Delhi District Court
Namita Jain vs The State And Ors on 4 August, 2025
Namita Jain Vs. The State and Ors.
IN THE COURT OF DISTRICT JUDGE-02, SOUTH
DISTRICT, SAKET COURTS, NEW DELHI
Presiding Judge: Dr. Yadvender Singh
PC No. 2/2024
Filing No. 6/2024
CNR No. DLST01-000029-2024
In the matter of
Smt. Namita Jain
W/o Late Sh. Sunil Jain,
R/o A-68, Gulmohar Park,
Andrews Ganj, New Delhi-110049. ................Petitioner
Versus
1. The State
Govt of NCT of Delhi,
SDM, Hauz Khas, M.B. Road,
Saket, New Delhi-110068.
2. Smt. Sumita Kumar,
W/o Sh. Deba Ranjan Mohanty,
R/o Z-24, Ground Floor,
Hauz Khas, New Delhi-110016.
4. State Bank of India,
Digitally signed
YADVENDER by YADVENDER
SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.08.04
16:45:25 +0530
PC No. 2/2024
Page 1 of 23 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket04.08.2025
Namita Jain Vs. The State and Ors.
Through its Manager,
A-15, Hauz Khas,
New Delhi-110016. .............Respondents
Date of Institution : 04.01.2024
Date of reserving the judgment : 04.07.2025
Date of pronouncement : 04.08.2025
Decision : Petition Allowed.
PETITION UNDER SECTION 270 OF THE INDIAN
SUCCESSION ACT 1925 FOR LETTERS OF
ADMINISTRATION IN RESPECT OF PROPERTY OF
BANK LOCKER NO. 187, LINKED TO BANK A/C NO.
30001240880 WITH STATE BANK OF INDIA, A-15, HAUZ
KHAS, NEW DELHI-110016 OF LATE PROF. SATISH
KUMAR
JUDGMENT
1. The present petition has been filed by the petitioner under
Section 270 of the Indian Succession Act 1925 for grant of
letters of administration in respect of property of bank locker
no. 187, linked to bank A/c no. 30001240880 of the registered
Will dated 25.01.2020 of Prof. Satish Kumar (since deceased)
(hereinafter referred to as ‘the testator’). The case of the
petitioner, as per the petition, is as under:-
1.1. That the petitioner and the respondent no.2 are the
daughters of deceased Prof. Satish Kumar S/o. Late Shri
Digitally signed
by YADVENDER
YADVENDER SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.08.04
16:45:30 +0530PC No. 2/2024
Page 2 of 23 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket04.08.2025
Namita Jain Vs. The State and Ors.
Ram Nath Agarwal.
1.2. That the father of the petitioner, Prof. Satish Kumar
died on 29.04.2021 leaving behind the following legal
heirs:
(i) Namita Jain Daughter
(ii) Sumita Kumar Daughter
1.3. That the deceased Prof. Satish Kumar, during his
lifetime, had acquired various moveable and immovable
properties including the following:
Movable Property:
i) Bank Locker No.187 which was linked to A/c No.
30001240880 with State Bank of India at A-15, Hauz
Khas, New Delhi-110016
1.4. That during the lifetime, Prof. Satish Kumar had
executed a registered Will dated 25.01.2020 which was
duly registered vide registration No.85 Book No.3, Vol
No.535, Pages 175-178 dated 25.1.2020 registered before
the Sub Registrar -VA, Hauz Khas, New Delhi.
1.5. That by virtue of the aforesaid Will, all the
movable and immovable properties have been bequeathed
by Prof. Satish Kumar in favour of his two daughters
namely, Mrs. Namita Jain and Mrs. Sumita Kumar (Both
Digitally signed
by YADVENDER
YADVENDER SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.08.04
16:45:35 +0530
PC No. 2/2024
Page 3 of 23 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket04.08.2025
Namita Jain Vs. The State and Ors.
are now married) including the Bank Locker which is
subject matter of this petition.
1.6. That it is, further, submitted that the petitioner and
her sister Mrs Sumita Kumar have been made as nominee
in respect of his Bank accounts including the one to
which the said locker is linked. It is also submitted that
vide said Will, Prof. Satish Kumar has bequeathed entire
outstanding balance in respective bank accounts in favour
of the petitioner and her sister.
