The High Court · 2025

Judgment

2. THE STATE THROUGH GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI SHRI S.M. ARORA (SINCE DECEASED) THROUGH (i) SMT. SNEH PRABHA ARORA WIDOW OF LATE SH. S.M ARORA (DIED ON 31.05.2023) (ii) MRS. ANAMIKA KAPOOR WIFE OF SH. SANJAY KAPOOR R/O 116, SAMARAT APARTMENT B-11, VASUNDHARA ENCLAVE NEW DELHI-110096 (iii) SH. ANIMESH ARORA SON OF LATE SH. S.M ARORA R/O FIRST FLOOR, FRONT PORTION 22, PASCHIMI MARG, Signature Not Verified Signed By:AMIT KUMAR SHARMA Signing Date:12.08.2025 18:47:32 1 Signature Not Verified Signed By:PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV VASANT VIHAR NEW DELHI -110057 AND ALSO AT 6615,NORTH MILE LANE, PEORIA, ILLINOIS USA-61614

4. SHRI. JOGINDER MOHAN S/O LATE SHRI RAM LAL R/O GROUND FLOOR, (REAR PORTION) 22, PASCHIM MARG, VASANT VIHAR, NEW DELHI-110057 SHRI. DEVENDRA MOHAN S/O LATE SHRI RAM LAL R/O GROUND FLOOR, (FRONT PORTION) 22, PASCHIM MARG, VASANT VIHAR, NEW DELHI-110057 ....RESPONDENTS (Through: Mr. B. K. Sood, Mr. Harish Gaur,Advs for R-2(ii). Mr.Aditya Wadhwa and Ms.RaginiKapoor, Advocates for LRs of R-2(iii) Mr.J.R. Mathur, Advocate for R-3..) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ % Reserved on: 21.07.2025 Pronounced on: 08.08.2025 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JUDGMENT Preface The instant case is a contested testamentary petition, where the petitioner seeks grant of probate of the Will dated 12.06.2000 with respect to the estate left behind by his father late Shri Ram Lal. On one side stands the petitioner’s assertion that the Will bears the imprimatur with due execution and legal validity, and on the other side stand respondent Nos. 2 to 4, who Signature Not Verified Signed By:AMIT KUMAR SHARMA Signing Date:12.08.2025 18:47:32 2 Signature Not Verified Signed By:PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV denounce the Will as a product of fabrication, steeped in grave suspicion and riddled with undue influence.

2. At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that although the petition has been titled as one seeking probate of the Will, it ought to have been instituted for the issuance of Letters of Administration (hereinafter referred to as “LoA”), since the named executor, Dr. R.S. Chaudhary, had expressed his inability to act due to his ill health and had subsequently passed away in December, 2007.

3. Upon consideration, the Court deemed it appropriate to examine the scope of Section 276(1) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 (hereinafter referred to as ―Succession Act‖), which governs the petitions both for probate and LoA. The said provision, by any prudent stretch of reading, does not create a rigid distinction between the two forms of relief and instead, provides a common procedural foundation for both. As a sequitur, the petition, which has been mischaracterised as one for probatewhen the factual circumstances warranted a claim for LoAshould not be dismissed solely on the ground of incorrect nomenclature, more so when the same has been pending since the year 2005.

4. On this aspect, it is beneficial to refer to the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Shirin Boman Faramarzi v. Zubin Boman Faramarzi1, whereby, while referring to the decision of the Supreme Court in Shambhu Prasad Agarwal v. Bhola Ram Agarwal2the High Court has held as under:- 12013 SCC OnLine Bom 1267 2 (2000) 9 SCC 714 Signature Not Verified Signed By:AMIT KUMAR SHARMA Signing Date:12.08.2025 18:47:32 3 Signature Not Verified Signed By:PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV “18. On perusal of the record produced by parties, in my view both the executors who were alleged to have been appointed by the said deceased in the Will in question have not come forward to act as an executors. Though this Court had passed an order impleading the executors with a view to ascertain whether any of those executors who would act as executor or would renounce the executorship, as far as Mr. Himanshu Kode is concerned, he neither appeared before this Court nor filed any affidavit in reply. There was no response given by Mr. Himanshu Kode to any of the letters addressed by the petitioner. As far as Mr. Diniar Mehta is concerned, he made a statement through his counsel that he did not want to act as an executor in respect of the Will in the form as annexed or produced with the petition by the petitioner. Since Mr. Himanshu Kode has not come forward to act as an executor though served with notice and proceedings and since Mr. Diniar Mehta has refused to act as an executor in respect of the Will in the form in which it is produced by the petitioner, in my view in this situation, the beneficiary would have been entitled to file a petition for Letters of Administration with Will annexed. It is the case of the petitioner that since none of the executors had come forward to act as executors and in view of the erstwhile advocate filing a petition for probate instead of filing petition for Letters of Administration, petitioner had filed such proceedings. In my view, no prejudice would be caused to the caveator if the petition filed for probate is allowed to be converted into the petition for Letters of Administration in the circumstances referred to above.

