 were friends of the petitioner or shared a close relationship with him. They have only stated that they knew the petitioner without anything further. The explanation for the petitioners statement is to be found in the statements of PWs 5 and 6. Certainly the respondents have not been able to prove that PWs 5 and 6 were friends of the petitioner or shared a close relationship with him. They have only stated that they knew the petitioner without anything further. Even assuming that the petitioner was to be disbelieved that he did not know PWs 5 and 6 as stated by him, nothing much would turn on this issue so far as the execution and attestation of the Will or the trustworthiness of the testimony of the PW s 5 and 6 is concerned in view of the facts which have been noticed hereinabove. 72. DW-1, Smt. Shama Rani, respondent No.4 in her testimony does not inspire any confidence. This witness admits that she knew Shri C.L. Shah, PW-5 because he had got her daughter admitted in the school in 1986 and also the fact that Mr. C.L. Shah knew her mother or other family members. 73. The objectors have been unable to establish any such relationship between the petitioner and PWs 5 and 6 so as to give them a motive to influence the execution of the Will. The objectors have failed to even place material which could even remotely support an element of influence by any person upon the deceased to make the bequest or to execute the Will. Registration of the Will 74. It has also been objected on behalf of the respondents that the Will has been registered long after its execution and after the demise of the testator and must be disbelieved. 75. A Will is not a document which is compulsorily registrable under Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908. Registration of the Will has been made optional under Section 18 of the statute. So far as the registration of the Will is concerned, the same is covered by Sections 27, 40 and 41 of the statute. A Will may be presented for registration to any Registrar by the testator or after his death, by any person claiming as executor or otherwise under the Will. So far as the registration of the Will is concerned, the same is covered by Sections 27, 40 and 41 of the statute. A Will may be presented for registration to any Registrar by the testator or after his death, by any person claiming as executor or otherwise under the Will. By virtue of Section 41 of the Statute, a Will shall be registered if the registering officer is satisfied that firstly, the Will was executed by the testator or donor, as the case may be; secondly, that the testator or donor is dead; and lastly, that the person presenting the Will or authority is, under Section 40, entitled to present the Will. 76. I find no contradiction in the evidence of PW-5 and PW-6 when they disclosed the manner in which they received information of the requirement to go to the office of the Sub-Registrar. PW-5 has stated that he has received summons while PW-6 has stated that when he received information from the petitioner for this purpose. Both witnesses stated that they were not required to sign the proceeding sheet. It has also come on the evidence that the SDM has accepted due execution of the Will. 77. So far as the registration of the Will after the date of death of the testator is concerned, the same is statutorily permitted by Section 40 of the Registration Act. 78. So far as the registration of the Will is concerned, apart from the statements of PW-5 and PW-6, the petitioner had also summoned the witness from the office of Sub-Regi.strar III, Asaf Ali Road, New Delhi. Accordingly, Shri Ramesh Chander record clerk had brought the office• copy of the Will executed by Smt. Vidyawati Mehra dated 1st January, 1989 which was registered in the office on 27th December, 1993 vide registration No. 5917, diary No. 466 at pages 159-160. 79. Mr. M.A. Khan, learned Counsel for the objectors, had vehemently disputed the presence of the attesting witness at the time of registration. In this behalf, strong reliance was placed on the one line statement in the cross-examination of PW-3 that the attesting witnesses were not present. 80. Both PWs 5 and 6 have explained that they were not required to sign the original Will at the time of registration and that their signatures were taken on record. In this behalf, strong reliance was placed on the one line statement in the cross-examination of PW-3 that the attesting witnesses were not present. 80. Both PWs 5 and 6 have explained that they were not required to sign the original Will at the time of registration and that their signatures were taken on record. DW-6 had clearly stated that Sub Registrar had satisfied himself with regard to the execution of the win and its attestation before registration was effected. 