The Delhi High Court has set aside a trial court judgment dismissing a probate petition and held that the exclusion of other legal heirs from a Will does not, by itself, constitute a suspicious circumstance warranting its rejection.
Justice Manoj Kumar Ohri allowed an appeal filed by Akash Gahlot, who had sought probate of a Will allegedly executed by his grandmother, Shanti Devi, on October 7, 1999. Under the Will, she bequeathed her share in movable and immovable properties, along with her share in compensation payable for acquired land, to her grandson.
The probate court had dismissed the petition in 2016, citing several circumstances it considered suspicious, including a discrepancy in the dates appearing on the Will, the delayed production of the original document, the absence of a prior relationship between the testatrix and an attesting witness, and the non-examination of the appellant and his father.
The High Court, however, found that the testimony of the attesting witness, read with the evidence concerning registration of the Will, established its due execution and attestation. It observed that the discrepancy in the date could not be treated in isolation as proof of fabrication, particularly when the witness had explained it as a possible typing error.
The Court further held that allegations regarding the testatrix’s physical and mental condition were not supported by medical evidence establishing incapacity at the time of execution. It reiterated that suspicious circumstances must be real, germane and valid, rather than merely the product of a doubting mind.
Relying on Supreme Court precedents, including Uma Devi Nambiar v. T.C. Sidhan, the Court observed that a Will is intended to alter the ordinary course of succession and that excluding some or all natural heirs cannot, without more, establish that the Will is unnatural or fabricated.
The Court clarified that its decision was confined to proof of the Will and did not determine title to the properties purportedly bequeathed. The appeal was allowed, the trial court’s judgment was set aside, and probate or letters of administration were directed to be issued in favour of the appellant, subject to the requisite court fees, an administrative bond and one surety.