1.7. That the petitioner has been made as nominee in
respect of Bank A/c No. 30001240880 with respondent
no.3 State Bank of India Bank and the locker No.187 is
linked to this Bank account at A-15, Hauz Khas, New
Delhi-110016 and by virtue of the said Will, the aforesaid
locker has been devolved upon the petitioner.
1.8. That the petitioner being the beneficiary/nominee
in respect of the Bank A/c No. 30001240880 with State
Bank of India and the locker No.187 was linked to this
Bank account at A-15, Hauz Khas, New Delhi-110016.
Therefore she is entitled to the goods/cash/articles lying
in the said bank locker.
1.9. That the petitioner has truly set forth in Annexure-
A to her affidavit of valuation filed herewith of all the
Digitally signed
YADVENDER by YADVENDER
SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.08.04
PC No. 2/2024 16:45:40 +0530
Page 4 of 23 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket04.08.2025
Namita Jain Vs. The State and Ors.
properties and credits which the deceased possessed of at
the time of his death which have come to the petitioner’s
hands and so far as the petitioner has been able to
ascertain or is aware, there are no property and credits
other than what are specified in ANNEXURE-A as
aforesaid.
1.10. That the petitioner undertakes to duly administer
the property and credits of the said deceased and to make
full and true inventory thereof and exhibit the same in this
Hon’ble Court within six months from the date of grant of
letters of administration to her, and also to render to this
Hon’ble court a true account of the said property and
credits within one year from the said date.
1.11. That no other or similar application has been made
in this Hon’ble Court or in the Hon’ble High Court or any
other court for probate of any Will of the said deceased,
or Letters of Administration in respect of the property and
credits of the said deceased.
1.12. That this Hon’ble Court has jurisdiction to try and
entertain the present petition as bank locker No.187 with
respondent no.3 State Bank of India is situated at A-15,
Hauz Khas, New Delhi-110016. Hence, the present
petition was filed with the following prayer:-
Digitally signed
by YADVENDER
YADVENDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.08.04
16:45:47 +0530
PC No. 2/2024
Page 5 of 23 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket04.08.2025
Namita Jain Vs. The State and Ors.
“(a) Grant the Letters of Administration to the
petitioner having effect throughout India in
respect of the Bank Locker No.187 which was
linked to A/c No. 30001240880 with
respondent no.3 State Bank of India at A-15,
Hauz Khas, New Delhi-110016 of deceased
Late Prof. Satish Kumar as mentioned in
Schedule of properties, in view of the facts and
circumstances stated above and in the interest
of justice.
b) Pass such other or further order, relief in
favour of the petitioner which this Hon’ble
Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case.”
2. Vide order dated 15.02.2024, the citation was directed to
be published in the newspaper for general public. Citation was
also directed to be issued to the private respondents. The
citation was published in the newspaper “The Statesman” and
“Veer Arjun” both dated 30.08.2024. The citation was also
published by way of affixation at the Notice Board of the Court
and at the Notice Board of the DM concerned. Citation was also
served upon the private respondents.
3. Respondent No. 2 appeared and filed her no objection on
23.04.2024. Respondent No. 1 is State and respondent no. 2 is
Bank.
4. On the basis of record, issues were framed vide order
Digitally signed
YADVENDER by YADVENDER
SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.08.04
16:45:52 +0530
PC No. 2/2024
Page 6 of 23 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket04.08.2025
Namita Jain Vs. The State and Ors.
dated 19.09.2024. The issues after correction read as under:
(i) Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of
Letters of Administration in respect of Bank Locker
No. 187 linked to account no. 30001240880 of testator
Prof. Satish Kumar maintained with State Bank of
India, Hauz Khas, New Delhi being Class I legal heir
of the testator? OPP
(ii) Relief.
5. The petitioner was asked to lead evidence. The petitioner
examined herself as PW-1. She tendered her evidence by way of
affidavit Ex.PW1/1. She has reiterated the facts stated in the
petition and relied upon the following documents:
a) Original Will, Ex. PW-1/A;
b) Photocopy of Aadhar card of Late Prof. Satish
Kumar, Ex. PW-1/B (OSR);
c) Photocopy of Aadhar card of deponent, Ex.
PW-1/C (OSR);
d) Photocopy of Aadhar card of Sumita Kumar, Ex.
PW-1/D already Ex. P-1 (OSR);
e) Copy of surviving member certificate, Ex. PW-1/E;
f) Copy of death certificate of Late Prof. Satish
Kumar, Ex. PW-1/F; and
g) Copy of letter issued by bank, Ex. PW-1/G is de-
exhibited and is marked as Mark PW-1/G.