31. I find that no question was put on behalf of the objectors to the PW3 as to whether there was any record relating .to the registration. The witness had brought with him only an office copy of the Will. From the testimony it does not appear that any other record was produced by him. This witness in any case was merely a record clerk who has not stated that the registration was effected in his presence. Consequently, the testimony of this witness to the effect that the attesting witnesses were not present at the time of registration, does not inspire confidence. 82. The respondents have put a vague question to the PW -3 who was merely a record clerk from the office of the Sub-Registrar without seeking production of the record relating to the registration of the Will. It was nowhere in the testimony of this witness that he was present at the time of registration. This witness merely produced record and was not witness to either execution or registration of the Will. In view of the above, the objectors have not been able to cast doubt on the registration of the Will. Even assuming that there was no registration of the Will in accordance with law, the same would be of no consequence inasmuch as it would still be open to this Court to test if the Will had been executed and attested in accordance with the provisions of law. Relationship of the deceased with the petitioner and the objectors 83. The petitioner has claimed that Smt. Shama Rani respondent No. 5, had bad relations with her mother Sint. Vidyawati Mehra which, according to her, was evidenced by the fact that she filed Suit No. 773/1992 through Mrs. Prem Lata Aggarwal, Advocate who was opposing the deceased in the tenants eviction case. The petitioner has claimed that Smt. Shama Rani respondent No. 5, had bad relations with her mother Sint. Vidyawati Mehra which, according to her, was evidenced by the fact that she filed Suit No. 773/1992 through Mrs. Prem Lata Aggarwal, Advocate who was opposing the deceased in the tenants eviction case. It has been established on record that the deceased Smt. Vidyawati Mehra had sued the tenant in the property and had sought his eviction. Mrs. Prem Lata Aggarwal, Advocate was• representing the tenant against Smt. Vidyawati Mehra in this eviction proceedings against the Babu Lal and Pritam Singh. In her deposition, Smt. Shama Rani has stated that Smt. Vidyawati Mehra had filed false cases against the tenant. 84. Yet, as per Smt. Shama Rani, Smt. Vidyawati Mehra alone used to attend the cases filed by her against her tenant accompanied by the petitioner Shri V.K. Mehra and that some time Mr. P. Chandra Sekharan accompanied her. She has also stated that the case against the tenant Babu Lal was pending at the time of death of Smt. Vidyawati Mehra and on the basis of the Will set up by the petitioner, he was substituted as legal heirs in these proceedings in August, 1994. She also admits that she did not ask her mother before filing this suit. 85. In my view, this plaint, a vital piece of evidence, completely negates the case of the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 5 with regard to the sickness of the deceased in 1988. There is Do evidence to show that it was filed with her consent or concurrence. From the statement made by Smt. Shama Rani in her cross-examination, it also demolishes their case that this plaint evidences bad relations between the mother and her son (that is the petitioner) for the reason that the plaint was not signed by the deceased. 86. The respondent Nos. 3 and 5 have sought to challenge the Will on the plea that the deceased did not share cordial relations with the petitioner and for this reason, she could not have made the bequest in her favour. 86. The respondent Nos. 3 and 5 have sought to challenge the Will on the plea that the deceased did not share cordial relations with the petitioner and for this reason, she could not have made the bequest in her favour. Smt. Shama Rani, DW-1 has admitted that the petitioner, his wife and children lived together along with Smt. Vidyawati Mehra in the same house till her death and also that the petitioners son would stay with his grand-mother, Smt. Vidyawati Mehra in the absence of the petitioner and his wife. She has stated that the petitioner spent Rs. 1,00,000/- on the treatment of Shri Vidyawati Mehra at the time she had paralytic attack in 1988 till she died and later got the same reimbursed. She also admitted that Shri Vijay K. Mehra, the petitioner used to accompany the mother for attending the Court cases, bank and also for attending social functions and to visit relatives and friends. Smt. Shama Rani, DW-1 has thus made vague and unsubstantiated allegations that the petitioner had bad relations with the deceased or that he had threatened her and obtained her signatures on blank paper. 87. Ms. Manju Vij, DW-3, who is the respondent No.3 in this petition, in her testimony has stated that the deceased Smt. Vidyawati Mehra was accompanied by the petitioner when they attended the Terhvi and Pagri Rasam of her mother-in-law. She also confirmed that her mother had got the name of the petitioner included as a joint holder of her locker during her life-time. She identified the signatures of Smt. Vidyawati Mehra on Exh. PW-1/6 (also marked Exh. P-3) and Exh. PW-1/7and PW-1/S. The witness also confirmed that the petitioner used to take Smt. Vidyawati Mehra to different hospitals and major care of the deceased was done by the petitioner who also bore the expenses of any of the treatment. Amongst others, the objector stated that the deceased received treatment in the Jeevan Nursing Home, Batra Hospital and Pant Hospital. This witness made a positive statement that the relations between the petitioner and mother were cordial and that they had a common kitchen. 