19. Supreme Court in case of Shambhu Prasad Agarwal has considered a similar situation and has held that the petitioner in that case who had filed a petition for probate instead of filing petition for letters of administration would not be debarred to get the petition for probate amended. The petitioner in that case was a legatee and not an executor under the Will. It is held that the legal heirs could file a petition for issuance of letters of Administration even on the demise of the original petitioner and in the interest of justice proceedings would not come to an end and the appeal would not be dismissed merely on technical ground. I am respectfully bound by the judgment of the Supreme Court in case of Shambhu Prasad Agarwal (supra). In my view, the judgment of Supreme Court in case of Shambhu Prasad Agarwal (supra) squarely apply to the facts of this case.

20. In the facts of this case, it is clear that the petitioner who claims to be the sole beneficiary under the Will in question is 69 Signature Not Verified Signed By:AMIT KUMAR SHARMA Signing Date:12.08.2025 18:47:32 4 Signature Not Verified Signed By:PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV years old. On filing of the caveat and affidavit in support by the caveator, petition for probate has been already converted into a suit. Whether Will propounded by the petitioner was executed or not or validly attested or not would be an issue which would be tried at the time of trial of the petition. Merely because a probate petition is allowed to be converted into a petition for Letters of Administration with Will annexed, it would not prove the existence and/or execution of the Will in question. The caveator who has disputed the Will would be entitled to treat the caveat as well as affidavit in support of the caveat filed as caveat and affidavit in support in the petition for Letters of Administration with the Will annexed.”

5. Regard may also be made to the decision of this Court in the case of Preethi Swaminathan v. State (NCT of Delhi)3, wherein, while allowing the oral prayer of the petitioner to convert the probate petition into the one seeking LoA, this Court has held as under:- “9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that in the present case since respondent no. 4-Executor had refused to act, the petitioner, who is one of the legatees is entitled to maintain a petition for letters of administration with Will annexed.

10. The Supreme Court in Vatsala Srinivasan v. Shyamala Raghunathan, (2016) 13 SCC 253 has held that, probate and letters of administration proceedings are similar in nature. It has further been held that the essence of both the proceedings is the same and they relate to ascertainment of genuineness and authenticity of the Will. It was also held, following a in Jadeja decision PravinsinhjiAnandsinhji v. Jadeja MangalsinhjiShivsinhji, 1961 SCC OnLine Guj 62, that if the executor fails in his duty, any of those whom he represents are entitled to intervene and carry on the proceedings with a “formal modification” that the prayer be read for letters of administration with the Will annexed. the Gujarat High Court 3 2018 SCC OnLine Del 9949 Signature Not Verified Signed By:AMIT KUMAR SHARMA Signing Date:12.08.2025 18:47:32 *** 5 Signature Not Verified Signed By:PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

13. Consequently, the oral prayer of learned counsel for the petitioner is allowed and the present petition is directed to be converted into letters of administration with Will annexed, as the executor had refused to act. This Court may mention that its approach is in consonance with Sections 229 and 230 read with Section 232 of Act, 1925……”

6. In fact, it is trite that, as far as possible, a substantive right should not be allowed to be defeated on account of a procedural defect which is curable. Procedural irregularities which do not strike at the root of the matter should not be permitted to frustrate a just cause. The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 bestows sufficient power in the hands of the Court to ensure that injustice is not done to any party who has a legitimate case. (See: United Bank of India v. Naresh Kumar & Ors4and Preethi Swaminathan v. Govt. of NCT of Delhi & Ors.5).

