Aditya Mishra, Mr. Ashish Sareen and Mr.Adil Asghar, Advocates.) v. STATE GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI SHASHI KUMAR JAIN S/O LATE

respect of an alleged last Will dated 07.06.2005 executed by late Smt. Mohini Devi Jain (hereinafter referred to as >the testatrix?). 2. The Petitioners and Respondent No. 2 are real brothers, and Respondent No. 3 is their only sister. Bearing in mind that the contesting parties comprise siblings, on multiple occasions, endeavours to facilitate an amicable resolution of the dispute through mediation were made. Notwithstanding these continued efforts, no settlement could be arrived at. Consequently, the Court is now constrained to proceed with the adjudication Signature Not Verified Signed By:AMIT KUMAR SHARMA Signing Date:17.12.2025 16:57:22 2 Signature Not Verified Signed By:PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV of the matter on the merits. Factual matrix

3. The testatrix was married to Late Shri Sukhbir Chand Jain and was a resident of Flat No. 29, Dakshineshwar Building, 10 Hailey Road, New Delhi–110001. She passed away on 23.06.2013 in Mumbai. She was survived by four legal heirs, namely Petitioner No. 1, Petitioner No. 2, Respondent No. 2, and Respondent No. 3.

4. The testatrix had allegedly executed her last Will and Testament dated

07.06.2005 (hereinafter referred to as >the Will?) at Delhi. The Will was duly registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar-II, New Delhi, under Registration No. 853, Additional Book No. 3, Volume No. 1428, at pages 33 to 35, on 07.06.2005. As per the Petitioners, the Will names them as the exclusive beneficiaries of various movable and immovable properties of the testatrix.

5. The Will, exhibited as Ex. PW-1/1, is accompanied by Schedule 1 (immovable assets) and Schedule 2 (movable assets), forming part of the testamentary disposition. The will bequeaths the following assets to the sole beneficiaries i.e., the petitioners herein: - IMMOVABLE(schedule 1 at pdf pg 7 of plaintiff doc) MOVABLE (schedule 2 at pdf pg8 of plaintiff doc)

1. Diamond Emreld Set

1. 2/5 share in property no. 2-A, Monolith, 7, Neapensea Road Mumbai. 2. 1/6 share in property no. 3778-83, Pahari Dhiraj, Delhi 110005. 3. 1/5 share in property no. 2-B, Monoiith, 7, Neapensea Road, Mumbai. 4. 1/5 share in property no. J-79, South 4. One sitarami set

2. One Ruby Bangle

3. One Monga String Signature Not Verified Signed By:AMIT KUMAR SHARMA Signing Date:17.12.2025 16:57:22 3 Signature Not Verified Signed By:PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV Extention Part-I, New Delhi-110049 v/ 5. 1/5 share in property no. 29,10, Hailey Road, New Delhi. 6. Shop no. 3778, Pahari Dhiraj, Delhi- 110006. 7. 1/2 share in property no. .2-C, Mittal Tower Nariman Point Mumbai.=

8. Gold Braclet& Gold Set

9. Three Gold Chains

10. Gold Ruby Meena Set

11. Takri Gold Pearl 12. One pair of gold pearl Bangles 13. One Diamond Necklace alongwith Bangles and Earings 14. Ruby Ring, Diamond Tops. 15. Silver Dinner Set

6. On 12.09.2014, the Court framed the singular substantive issue: - <Whether late Smt. Mohini Devi Jain executed a valid and enforceable Will dated 07.06.2005? OPP

7. The Petitioners examined four witnesses: - PW-1 Sanjay Kumar Jain (Petitioner No. 1 herein), PW-2 Anand Gupta, PW-3 Vivek Anand (attesting witnesses to the Will) PW-4 Daulat Ram, from the Sub-Registrar?s Office.

