Mr. S.C. Anand, Advocate v. D.P.SACHDEVA AND OTHERS

Judgment

1. Through the present Appeal, the Appellant [Respondent No.5(a) before the learned Single Judge] assails the correctness of judgement Signature Not Verified

Signed By:SAVITA PASRICHA Signing Date:17.10.2025 15:39:30 FAO (OS) 44/2023 Page 1 of 9 dated 26.09.2022 as amended on 06.10.2022, passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Testamentary Case No. 28/2005 [here in after referred to as the ‘Impugned Judgment’], whereby Sh. D.P. Sachdeva, the Respondent No. 1 [Executor/Petitioner before the learned Single Judge], was granted probate/letters of administration in respect of the Registered Will dated 20.05.1993 executed by the late Smt. Basant Kaur, bequeathing her properties in favour of her three sons and one grand-son while excluding one of her sons late Sh. Prakash Lal Chadha, the Appellant’s father [Respondent No. 5 before the learned Single Judge]. FACTUAL MATRIX

2. In order to comprehend issues involved in the present case, genealogy of the family along with brief facts are required to be noticed. For the ease of reference, a genealogical chart of the family is set out hereinbelow: Signature Not Verified Signed By:SAVITA PASRICHA Signing Date:17.10.2025 15:39:30 FAO (OS) 44/2023 Page 2 of 9

3. A perusal of the record reflects that, Lt. Smt. Basant Kaur, executed a registered Will on 20.05.1993, appointing D.P. Sachdeva as the Executor. She died on 13.12.1997, leaving behind four sons and a grandson. The Will purportedly is with respect to two immovable properties she owned, House No. A-299, Defence Colony, New Delhi, and a plot at Sainik Co-operative Society, Dehradun, along with limited movable assets such as bank deposits and gold.

4. Initially Respondent No. 5 filed Succession Case No. 106/1999. wherein, one attesting witness namely Major A.N. Punj was examined but the petition was dismissed for non-impleadment of the Executor. Thereafter, the Executor filed the Probate Case No. 28/2005. Respondents 2 to 4 filed their no-objection and provided deed of compromise, whereas objections were raised by Respondent 6 and subsequently by the legal heirs of Respondent 5, primarily disputed the validity of the Will.

5. In this Probate Petition, one of the attesting witnesses, Sh. M.L. Sharma was examined as PW-3 while giving opportunity to the Respondents to cross-examine the witnesses. Thereby, through the impugned judgment, the probate/letter of administration was granted in favour of Respondent No. 1 [Executor]. CONTENTIONS FOR THE APPELLANT:

6. The learned counsel representing the Appellant has also filed written submissions while detailing his submissions. The submissions are as under: Signature Not Verified Signed By:SAVITA PASRICHA Signing Date:17.10.2025 15:39:30 FAO (OS) 44/2023 Page 3 of 9 (i) The Probate Petition was filed after a period of seven years from the date of death of the Testator. While relying upon the judgment passed in Ramesh Nivrutti Bhagwat vs Dr. Surendra Manohar Parakhe1, it was contended that the Petition was filed beyond the period of limitation. (ii) The explanation of Sh. D.P. Sachdeva that he was not aware of the Will is factually incorrect because the Will was drafted on his instructions. (iii) The Will bears thumb impression whereas the Testatrix used to sign other bank documents. There is no explanation why she did not sign the Will. (iv) The Will is in English language, which the Testatrix did not understand. (v) The Testatrix was a 1947 Refugee from Pakistan surviving on a meager pension, hence the subject properties were in fact Joint Hindu Family properties in her name as a female head of the Family. (vi) Serious prejudice has been caused to the Respondents on account of delay in filing the petition. One of the attesting witness Major A.N. Punj died before the evidence stage in the Probate Petition. (vii) Sh. D.P. Sachdeva is not entitled to take benefit of Section 14 of the Limitation Act and thus has effectively renounced executorship under Section 231 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 [hereinafter referred to as I.S. Act]. 1 (2020) 17 SCC 284 Signature Not Verified Signed By:SAVITA PASRICHA Signing Date:17.10.2025 15:39:30 FAO (OS) 44/2023 Page 4 of 9 CONTENTIONS FOR THE RESPONDENTS:

7. Per contra, learned counsel for the Respondents contends that the appeal is not maintainable as the Appellant did not file a written statement or lead evidence in the original proceedings despite repeated opportunities. While relying upon the judgment passed in Kunvarjeet Singh Khandpur v. Kirandeep Kaur2; Sameer Kapoor & Anr. vs. State through Sub-Division Magistrate, South New Delhi and Others3; and Ramesh Nivrutti Bhagwat v. Dr. Surendra Manohar Parak (supra), it was contended that the issue of limitation is misconceived; the right to apply for probate is a continuous right, exercisable any time after the death of the Testator. The learned counsel for the Respondent further submits that the Will was duly registered and proved through the testimony of one of the attesting witness (PW-3), the Executor (PW-2) and the Clerk from the Sub- Registrar’s Office (PW-1). ANALYSIS & FINDINGS

8. This Court has considered the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties at length and with their able assistance, perused the paper book and the record of the suit.

9. First of all, the submission of learned counsel for the Appellant with regard to the period of limitation for filing a Probate Petition is required to be examined. Attention of this Bench has not been drawn to any specific Article of the Schedule attached to the Limitation Act