6. The petitioner also examined attesting witness PW-2 Sh.
Jagdish Chander. He tendered his affidavit in evidence as Ex.
Digitally signed
by YADVENDER
YADVENDER SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.08.04
16:46:06 +0530
PC No. 2/2024
Page 7 of 23 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket04.08.2025
Namita Jain Vs. The State and Ors.
PW2/A. He would state that the Will Ex. PW-1/A dated
25.01.2020 was signed by Prof. Satish Kumar (since deceased)
in his presence before Sub-Registrar. He stated that he can
identify the signature of testator Prof. Satish Kumar at points A
on the Will Ex. PW-1/A. The Will bears his signature at points
B. He stated that he saw testator signing in the presence of
second marginal witness namely K.K. Ahuja. He stated that he
can also identify his signature at points C. He stated that he and
the other marginal witness signed the Will Ex. PW-1/A after the
signature of the executant and they all signed in the presence of
each other, all being present at the same time. He stated that at
the time of execution of the Will, the testator was in his sound
disposing mind without any pressure, force, fraud, undue
influence, misrepresentation, coercion from any quarter and that
testator executed the Will in his complete senses.
7. The petitioner did not examine any other witness. Vide
order dated 14.01.2025, PE was closed. The matter was
adjourned for final arguments.
8. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner would argue that the
petitioner has proved the Will of her father. The attesting
witnesses i.e. PW-2, in his statement recorded before the Court
has also proved the signatures of the testator on the Will and
deposed that the testator had signed the Will in his presence.
Digitally signed
by YADVENDER
YADVENDER SINGH
SINGH Date:
PC No. 2/2024 2025.08.04
16:46:11 +0530
Page 8 of 23 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket04.08.2025
Namita Jain Vs. The State and Ors.
The petitioner has proved the Will as per law. Hence, it is
prayed that the letters of administration with Will annexed may
be issued in favour of the petitioner.
9. I have heard the submissions of the Ld. Counsel for the
petitioners and perused the record. My issue wise findings are
as follow :
Issue No. 1 Whether the petitioner is entitled for grant of
Letters of Administration in respect of Bank Locker No.
187 linked to account no. 30001240880 of testator Prof.
Satish Kumar maintained with State Bank of India, Hauz
Khas, New Delhi being Class I legal heir of the testator?
OPP”
10. Before discussing the matter on merits, it would be
relevant to discuss the law relating to the execution and proof of
Wills under the Indian Succession Act and the Evidence Act.
The expression “Will” is defined by Section 2(h) of Indian
Succession Act, 1925 to mean the legal declaration of “the
intention” of a testator with respect to his property “which he
desires to be carried into effect after his death”. Section 59 of
Indian Succession Act, 1925 governs the capability of a person
to make a Will. It reads as under:
“59. Person capable of making Wills — Every person of
sound mind not being a minor may dispose of his
property by Will.
“Explanation1.-A married woman may dispose by Will
Digitally signed
YADVENDER by YADVENDER
SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.08.04
PC No. 2/2024 16:46:17 +0530Page 9 of 23 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket04.08.2025
Namita Jain Vs. The State and Ors.
of any property which she could alienate by her own act
during her life.
“Explanation 2.— Persons who are deaf or dumb or
blind are not thereby incapacitated for making a Will if
they are able to know what they do by it.
“Explanation 3.— A person who is ordinarily insane
may make a Will during interval in which he is of sound
mind.
“Explanation 4.— No person can make a Will while he,
is in such a state of mind, whether arising from
intoxication or from illness or from any other cause,
that he does not know what he is doing.”
11. Section 59 thus declares that every person (not being a
minor) “of sound mind” may dispose of his property by Will.
The second explanation appended to the said provision clarifies
that persons who are “deaf or dumb or blind” are not
incapacitated by such condition for making a Will “if they are
able to know what they do by it”. The third explanation makes
the basic principle clear by adding that even a person who is
“ordinarily insane” may make a Will during the interval in
which “he is of sound mind”. The fourth explanation renders it
even more lucent by putting it negatively in words to the effect
that it the person “does not know what he is doing” for any
reason (such as intoxiation, illness or any other such cause) he
is incompetent to make a Will. The focal pre-requisite, thus, is
that at the time of expressing his desire vis-a-vis the disposition
of the estate after his demise he must know and understand its
Digitally signed
by YADVENDER
YADVENDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.08.04
16:46:22 +0530
PC No. 2/2024
Page 10 of 23 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket04.08.2025
Namita Jain Vs. The State and Ors.
purport or import.
