TEST.CAS./72/2008 of MRS. SATINDER PUNN Vs STATE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ Test Case No. 72/2008*

Decided on: 21[st] September, 2011

MRS. SATINDER PUNN ……. Petitioner Through: Ms. Shobhana Takiar, Advocate

Vs. STATE & ANR. ..…… Respondents

Through: None

Coram:

HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATHAK

1.Whether the Reporters of local papers No may be allowed to see the judgment? may be allowed to see the judgment?

2. To be referred to Reporter or not? No 3. Whether the judgment should be No reported in the Digest? 3. Whether the judgment should be No reported in the Digest?

A.K. PATHAK, J. (ORAL)

1. Petitioner has filed this petition under Section 276 of Indian Succession Act, 1956 for the grant of probate of the Will dated 25[th]April, 2003 executed by Late Smt. Surinder Kaur.

2. As per the petition, petitioner is daughter; whereas respondent No. 2 is son of late Smt. Surinder Kaur. Deceased Smt. Surinder Kaur had executed Will dated 25[th] April, 2003 in accordance with law. Will had been duly witnessed by Shri Vinay Chowla, Dr. Neena

Test Case No.72/2008 Page 1 of 4

Chaudhary and Smt. Prem Lata Sondhi. Smt. Surinder Kaur died on 30[th] March, 2007 at her residence i.e. S-440, Greater Kailash – I, New Delhi. By virtue of the Will dated 25[th] April, 2003 deceased had bequeathed her estates and effects in the manner as indicated therein. Petitioner was entitled to share in the estates of deceased, thus, is seeking administration of the properties mentioned in the Will. Details of the movable and immovable properties have been mentioned in the “Schedule-A” and “Schedule-B” of the petition.

3. Notice of the petition was issued to respondent No. 2. He refused to accept the notice and was deemed served. Since no one appeared for respondent no. 2 despite service, he was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 21[st] October, 2009. Citation has been published in the newspapers “Statesman” and “Navbharat Times”. No one has filed objections to the Will, despite publication of citation. Notice was also served on respondent no. 1 (State). One Mr. Arun K. Sharma had appeared on behalf of respondent No. 1 on 10[th] December, 2008. Subsequently, he stopped appearing.

4. Petitioner has led evidence. She has filed her affidavit Ex. PW1/A categorically stating therein that Late Smt. Surinder Kaur was her mother. She died on 30[th] March, 2007 at her residence i.e. S-440, Greater Kailash – I, New Delhi. She has proved death certificate as Ex. PW1/1. Mother of petitioner Late Smt. Surinder

Test Case No.72/2008 Page 2 of 4

Kaur has left behind the petitioner and respondent No.2, namely, Shri Hardeep Singh as her legal heirs. Prior to her death, deceased executed her last Will dated 25[th] April, 2003 whereby bequeathed her estates and effects in the manner as indicated therein. Will was duly signed by her mother in presence of the witnesses. One of the attesting witnesses Mr. Vinay Chowla has been examined as PW2. He has tendered his affidavit Ex. PW2/A in his evidence. PW2 Vinay Chowla has deposed that late Smt. Surinder Kaur was mother of the petitioner. She died on 30[th] March, 2007 at her residence. Late Smt. Surinder Kaur executed the Will dated 25[th] April, 2003 (Ex. P-1) in his presence. Will bears the signatures of testator Smt. Surinder Kaur on all pages. He also signed the Will as witness, in presence of the testator. Testator was his neighbour. At the time of execution of Will she was possessed with sound disposing mind.5. In view of the above, I am of the opinion that petitioner has succeeded in proving that the deceased had executed the Will dated 25[th] April, 2003 Ex.P-1 and this is her last Will and testament. Deceased left behind the petitioner and respondent No. 2 as her legal heirs. Deceased has bequeathed her estates and effects to the petitioner and respondent No. 2 in the manner as detailed in the Will Ex.P-1 dated 25[th] April, 2003.

Test Case No.72/2008 Page 3 of 4

6. Perusal of the Will indicates that Ms. Sushma Chowla was appointed as sole executrix of the Will. Counsel for the petitioner on 18[th] August, 2011 submitted that executrix has shown her inability to execute the Will for certain personal reasons. Petitioner was directed to file an affidavit of executrix in this regard. Executrix has neither came forward to file probate petition nor has shown any inclination to join the proceedings. Instead has made statement through counsel for the petitioner that she is not in position to execute the Will. Thus, in my view, there is no impediment in granting letter of administration with copy of Will annexed to the petition.

7. Accordingly, petition is allowed. “Letter of Administration” with copy of Will annexed is granted in favour of the petitioner, subject to her furnishing valuation report, requisite court fees and administrative bond with one surety in accordance with law.

8. Petition is disposed of in the above terms.

September 21, 2011 rb

A.K. PATHAK, J.

Test Case No.72/2008 Page 4 of 4