88. A copy of the ration card showing that the deceased along with the petitioner and his family were having a joint ration card has been proved as Exh. PW-1/4. This witness made a positive statement that the relations between the petitioner and mother were cordial and that they had a common kitchen. 88. A copy of the ration card showing that the deceased along with the petitioner and his family were having a joint ration card has been proved as Exh. PW-1/4. The witness from the Food and Supplies Department produced the muster register of ration card the relevant extract whereof has been proved as Exh. P-4. 89. It has come in the evidence of respondent Nos. 2 to 5 that neither the mother nor any of objectors have lodged any complaint against any of the alleged acts and threats mentioned in the objections. 90. From the testimony of DWs 1/2 and 1/3, it is an admitted fact by all the parties that the petitioner and his family looked after the deceased Smt. Vidyawati Mehra. It is also established that the petitioner took his mother for treatment to various hospitals including the Jeevan Nursing Home, Apollo Hospital and Batra Hospital and that he spent the money on her treatment and that the mother took care of the children of the petitioner while he and his wife were away to work; that they had a common kitchen, cooked the same food in the same utensils. There was no acrimony between them. The mothers trust in her son is manifested from the statement that she looked to the petitioner to accompany her to Court proceedings and that she had included his name as a joint locker holder. 91. There is thus credibility in the case which has been set up by the petitioner. It has been conclusively established that the deceased executed the document dated 1st January, 1989 as her last Will and testament which was attested by two witnesses in her presence. The petitioner was not even present at that time. The Will was retained by one of the witnesses who as per the instructions of the deceased, made the same known only after her death. The respondent No.5 has herself stated that she learnt about the Will for the first time when Terhavi ceremony was being performed after the demise of the mother. 92. The Will was retained by one of the witnesses who as per the instructions of the deceased, made the same known only after her death. The respondent No.5 has herself stated that she learnt about the Will for the first time when Terhavi ceremony was being performed after the demise of the mother. 92. In Joyce Primrose Prestor (Mrs) (Nee Vas) v. Vera Marie Vas (Ms) and Others (supra), the Court also noticed that there was absolutely no cross-examination on the various aspects stated by the witness regarding the due execution and the attestation of the Will as extracted hereinabove. It was held that the objectors had failed to prove that there were any suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will and there was no evidence to show that the plaintiff exercised undue influence over the testatrix. Non-registration of a Will would by itself not render the same as suspicious [Ref. AIR 1954 5C 280, Ishwardeo Narain Singh v. Smt. Kamta Devi and Ors.]. 93. As noticed above, it has been repeatedly held that the onus of proving the Will is on the propounder and in the absence of suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the Will, proof of testamentary capacity and proof of signatures of the testator as required by law, are sufficient to discharge the onus of proof. In VI (2004) SLT 716=IV (2004) CLT 194= (2005) 1 SCC 280 , Meenakshiammal (Dead) Through LRs. and Ors. v. Chandrasekaran and Anr., the Court enumerated further instances of suspicious circumstances. The onus is the propounder to explain the legitimate suspicion to the satisfaction of the Court before it accepts the Will as genuine. If the propounder takes a prominent part in the execution of the Will which confers a substantial benefit on him, the propounder is required to remove the doubts by clear and satisfactory evidence. In this behalf, the Court held thus: "16. We do not find any merit in this civil appeal. The onus of proving the will is on the propounder and in the absence of suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the Will, proof of testamentary capacity and proof of the signature of the testator, as required by law, is sufficient to discharge the onus. Where, however, there are suspicious circumstances, the onus is on the propounder to explain them to the satisfaction of the Court before it accepts the Will as genuine. Where, however, there are suspicious circumstances, the onus is on the propounder to explain them to the satisfaction of the Court before it accepts the Will as genuine. Even where the circumstances give rise to doubts, it is for the propounder to satisfy the conscience of the Court. The suspicious circumstances may be regarding the genuineness of the signature of the testator, the condition of the testators mind, the disposition made in the Will being unnatural, improbable or unfair in the light of relevant circumstances, or there might be other indications in the Will to show that the testators mind was not free. In such a case, the Court would normally expect that all legitimate suspicions should be completely removed before the document is accepted as the last Will of testator. 