8. Respondents No. 2 and 3 also led evidence through RW-1 Shashi Kumar Jain and RW-2 Rashmi Aggarwal, i.e., respective respondents in person. Submissions 9. Mr. Rajesh Banati, learned counsel for the petitioners, made the following submissions: a) The Will dated 07.06.2005 was duly executed by the testatrix and is a Signature Not Verified Signed By:AMIT KUMAR SHARMA Signing Date:17.12.2025 16:57:22 4 Signature Not Verified Signed By:PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV registered document. PW-4, Daulat Ram, produced the summoned registration records and confirmed its registration. b) Both attesting witnesses, PW-2 Anand Gupta and PW-3 Vivek Anand, have deposed that the testatrix had executed the Will in their presence while in a sound and disposing state of mind, thereby proving proper attestation. The testimonies of the attesting witnesses, along with the registration and production of the original Will, fully satisfy the requirements of Section 63 of the Act and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. c) Respondents No. 2 and 3 have raised baseless objections solely to delay the proceedings, as is evident from the costs imposed on them by the Court on 30.08.2022.

10. In light of the above, Mr, Banati submitted that issue regarding the genuineness and due execution of the Will stands proved in their favour.

11. Per contra, the following submissions have been made on behalf of Respondent No. 3 by Mr. Vineet Mehta, learned counsel. a) The Will is fabricated and surrounded by suspicious circumstances as the testatrix did not understand English, the language in which the Will is drafted, and there is neither any recital nor evidence to show that its contents were read over or explained to her. b) The Sub Registrar failed to ascertain whether the testatrix comprehended the document at the time of registration. The testatrix was allegedly misled into signing blank papers under the pretext of paying house tax, which were later converted into the impugned Will. Signature Not Verified Signed By:AMIT KUMAR SHARMA Signing Date:17.12.2025 16:57:22 5 Signature Not Verified Signed By:PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV c) The complete exclusion of Respondents No. 2 and 3, despite their close familial relationship with the testatrix, is argued to be unnatural. d) The active role of Petitioner No. 1, who is a primary beneficiary under the Will, is characterized as a primary suspicious circumstance vitiating the document. e) There are errors in property descriptions and contradictions in the witnesses' testimonies, which, according to him, undermine Petitioners’ case. f) The present petition is not maintainable under Section 276 of the Act, as the Will does not name any executor, and therefore the Petitioners ought to have sought letters of administration instead of filing a probate petition.

12. Mr. Varun Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No.2, also reiterated the aforesaid submissions.

13. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record.

14. At the outset, it is noted that while granting a Probate, the Court is not concerned with the title of the parties and in doing so, it is not deciding the disputes relating to the title, if any. Reference can be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Elizabeth Antony vs. Michel Charles John Chown Lengera1. It is settled law that the grant of probate or letters of administration neither confers any title to property nor tantamount to any expression by the Court on the question of title. It merely enables the 1 (1990) 3 SCC 333. Signature Not Verified Signed By:AMIT KUMAR SHARMA Signing Date:17.12.2025 16:57:22 6 Signature Not Verified Signed By:PURUSHAINDRA KUMAR KAURAV administration of the estate of the deceased.

15. The Supreme Court in the case of Delhi Development Authority vs. Vijaya C. Gurshaney (Mrs) and Another2 has also held that a testamentary Court, whilst granting Probate or Letter of Administration, does not even consider, particularly in uncontested matters, the motive behind the execution of a testamentary instrument. A testamentary Court is only concerned with finding out whether or not the testator executed the testamentary instrument out of his own free will. As such, it is not the weight of the question before the Court that makes the job difficult, rather, what makes it difficult is the fact that this determination of free will of the testator is to be carried out in the absence of the testator, who is the author of the document, which gives room to the interested parties to question the element of free will of the deceased testator.

16. Furthermore, while relying on a series of its earlier decisions, the Supreme Court in the case of Meena Pradhan & Ors v. Kamla Pradhan & Anr3, has summarized the following principles required for proving the validity and execution of the Will: - <10.1. The court has to consider two aspects : firstly, that the will is executed by the testator, and secondly, that it was the last will executed by him;

10.2. It is not required to be proved with mathematical accuracy, but the test of satisfaction of the prudent mind has to be applied.

10.4. For the purpose of proving the execution of the will, at least one of the attesting witnesses, who is alive, subject to the process of court, and capable of giving evidence, shall be examined;

10.5. The attesting witness should speak not only about the testator's signatures but also that each of the witnesses had signed the will in the