7. Accordingly, in the interest of justice and in view of the judicial precedents cited above, it is apposite to treat the instant petition as one seeking issuance of LoA with the Will annexed.

8. The facts of the case would indicate that late Shri Ram Lal, the Testator, died on 26.09.2001. He was survived by his four sons. The pedigree of late Shri Ram Lal (Testator), is set out as follows:- 4 (1996) 6 SCC 660 52018 SCC OnLine Del 9949 Signature Not Verified Signed By:AMIT KUMAR SHARMA Signing Date:12.08.2025 18:47:32 6 Signature Not Verified Signed By:PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV Late Shri Ram Lal (Testator) (Expired on 26.09.2001) Surinder Mohan (Respondent No. 2) Joginder Mohan (Respondent No. 3) Davinder Mohan (Respondent No. 4) Sri Krishan (Petitioner) (i) Sneh Prabha Arora (died on 31.05.2023) (ii) Mrs. Anamika Kapoor (iii) Animesh Arora

9. The petitioner is one of the sons of late Shri Ram Lal, who was a permanent resident of Property No. 22, Paschimi Marg, Vasant Vihar, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “the subject property”). At the time of his death, late Shri Ram Lal was the exclusive owner of the subject property. It is stated that he left behind a duly executed Will dated 12.06.2000, witnessed by two persons, namely Mr. Ashok Kumar Goel and Mr. Suman Nayyar. In the said Will, Dr. R.S. Chaudhary was appointed as the Executor.

10. It is stated that by way of the said Will, late Shri Ram Lal had desired that the subject property be bequeathed in the manner stipulated in the Will, where the petitioner is one of the beneficiaries. The wife of late Shri Ram Lal had already pre-deceased him on 18.11.1988. Signature Not Verified Signed By:AMIT KUMAR SHARMA Signing Date:12.08.2025 18:47:32 7 Signature Not Verified Signed By:PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

11. On 05.10.2005 i.e., around four years after the demise of late Shri Ram Lal, it is stated that the petitioner approached Dr. R.S. Chaudhary requesting him to fulfil his obligations as Executor by signing and filing the probate petition relating to the Will of late Shri Ram Lal. However, Dr. R.S. Chaudhary expressed his inability to conduct the aforesaid exercise citing health issues and the same was communicated to the petitioner vide response letter dated 07.10.2005.

12. Consequently, the petitioner, being one of the beneficiaries under the Will and upon refusal of the Executor, filed the present petition seeking grant of probate. The respondent Nos. 2 to 4, while contesting the Will, filed their objections, inter alia alleging that the Will was fabricated and the Testator was of unsound mind at the time of execution, besides suffering with old age, cataract, and dependent on regular blood transfusions.

13. Based on the pleadings, the following issues were framed on

19.02.2007:- o “Whether the petition is liable to be rejected for non- compliance of Section 281 of the Indian Succession Act? – OPD-1 o Whether the petition is barred by limitation and liable to be dismissed on the ground of laches, acquiescence and waiver? – OPD-1 o Whether Shri Ram Lal left behind any validly executed last Will dated 12.06.2000? – OPP Signature Not Verified Signed By:AMIT KUMAR SHARMA Signing Date:12.08.2025 18:47:32 8 Signature Not Verified Signed By:PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV o Whether the document dated 12.06.2000 bequeaths any property or can be termed as a Will? – OPD-2 o Relief”

14. However, issue nos. 1 and 4 were decided as preliminary issues in favour of the petitioner vide order dated 15.03.2007. In the said order, the Court also framed the following additional issue: o “Whether Sh. R.S. Chaudhary, executor of the purported Will as refused to present the petition and therefore, the petition filed by the petitioner is maintainable? OPP”

15. Being aggrieved by the findings in the order dated 15.03.2007, respondent No.4 preferred an appeal being FAO (OS) No. 301/2007. However, the same was dismissed on 14.08.2007 and the order dated

15.03.2007 was upheld by the Division Bench of this Court.