12. The execution of an unprivileged Will, as the case at hand
relates to, is governed by Section 63 of the Indian Succession
Act, 1925, which reads as under:
“63 Execution of unprivileged Wills. –Every testator,
not being a soldier employed in an expedition or
engaged in actual warfare or an airman so employed or
engaged, or a mariner at sea, shall execute his Will
according to the following rules:
“(a) The testator shall sign or shall affix his mark to the
Will, or it shall be signed by some other person in his
presence and by his direction.
“(b) 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.
“(c) 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.”
13. As per the mandate of clause (c), a Will is required to be
attested by two or more witnesses each of whom should have
seen the testator sign or put his mark on the Will or should have
Digitally signed
by
YADVENDER
YADVENDER SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.08.04
16:46:26 +0530
PC No. 2/2024
Page 11 of 23 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket04.08.2025
Namita Jain Vs. The State and Ors.
seen some other person sign the Will in his presence and by the
direction of the testator or should have received from the
testator a personal acknowledgment of his signature or mark, or
of the signature of such other person. The Will must be signed
by the witness in the presence of the testator, but it is not
necessary that more than one witness should be present at the
same time. No particular form of attestation is necessary. Thus,
there is no prescription in the statute that the testator must
necessarily sign the Will in the presence of the attesting
witnesses only or that the attesting witnesses must put their
signatures on the Will simultaneously, that is, at the same time,
in the presence of each other and the testator. In H.
Venkatachala Iyengar v. B.N. Thimmajamma and Others:AIR
1959 SC 443 Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has held that a
Will is produced before the court after the testator who has
departed from the world, cannot say that the Will is his own or
it is not the same. This factum introduces an element of
solemnity to the decision on the question where the Will
propounded is proved as the last Will or testament of the
departed testator. Therefore, the propounder to succeed and
prove the Will is required to prove by satisfactory evidence that
(i) the Will was signed by the testator; (ii) the testator at the
time was in a sound and disposing state of mind; (iii) the
Digitally signed
by YADVENDER
YADVENDER SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.08.04
16:46:31 +0530
PC No. 2/2024
Page 12 of 23 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket04.08.2025
Namita Jain Vs. The State and Ors.
testator understood the nature and effect of the dispositions; and
(iv) that the testator had put his signature on the document of
his own free will. It further held that ordinarily, when the
evidence adduced in support of the Will is disinterested,
satisfactory and sufficient to prove the sound and disposing
state of mind of the testator and his signature as required by law,
courts would be justified in making a finding in favour of the
propounder. Such evidence would discharge the onus on the
propounder to prove the essential facts. The Hon’ble Supreme
Court further held that it is necessary to remove suspicious
circumstances surrounding the execution of the Will.
14. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Jaswant Kaur vs
Amrit Kaur & Ors : AIR 1977 SC 74 has discussed the law
related to proving a will. It has held as under:
“There is a long line of decisions bearing on the nature
and standard of evidence required to prove a will. Those
decisions have been reviewed in an elaborate judgment
of this Court in R. Venkatachala Iyengar v.B.N.
Thirnmajamma & Others. (1) The Court, speaking
through Gajendragadkar J., laid down in that case the
following positions :–
“1. Stated generally, a will has to be proved like any
other document, the test to be applied being the usual
test of the satisfaction of the prudent mind in such
matters. As in the ease of proof of other documents, so
in the case of proof of wills, one cannot insist on proof
with mathematical certainty.
Digitally
signed by
YADVENDER
YADVENDER SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.08.04
16:46:36
PC No. 2/2024 +0530
Page 13 of 23 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket04.08.2025
Namita Jain Vs. The State and Ors.
“2. Since section 63 of the Succession Act requires a
will to be attested, it cannot be used as evidence until, as
required by section 63 of the Evidence Act, one attesting
witness at least has been called for the purpose of
proving its execution, if there be an attesting witness
alive and subject to the process of the court and capable
of giving evidence.”3. Unlike other documents, the will
speaks from the death of the testator and therefore the
maker of the will is never available for deposing as to
the circumstances in which the will came to be
executed.