19. In the case of Chinmoyee Saha v. Debendra Lal Sciha, it has been held that if the propounder takes a prominent part in the execution of the will, which confers a substantial benefit on him, the propounder is required to remove the doubts by clear and satisfactory evidence. Once the propounder proves that the Will was signed by the testator, that he was at the relevant time in a sound disposing state of mind, that he understood the nature and effect of the disposition and put his signature out of his own free will, and that he signed it in presence of the witnesses who attested it in his presence, the onus, which rests on the propounder, is discharged• and when allegation of undue influence, fraud or coercion is made by the caveator, the onus is on the caveator to prove the same. 20. In the case of Ryali Ka11leshwara Rao v. Bendapudi Suryaprakasarao the Court while discussing the provisions of Section 63 of the Succession Act, 1925, has held that the suspicion alleged must be one inherent in the transaction itself and not the doubt that may arise from conflict of testimony which becomes apparent on an investigation of the transaction. That suspicious circumstances cannot be defined precisely. They cannot be enumerated exhaustively. They must depend upon the facts of each case. When a question arises as to whether a will is genuine or forged, normally the fact that nothing can be said against the reasonable nature of its provisions will be a strong and material, element in favour of the probabilities of the Will. They cannot be enumerated exhaustively. They must depend upon the facts of each case. When a question arises as to whether a will is genuine or forged, normally the fact that nothing can be said against the reasonable nature of its provisions will be a strong and material, element in favour of the probabilities of the Will. Whether a Will has been executed by the testator in a sound and disposing state of mind is purely a question of fact, which will have to be decided in each case on the circumstances disclosed and the nature and quality of the evidence adduced. When the Will is alleged to have been executed under undue influence, the onus of proving undue influence is upon the person making such allegation and allegation of motive and opportunity are not enough." 94. It would be apposite and useful to consider the observations of the Apex Court in I (2002) SLT 137=1 (2002) CLT 81 (SC)= (2002) 2 SCC 85 =AIR 2002SC 637, Madhukar D. Shende v. Tarabaiaba Shedage, wherein the Court laid down the principles thus: "8. The requirement of proof of a Will is the same as any other document excepting that the evidence tendered in proof of a Will should additionally satisfy the requirement of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. If after considering the matters before it, the facts and circumstances as emanating from the material available on record of a given case, the Court either believes that the Will was duly executed by the testator or considers the existence of such fact so probable that any productive person ought, under the circumstances of that particular case, to act upon the supposition that the Will was duly executed by the testator, then the factum of execution of Will shall be said to have been proved. The delicate structure of proof framed by a judicially trained mind cannot stand on weak foundation nor survive any inherent defects therein but at the same time sought not to be permitted to be demolished by wayward pelting of stones of suspicion and supposition by way-farers and way-layers. The delicate structure of proof framed by a judicially trained mind cannot stand on weak foundation nor survive any inherent defects therein but at the same time sought not to be permitted to be demolished by wayward pelting of stones of suspicion and supposition by way-farers and way-layers. What was told by Baron Alderson to the jury in R. v. Hodge may be apposite to some extent- "The mind was apt to take a pleasure in adapting circumstances to one another and even in straining them a little, if need be, to force them to form parts of one connected whole, and the more ingenuous the mind of the individual, the more likely was it, considering such matters, to overreach and mislead itself, to supply some little link that is wanting, to take for granted some fact consistent with the previous theories and necessary to render them complete." The conscience of the Court has to be satisfied by the propounder of the Will adducing evidence so as to dispel any suspicions or unnatural circumstances attaching to a Will provided that there are something unnatural or suspicious about the Will. The law of evidence does not permit conjecture or suspicion having the place of legal proof nor permit them to demolish a fact otherwise proved by legal and convincing evidence. Well founded suspicion may be a ground floor closure scrutiny of evidence but suspicion alone cannot form the foundation of a judicial verdict - positive or negative. 