16. In evidence, the petitioner appeared as PW-1 and examined attesting witnesses PW-2 Mr. Ashok Kumar Goel and PW-3 Mr. Suman Nayyar, both of them deposed in support of the execution of the Will. Several documents were exhibited, while others were marked for identification.

17. Respondent No. 2, Surinder Mohan Arora, filed an affidavit and was partly cross-examined before suffering a stroke. Respondent Nos. 3 and 4 also deposed and produced documents supporting their respective stands. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE PETITIONER

18. Mr. Sanjeev Mahajan, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted as follows: Signature Not Verified Signed By:AMIT KUMAR SHARMA Signing Date:12.08.2025 18:47:32 9 Signature Not Verified Signed By:PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

18.1 The Will dated 12.06.2000 was validly executed and duly attested in accordance with law. Both attesting witnessesPW-2 Mr. Ashok Kumar Goel and PW-3 Mr. Suman Nayyartestified that they witnessed the Testator, late Shri Ram Lal, sign each page of the Will, write his name and particulars, and then sign in their presence. Mr. Goel signed the Will after the Testator, and Mr. Nayyar signed thereafter, completing the formal requirements under the Succession Act.

18.2 The execution of the Will stands duly proved through their un- impeached testimonies. Further, respondent No. 3, Shri Joginder Mohan Arora, has admitted the signature of late Shri Ram Lal on the last page of the Will as well as the signature of Mr. Ashok Kumar Goel. His only assertion, that Mr. Nayyar signed subsequently, remains unsubstantiated and is contradicted by the consistent and corroborated testimonies of the attesting witnesses.

18.3 On the issue of the Testator’s mental and physical condition, he emphasized that there is no evidence on record to support the respondents’ allegations that late Shri Ram Lal was unfit to execute a Will. In fact, the evidence is to the contrary. The Testator was suffering from bone marrow depression, which necessitated regular blood transfusions, but this condition did not impair his mental soundness. Respondent No. 4 initially claimed that the Testator was unable to see properly; however, during cross-examination on 31.01.2009, he admitted that the Testator could see properly post-cataract surgery. Signature Not Verified Signed By:AMIT KUMAR SHARMA Signing Date:12.08.2025 18:47:32 10 Signature Not Verified Signed By:PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

18.4 While relying on the decision of this Court in Rajesh Sharma v. Krishan Kumar Sharma6, he contended that physical illness alone does not amount to mental incapacity, and thus does not invalidate a Will.

18.5 Further, substantiating the Testator’s competence, Ex. PW-1/15 would show that late Shri Ram Lal executed a conveyance deed himself and appeared before the Sub-Registrar. This act reinforces his ability to understand legal processes and indicates that he was of sound mind.

18.6 There are no suspicious circumstances surrounding execution of the Will. The respondents have failed to produce any credible evidence in support of their allegations of forgery or undue influence. Despite furnishing a list of ten main witnesses and official witnesses, only one individual, Ravi Malhotra, was produced by respondent No. 2, and his testimony does not support their case.

18.7 The Will contains clear and reasoned exclusion of respondent Nos. 2 to 4. It records that due to strained relationships and lack of financial or emotional support, late Shri Ram Lal consciously decided to exclude them. He did, however, provide for reimbursement of partial construction costs (after deducting House Rent Allowance received) only to respondents No. 2 and 3.

18.8 The notes and writings of Shri Ram Lal—admitted by respondent No. 4reveal his clear intentions and form a contemporaneous record of his decision-making. These documents, marked as Exhibits PW- 1/14, PW-1/22, PW-1/23, PW-1/25, PW-1/26 and PW-1/29, reinforce the rationale behind the distribution of his estate. 6FAO 641/2002 Signature Not Verified Signed By:AMIT KUMAR SHARMA Signing Date:12.08.2025 18:47:32 11 Signature Not Verified Signed By:PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV

18.9 The Testator was denied the right to occupy his own house. Respondent Nos. 2 and 4 took possession of the subject property without informing him around 1992–93. Despite earning House Rent Allowance and residing in his property, they neither offered to contribute to property tax nor spent any money on the welfare of late Shri Ram Lal or his wife. As a result of this conduct, late Shri Ram Lal had to leave his own house and stay with the petitioner in Bokaro, which further demonstrates the neglect and disinterest shown by respondent Nos. 2 to 4.