“This aspect introduces an element of solemnity in the
decision of the question whether the document
propounded is proved to be the last will and testament of
the testator. Normally, the onus which lies on the
propounder can be taken to be discharged on proof of
the essential facts which go into the making of the will.
“4. Cases in which the execution of the will is surround-
ed by suspicious circumstances stand on a different
footing. A shaky signature, a feeble mind, an unfair and
unjust disposition of property, the propounder himself
taking a leading part in the making of the will under
which he receives a substantial benefit and such other
circumstances raise suspicion about the execution of the
will. That suspicion cannot be removed by the mere
assertion of the propounder that the will bears the
signature of the testator or that the testator was in a
sound and disposing state of mind and memory at the
time when the will was made, or that those like the wife
and children of the testator who would normally receive
their due share in his estate were disinherited because
the testator might have had his own reasons for
excluding them. The presence of suspicious
circumstances makes the initial onus heavier andDigitally signed
by YADVENDER
YADVENDER SINGH
PC No. 2/2024 SINGH Date: 2025.08.04
16:46:41 +0530
Page 14 of 23 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket04.08.2025
Namita Jain Vs. The State and Ors.
therefore, in cases where the circumstances attendant
upon the execution of the will excite the suspicion of the
court, the propounder must remove all legitimate
suspicions before the document can be accepted as the
last will of the testator.
“5. It is in connection with wills, the execution of which
is surrounded by suspicious circumstance that the test of
satisfaction of the judicial conscience has been evolved.
That test emphasises that in determining the question as
to whether an instrument produced before the court is
the last will of the testator, the court is called upon to
decide a solemn question and by reason of suspicious
circumstances the court has to be satisfied fully that the
will has been validly executed by the testator.
“6. If a caveator alleges fraud, undue influence, coercion
etc. in regard to the execution of the will, such pleas
have to be proved by him, but even in the absence of
such pleas, the very circumstances surrounding the
execution’ of the will may raise a doubt as to whether
the testator was acting of his own free will. And then it
is a part of the initial onus of the propounder to remove
all reasonable doubts in the matter.”
15. In Shashi Kumar Banerjee & Ors vs Subodh Kumar
Banerjee Since deceased through LRs.:AIR 1964 SC 529,
Hon’ble Supreme Court has discussed the law relating to the
Will to be proved. Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:-
“5. The principles which govern the proving of a will
are well settled; (see H. Venkatachala Iyengar v. B. N.
Thimmajamma, 1959 (S1) SCR 426 : 1959 AIR(SC)
443) and Rani Purniama Devi v. Khagendra Narayan
Digitally signed
by YADVENDER
YADVENDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.08.04
16:46:46 +0530PC No. 2/2024
Page 15 of 23 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket04.08.2025
Namita Jain Vs. The State and Ors.
Dev, 1962 (3) SCR 195 : 1962 AIR(SC) 567). The mode
of proving a will does not ordinarily differ from that of
proving any other document except as to the special
requirement of attestation prescribed in the case of a will
by S. 63 of the Indian Succession Act. 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 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
the Court accepts the will as genuine. Where 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
genuineness of the signature of the testator, the
condition of the testator’s mind, the dispositions made in
the will being unnatural improbable or unfair in the light
of relevant circumstances or there might be other
indication in the will to show that the testator’s mind
was not free. 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
Digitally signed
by YADVENDER
YADVENDER SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.08.04
16:46:50 +0530PC No. 2/2024
Page 16 of 23 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket04.08.2025
Namita Jain Vs. The State and Ors.
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.”
16. Similarly in Navneet Lal Alias Rangi vs Gokul and
Others : AIR 1976 SC 794, Hon’ble Supreme Court of India has
laid down the following Principles/Guidelines:-
“From the earlier decisions of this Court the following
principles, inter alia, are well established:-
“(1) In construing a document whether in English or in
vernacular the fundamental rule is to ascertain the
intention from the words used; the surrounding
circumstances are to be considered; but that is only for
the purpose of finding out the intended meaning of the
words which have actually been employed. [Ram Gopal
v. Nand Lal and others(1)].