9. It is well settled that one who propounds a Will must establish the competences of the testator to make the Will at the time when it was executed. The onus is discharged by the propounder adducing prima facie evidence proving the competence of the testator and execution of the Will in the manner contemplated by law. The contestant opposing the Will may bring material on record meeting such prima facie case in which event the onus would shift back on the propounder to satisfy the Court affirmatively that the testator did know well the contents of the Will and in sound disposing capacity one would leave no room for suspicion, assume significance. The contestant opposing the Will may bring material on record meeting such prima facie case in which event the onus would shift back on the propounder to satisfy the Court affirmatively that the testator did know well the contents of the Will and in sound disposing capacity one would leave no room for suspicion, assume significance. If there is nothing unnatural about the transaction and the evidence adduced satisfies the requirement of proving a Will, the Court would not return a finding of "not proved" merely on account of certain assumed suspicion or supposition who are the persons propounding and supporting a Will as against the person disputing the Will and the pleadings of the parties would be relevant and of significance. 95. It is equally well settled that genuineness of a Will is required to be provided by primary evidence except where the Court permits its proof by secondary evidence. The suspicious circumstances are required to be removed by the propounder. However, in case a person alleges a Will as being forged or obtained under undue influence or coercion, the onus to prove the same shifts to the person who so alleges. It was so held by the Apex Court in VII (2004) SLT 49=IV (2004) CLT 255 (SC)= (2005) 1 SCC 40 , Daulat Ram and Ors. v. Sadha and Ors. 96. In I (2006) SLT 214 (SC)=I (2006) CLT 208 (SC)=JT 2006 (1) SC 225, Mathew Oammen v. Suseela Mathew, the Apex Court held that there is no requirement in law that a scribe cannot be an attesting witness to the Will. It was held that what is required is an intention to bequeath. In this case, one of the circumstances mentioned by the respondent for challenging the Will is that the beneficiary never applied for probate or for mutation of the property soon after the death of the father. It was held that this was no reason to dislodge the Will. 97. A bequest of the entire estate to a widowed daughter who lost her husband at an early stage to the exclusion of all daughters by the testatrix mother was upheld in IV (2003) SLT 916=III (2003) CLT 146 (SC)= AIR 2003 SC 3109 , Ramabai Padmakar Patil (dead) by LRs and Others v. Rukminibai Vishnu Vekhande and Ors. 97. A bequest of the entire estate to a widowed daughter who lost her husband at an early stage to the exclusion of all daughters by the testatrix mother was upheld in IV (2003) SLT 916=III (2003) CLT 146 (SC)= AIR 2003 SC 3109 , Ramabai Padmakar Patil (dead) by LRs and Others v. Rukminibai Vishnu Vekhande and Ors. In this case the Court observed that if the background in which the Will was executed examined carefully that it would be apparent that the bequest in favour of the widowed daughter was the most natural conduct of the mother and that giving of equal shares to all the daughters would have entailed a serious hardship to the plaintiff who was living with her for over 20 years and looking after her. It was also noticed that the other daughters were living at different places with their husbands where as the mother had merely made a provision for a widowed daughter who had been left a destitute on account of death of her husband at an early stage. 98. Mr. Arvind Nigam, learned Counsel for the petitioner has also adverted to the conduct of the respondent who is stated to have displayed greed in the property towards which end she had filed Suit No. 1535/1993 for partition which was transferred to the District Court and was then registered as Suit No. 641/1996. In this suit, Smt. Shama Rani had sought partition of the estate of late Smt. Vidyawati Mehra on the plea that she had died intestate. This suit was dismissed for default of appearance on 15th March, 1996. Smt. Shama Rani then filed an IA No. 76/1996 therein for restoration which was dismissed on 13th December, 2006. The respondents thereafter filed FAO No. 72/1977 assailing the aforenoticed order which was also dismissed for default of appearance. 