18.10 The delay in seeking probate was explained on the ground that Dr. R.S. Chaudhary, the named executor, did not file for probate due to ill health and subsequently passed away in December 2007, making the present LoA petition necessary.

18.11 On the question of limitation, it was submitted that while no specific period of limitation applies to such petitions, Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 (―Limitation Act”) prescribes a three-year period from when the right to apply accrues. The cause of action arose on

18.08.2004, when the respondents disputed the Will, and the petition, filed on 18.10.2005, falls well within the prescribed limitation.

18.12 The letter dated 01.10.2001 written by the petitioner to the MCD would show that the Will was propounded immediately after the demise of the Testator. In the said letter, copy of the Will as well as the death certificate issued by the Hospital was enclosed.

18.13 The allegation of irregularity of page numbers, font and spacing in the Will does not hold any ground, inasmuch as, the Will was prepared by the typewriter, probably over a period of days. The document made by Signature Not Verified Signed By:AMIT KUMAR SHARMA Signing Date:12.08.2025 18:47:32 12 Signature Not Verified Signed By:PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV the typewriter is distinct from the one prepared with the help of computer as the latter maintains uniformity unlike the former.

18.14 The credibility of the petitioner’s witnesses cannot be undermined merely due to their association with the Testator. Learned counsel drew the attention of the Court to the decisions in Madhukar D. Shende v. Tarabai Aba Shedage7, Budh Singh v. Raghubir Singh8, and P. Subramanian v. Ramachandran9, to submit that familial relationships do not, by themselves, taint credibility when the testimony is otherwise consistent. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

19. On the contrary, Mr. B. K. Sood, learned counsel for respondent No.2(ii) has advanced the following submissions:

19.1 The present petition for grant of probate is barred by limitation and is liable to be dismissed at the threshold. The purported Will sought to be probated is dated 12.06.2000, while the Testator, late Shri Ram Lal, passed away on 26.09.2001. However, the petition seeking probate was filed only on 24.10.2005, which is much beyond the statutory period of limitation prescribed under Article 137 of the Limitation Act.

19.2 The right to apply for probate accrues when the petitioner first acts upon the Will or asserts a right under it. In the instant case, the petitioner wrote to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi on 01.10.2001, 7(2002) 2 SCC 85 82015 SCC OnLine Del 14528 91995 SCC OnLine Ker 171 Signature Not Verified Signed By:AMIT KUMAR SHARMA Signing Date:12.08.2025 18:47:32 13 Signature Not Verified Signed By:PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV seeking mutation of property based on the said Will and annexed a copy of the death certificate, which was issued only on 05.10.2001. This discrepancy strongly suggests that the letter was either fabricated or backdated, thus involving a deliberate act of misrepresentation. Therefore, the right to apply accrued in 2001 itself, making the petition filed in 2005 ex facie barred by limitation.

19.3 The petitioner has neither filed any application seeking condonation of delay nor offered any cogent explanation for the lapse of more than four years. The conduct of the petitioner clearly reflects that he was fully aware of the Will's contested nature since the beginning. The petitioner himself admits to discussing the Will with his brothers multiple times between 2002 and 2005 but failed to provide them a copy of the same despite repeated requests. These discussions not only reflect the knowledge of the Will but also confirm the existence of disputes among the heirs during the said period, which triggered the limitation.

19.4 The alleged Will dated 12.06.2000 is shrouded in suspicious circumstances and has not been validly proved in accordance with the Succession Act. The petitioner, being the sole beneficiary, had a dominant role in the execution and has failed to discharge the heavy burden of proving the genuineness and due execution of the Will, especially given the unnatural exclusion of all other heirs.

19.5 The attesting witnesses to the Will were not familiar with the Testator but were closely associated with the petitioner, thereby raising questions about their impartiality. Their testimonies suffer from internal Signature Not Verified Signed By:AMIT KUMAR SHARMA Signing Date:12.08.2025 18:47:32 14 Signature Not Verified Signed By:PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV contradictions concerning the date, place, and manner of execution, which seriously undermine the credibility of the alleged Will.