“(2) In construing the language of the will the court is
entitled to put itself into the testator’s armchair [Venkata
Narasimha v. Parthasarathy(2)] and is bound to bear in
mind also other matters than merely the words used. It
must consider the surrounding circumstances, the
position of the testator, his family relationship, the
probability that he would use words in a particular
sense….but all this is solely as an aid to arriving at a
right construction of the will, and to ascertain the
meaning of its language when used by that particular
testator in that document. [Venkata Narasimha‘s case
supra and Gnanambal Ammal v. T. Raju Ayyar and
Others(1)].
“(3) The true intention of the testator has to be gathered
not by attaching importance to isolated expressions but
Digitally signed
by YADVENDER
YADVENDER SINGH
SINGH
PC No. 2/2024 Date: 2025.08.04
16:46:55 +0530
Page 17 of 23 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket04.08.2025
Namita Jain Vs. The State and Ors.
by reading the will as a whole with all its provisions and
ignoring none of them as redundant or contradictory
[Raj Bajrang Bahadur Singh v. Thakurain Bakhtraj
Kuer(2)].
“(4) The court must accept, if possible, such
construction as would give to every expression some
effect rather than that which would render any of the
expression inoperative. The court will look at the
circumstances under which the testator makes his will,
such as the state of his property, of his family and the
like. Where apparently conflicting dispositions can be
reconciled by giving full effect to every word used in a
document, such a construction should be accepted
instead of a construction which would have the effect of
cutting down the clear meaning of the words used by the
testator. Further, where one of the two reasonable
constructions would lead to intestacy, that should be
discarded in favour of a construction which does not
create any such hiatus. [Paerey Lal v. Rameshwar
Das(3)].
“(5) It is one of the cardinal principles of construction of
wills that to the extent that it is legally possible effect
should be given to every disposition contained in the
will unless the law prevents effect being given to it, Of
course, if there are two repugnant provisions conferring
successive interests, if the first interest created is valid
the subsequent interest cannot take effect but a Court of
construction will proceed to the farthest extent to avoid
repugnancy, so that effect could be given as far as
possible to every testamentary intention contained in the
will. [Ramachandra Shenoy and Another v. Mrs. Hilda
Brite and Other(4)]…”
17. Sections 68 of the Evidence Act, which relates to proof of
Digitally signed
YADVENDER by YADVENDER
SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.08.04
16:47:01 +0530
PC No. 2/2024
Page 18 of 23 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket04.08.2025
Namita Jain Vs. The State and Ors.
documents required by law to be attested, reads as under:
“68. Proof of execution of document required by law to
be attested.–If a document is required by law to be
attested, it shall not be used as evidence until one
attesting witness at least has been called for the purpose
of proving its execution, if there be an attesting witness
alive, and subject to the process of the Court and
capable of giving evidence: Provided that it shall not be
necessary to call an attesting witness in proof of the
execution of any document, not being a will, which has
been registered in accordance with the provisions of the
Indian Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), unless its
execution by the person by whom it purports to have
been executed is specifically denied.
18. It is also settled position of law that the jurisdiction of a
probate Court is limited only to consider the genuineness of a
Will. A question of title arising under the act cannot be gone
into the proceedings and construction of a Will relating to the
right, title and interest of any other person is beyond the domain
of the Probate Court. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in
judgment titled Kanwarjit Singh Dhillon Vs. Hardayal Singh
Dhillon & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 4890/2007 decided on
12.10.2007, while relying upon the judgments titled as
CHeeranjilal Shrilal Goenka Vs. Jasjit Singh & Ors. (1993) 2
SCC 507 has held that the Court of probate is only concerned
with the question as to whether the document put forward as the
Digitally signed
by YADVENDER
YADVENDER SINGH
SINGH Date:
2025.08.04
PC No. 2/2024 16:47:05 +0530Page 19 of 23 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket04.08.2025
Namita Jain Vs. The State and Ors.
last Will and testament of a deceased person was duly executed
and attested in accordance with law and whether at the time of
such execution, the testator had sound disposing mind. The
question whether a particular bequest is good or bad is not
within the purview of the Probate Court. Therefore, the only
issue in probate proceedings relates to the genuineness and due
execution of the Will.
19. It is the duty of the propounder of the Will to prove the
Will in question in accordance with law. In the present case, the
petitioner has examined herself as PW-1. She has also examined
PW-2 as attesting witnesses of the Will. PW-2 has proved his
signatures and the signatures of the testator on the Will Ex.