99. The petitioner contends that the respondents also instigated Smt. Khurana, respondent No.4 herein, to file the suit for partition which registered as Suit No. 43/1997 and, as noticed hereinabove, was transferred to this Court and registered as CS (OS) No. 1354/2005. Subsequently, the same has been withdrawn by her. 100. The petitioner has contended that the mother of the parties did not cordial relations with Smt. Shama Rani, respondent No.5 and that lid not even attend the function which was celebrated on the occasion the of her son. Subsequently, the same has been withdrawn by her. 100. The petitioner has contended that the mother of the parties did not cordial relations with Smt. Shama Rani, respondent No.5 and that lid not even attend the function which was celebrated on the occasion the of her son. It is in evidence that were not attending functions hosted by each other. Smt Shama Rani has deposted that she did not know her lers signatures and has attributed falsehood to her. 101. From the above, the irresistible conclusion thus is that there is no substance in the contention of the objectors that relations between the loner and his deceased mother were acrimonious that the petitioner influenced the execution of the Will. 102. It is trite that though it is a duty of the propounder of the Will to remove all the suspect features but there must be real, genuine and valid suspicious features and not the fantasy of the doubting mind. In this behalf, AIR 1995 SC 1852 PPK, Gopalan Nambiar v. PPK Balakrishnan Nambiar Ors., it was held that the factum of giving the whole estate to the son under the Will depriving two daughters was by itself not a suspicious circumstance. 103. The deceased Smt. Vidyawati Mehra was coi1abiting with her son lis family. From the evidence on record, he was devoted to her. She had and trust in him. The objectors did not seem to share a close relation with their mother. One of the admitted fact is that she had not seen her mother for years. There is therefore nothing unnatural in the bequest made le deceased in favour of her only son without bequeathing any part of State in favour of her daughters. 104. It is equally well settled that if the propounder succeeds in wing the suspicious circumstance, the Court would have to give effect e Will even if the Will might be unnatural, in the sense that it has cut off wholly, or in part, real relations [Ref. AIR 1972 SC 2492 , Pushpavati and v. Chandraja Kadamba and Ors.); (1995) 4 SCC 459 , Rabindranath Mukherjee and Ors. v. Panchanan Banerjee (Dead) by LRs. and Ors.]. 105. AIR 1972 SC 2492 , Pushpavati and v. Chandraja Kadamba and Ors.); (1995) 4 SCC 459 , Rabindranath Mukherjee and Ors. v. Panchanan Banerjee (Dead) by LRs. and Ors.]. 105. In Joyce Primrose Prestor (Mrs.) (Nee Vas)v. Vera Marie Vas (Ms) and others (supra), the Court also noticed that there was absolutely no cross-examination on the various aspects stated by the witness regarding the due execution and the attestation of the Will as extracted hereinabove. It was that the objectors had failed to prove that there were any suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will and there was no evidence to show the plaintiff exercised undue influence over the testatrix. Before this Court also there is nothing to establish any suspicious circumstance in execution of the Will. 106. In view of the foregoing discussion, in my view, the Will dated 1st of January, 1989 (Exh. PW 6/1) in question satisfies the requirement of Section 63 of the Succession Act as well as Sections 67-68 of the Evidence Act. The petitioner has discharged the onus on him for proving that the Will was executed and attested by the deceased in sound and disposing mind without any force, pressure or influence and in accordance with law. The issue No.1 framed on 2nd November, 2001 is therefore answered in favour of the petitioner. 107. The valuation of the immovable property has been placed by the Chief Revenue Controlling Authority on record who has valued the immovable property at Rs. 20,00,6801-. The petitioner has proved the list of assets of the deceased from the office of the Deputy Commissioner, South Delhi as Exh. PW-1/3. The petitioner has detailed several movable properties in Annexure C and have been valued at Rs. 8,000,000/- which form part of the estate of the deceased. These valuations of the immovable and movable properties are accepted. In this view of the matter, this petition is allowed. The petitioner is granted probate of the Will dated 1st January, 1989 subject to payment of the requisite Court fee in accordance with law and furnishing personal bond with one surety to the satisfaction of the Registrar General. The petitioner shall be entitled to costs which are quantified at Rs. 60,000/ - payable by the respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 5. Costs shall be payable within four weeks from today. Result: Petition allowed.