19.6 The factum of the death of Dr. R.S. Chaudhary, the executor named in the Will, was brought to the notice for the first time only in the written submissions filed by the petitioner and no document is placed on record to that effect.

19.7 There is an unexplained absence of any contemporaneous documentation or communication that would affirm the existence or acknowledgment of the Will during the Testator’s lifetime or immediately after his death. The petitioner has also failed to produce any such records, even though he claims to have been in possession of the Will for several years prior to initiating the probate proceedings.

19.8 The language of the Will indicates strained family relationships, yet no independent evidence has been presented to substantiate such claims. On the contrary, credible material shows that the Testator maintained cordial relations with all family members, thereby rendering the purported disinheritance unnatural and suspicious.

19.9 The advanced age and deteriorating health of the Testator at the time of the Will’s execution severely compromised his testamentary capacity. The Testator was 89 years old and suffering from significant health issues. Despite claiming to have access to medical records, the petitioner has not produced any evidence demonstrating that the Testator was of sound and disposing mind at the relevant time. The Testator had no sound disposition of mind as admittedly he was suffering from Bone Marrow depression (MDS) requiring blood transfusion regularly, cataract, Signature Not Verified Signed By:AMIT KUMAR SHARMA Signing Date:12.08.2025 18:47:32 15 Signature Not Verified Signed By:PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV was not able to see, read and write except in bold letter, suffering from Terminal Leukemia and Dementia. There is no satisfactory explanation or clarification by the petitioner on all these aspects.

19.10 The Will was not registered, although the Testator registered a conveyance deed two months later. The decision not to register the Will, despite its crucial importance and the registration of other documents during the same period, adds another layer of suspicion regarding its authenticity.

19.11 The Executor’s non-appearance in the proceedings and his stated lack of knowledge about the Will until shortly before the filing of the probate petition further reinforce the conclusion that the Will was not acted upon contemporaneously. The attesting witnesses’ inconsistencies and their evident bias towards the petitioner makes their testimonies wholly unreliable.

19.12 The complete exclusion of the Testator’s other children without any credible explanation is not only unnatural but indicative of undue influence. The overall tenor of the Will, coupled with the petitioner’s dominant position, suggests coercion and manipulation in its execution.

19.13 The document being alleged Will, having been written in a very haphazard manner with different pagination, blank spaces and no continuity, raises a cloud of suspicion and demonstrates that the Will was forged. More so, the said Will was never communicated by the petitioner to any of the brothers or family members.

19.14 In the cross examination, it has been admitted that the Testator and his wife had cordial relations with all of their children, thereby, no Signature Not Verified Signed By:AMIT KUMAR SHARMA Signing Date:12.08.2025 18:47:32 16 Signature Not Verified Signed By:PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV reason is forthcoming as to why all other legal heirs have been deprived of any bequest. The said contention is bolstered by the fact that all the natural children had executed relinquishment deed in favour of Testator for enabling him to get the plans for first floor sanctioned, which portions were constructed by respondent nos. 2 and 4 out of their own funds.

19.15 The fact that the petitioner did not disclose the existence of the purported Will when he found it in 2001, is contrary to natural human conduct and creates doubt over the veracity of the purported Will.

19.16 In light of the above, the Will is riddled with suspicious circumstances, and the petitioner has failed to remove those suspicions or prove due execution as mandated under law. Reliance is placed on the judgments of the Supreme Court in H. Venkatachala Iyengar v. B.N. Thimmajamma10, and Janki Narayan Bhoir v. Narayan Namdeo Kadam11, wherein it was held that mere proof of signature is not sufficient and that all suspicious circumstances must be fully dispelled before a Will can be accepted as valid.

19.17 He, therefore, concluded that the Will has not been duly proved, the petition is hopelessly barred by limitation, and the conduct of the petitioner points to a calculated suppression of material facts. The petition, therefore, deserves to be dismissed in limine.

20. Mr. Aditya Wadhwa, learned counsel for respondent No. 2(ii), Mr. J.R. Mathur, learned counsel for respondent No. 3 and Ms. Maldeep Sidhu,