PW-1/A. Their testimonies also show that the testator was in
good physical health and sound disposing state of mind at the
time of execution of the Will in question Ex. PW-1/A. As held
by Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Shashi Kumar Banerjee
& Ors vs Subodh Kumar Banerjee Since deceased through
LRs.:AIR 1964 SC 529, the mode of proving a Will does not
differ from that of proving any other document except as to the
special requirement of attestation prescribed in a case of a Will
under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act. The role of the
Court in the present petition is to examine whether the
instrument propounded as Will as the last Will of the testator is
Digitally signed
YADVENDER by YADVENDER
SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.08.04
PC No. 2/2024 16:47:10 +0530
Page 20 of 23 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket04.08.2025
Namita Jain Vs. The State and Ors.
the last Will or not of the testator and whether the same has
been executed with free sound disposing mind. The petitioner is
the daughter of the testator. The respondent no. 2 is the daughter
of the testator and sister of the petitioner. She has already given
her no objection to the present petition. The Court has not
received any objections from any person despite publication of
the citation as per law. The testimonies of the witnesses
examined by the petitioner have remained unrebutted. There is
no reason to doubt the testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2. Nothing
has come on record which can show that the Will was executed
under suspicious circumstances or that the Will was not signed
in the presence of the attesting witnesses. Further, there is
nothing on record to show that the testator was not having free
sound disposing mind at the time of execution of the Will.
There is no contention to the present petition as per Section 286
of the Indian Succession Act. The petitioner has also proved the
death certificate of the testator on record which is Ex. PW-1/F.
The Will Ex. PW-1/A thus stands proved in accordance with
law. In view of the same, I hold that the petitioner has proved to
the satisfaction of the Court that the Will Ex. PW-1/A dated
25.01.2020 is the last and final Will of testator Prof. Satish
Kumar (since deceased). It also stands proved that the Will Ex.
PW-1/A has been duly executed as per law by the testator
Digitally signed by
YADVENDER YADVENDER SINGH
SINGH Date: 2025.08.04
16:47:14 +0530
PC No. 2/2024
Page 21 of 23 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket04.08.2025
Namita Jain Vs. The State and Ors.
voluntarily and in sound mind. The Court’s conscience is also
satisfied with testimonies of PW-1 and PW-2. There are no
suspicious circumstances surrounding the execution of the Will
Ex.PW-1/A which may lead to any contrary inference. The issue
no. 1 is accordingly decided in favour of the petitioner.
20. Issue No. 2 – Relief: In view of the discussion
hereinabove, the petition is allowed. The letters of
administration with Will annexed be issued to the petitioner as
per the prayer in the petition. The letters of administration be
issued in the prescribed form VII along with authenticated copy
of the Will Ex.PW-1/A upon furnishing of the proper Court Fee,
administration bond and surety bond by the petitioner. The
formalities of issuance of letters of administration shall be
completed by the petitioner/beneficiary within six months from
the date of the judgment as per Section 290 & 291 of Indian
Succession Act.
21. The petitioner, as per Section 317 of the Indian
Succession Act, shall furnish full and true inventory of the
properties and credits mentioned in the Will and exhibit the
same in the Court within 6 months from the date of grant of
letters of administration in prescribed Form No. 178. The
petitioner shall also file true account of the properties and
credits within 1 year in prescribed Form No. 179.
Digitally signed YADVENDER by YADVENDER SINGH SINGH Date: 2025.08.04 16:47:20 +0530 PC No. 2/2024 Page 22 of 23 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket04.08.2025 Namita Jain Vs. The State and Ors.
22. It is made clear that the granting of letters of
administration would not tantamount to any declaration of the
title of the deceased to the estate in question. It is further
clarified that till the petitioner does not furnish the requisite
Court Fee, administration bond and surety bond and does not
obtain the letters of administration, duly signed and sealed by
the Court as required under Section 290 of the Indian
Succession Act, this judgment shall not be read as proof of the
same.
23. The original Will shall remain part of judicial file, in
terms of Section 294 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.
Digitally signed
Pronounced in the open Court YADVENDER
by YADVENDER
SINGH
on this 4th day of August 2025. SINGH Date:
2025.08.04
16:47:25 +0530(DR. YADVENDER SINGH)
DISTRICT JUDGE-02, SOUTH, SAKET
COURTS, NEW DELHI.
PC No. 2/2024
Page 23 of 23 Dr. Yadvender Singh/DJ-02/South/Saket04.08.2025
[ad_1]
Source link