25 June 2025 Will's, Codicil's & Agreements >> Personal Law  

In a significant ruling concerning a long-standing family property dispute, the Delhi High Court has dismissed an appeal challenging a Trial Court's decision to grant Letters of Administration for an unregistered Will dated January 7, 2008 (the '2008 Will'). The appeal, filed by Sanjeev Malhotra, contested the Trial Court's finding that the 2008 Will, which bequeathed a property in Ashok Nagar, New Delhi, primarily to his elder brother, was validly executed by their late father, Devi Dass Malhotra.

Background of the Case:

The dispute centers on the property located at municipal number 40/1A, Ashok Nagar, Tilak Nagar, New Delhi, inherited by Devi Dass Malhotra from his father. Upon Devi Dass Malhotra's passing on March 7, 2008, a complex web of family claims and disputed testamentary documents emerged.

The Appellant, Sanjeev Malhotra, is the younger son of the deceased, while Respondent No. 2 is the elder son. The other respondents include their sisters and the legal heirs of a predeceased sister. The mother of the brothers and sisters (Respondent No. 3) passed away during the probate proceedings.

The 2008 Will, propounded by the elder son (Respondent No. 2), claimed to be the final testament of the deceased. It purported to bequeath a shop and the entire first floor of the property to Respondent No. 2, with the remaining ground floor portion to the Appellant. It also stipulated joint development and equal sharing of any future construction on the second and third floors.

Sanjeev Malhotra, the Appellant, fiercely disputed the 2008 Will's authenticity. He asserted that his father had publicly disowned Respondent No. 2 in a 1998 newspaper notice. Furthermore, he relied on a registered Will from 2002 (the '2002 Will'), which allegedly bequeathed the ground floor jointly to him and his mother, supported by various other documents like an Agreement to Sell and a General Power of Attorney. The Appellant also highlighted Relinquishment Deeds executed in his favor by his mother and sisters between 2014 and 2015, prior to the probate petition.

The Appellant's arguments against the 2008 Will included its unregistered status, its emergence from Respondent No. 2's sole custody nearly eight years after the Testator's death, the alleged incorrect age of the Testator (66 instead of 74), the Testator's illiteracy in Hindi (the language of the Will) despite knowing Urdu, and the fact that the attesting witnesses were unknown to the family. An expert's opinion, based on a photocopy, suggested the signature on the 2008 Will was forged. The Appellant also noted that the 2008 Will was not introduced by Respondent No. 2 in a prior civil suit filed by the Appellant.

Trial Court's Verdict:

The Trial Court had meticulously examined the evidence. It found the testimony of Advocate Gurdeep Singh Dua, an attesting witness to the 2008 Will, to be credible and legally sufficient, in line with Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

The Trial Court dismissed the handwriting expert's opinion due to the comparison being made with a photocopy of the 2002 Will, not the original. It also noted the Appellant's contradictory stance in a previous civil suit (which he lost), where he claimed ownership through purchase rather than the 2002 Will.

Regarding the eight-year delay in propounding the 2008 Will, the Trial Court accepted Respondent No. 2's explanation that it was only produced after the Appellant initiated adverse civil proceedings in 2015, as the brothers were already in possession of their respective portions as per the 2008 Will. The court also considered the 1998 disownment notice, but found that familial reconciliation was plausible before the 2008 Will's execution. Crucially, the court observed that the 2008 Will provided a "near-equal distribution" between the brothers, dispelling notions of it being unnatural or suspicious.

High Court's Analysis and Dismissal:

The Delhi High Court, in its analysis, reiterated the well-established legal principle that probate proceedings are "in rem" and strictly limited to determining the genuineness and due execution of a Will. The court's role is not to adjudicate property title or collateral disputes.

The court affirmed the Trial Court's reliance on the attesting witness's testimony, which satisfied the requirements of the Indian Succession Act and the Indian Evidence Act. It also agreed that the handwriting expert's opinion was unreliable as it was based on a photocopy.

The High Court further observed that the Appellant's prior civil suit, claiming ownership based on the 2002 Will and other documents, was dismissed, and this dismissal was not challenged. This undermined the Appellant's current reliance on the 2002 Will. The court highlighted that even the Relinquishment Deeds in the Appellant's favor did not mention the 2002 Will, suggesting the Appellant himself did not consider it the Testator's final testament.

Addressing the various "suspicious circumstances" raised by the Appellant:

• Delay in propounding the Will: The court upheld the Trial Court's reasoning that the Will surfaced when adverse litigation began, and that the parties were already occupying portions as per the 2008 Will, negating immediate need for its production.
• Attesting witnesses unknown to family: The court stated that there is no legal requirement for attesting witnesses to be family members.
• Language discrepancy (Hindi vs. Urdu): The court accepted the attesting witness's testimony that the Will's contents were explained to the Testator, making the original language of drafting immaterial.
• Incorrect age in the Will: The court deemed this a minor error not fatal to the Will's validity, as its proper execution was otherwise proved.
• No reference to earlier 2002 Will: The court clarified that a later Will supersedes an earlier one, and there is no legal obligation for the last Will to reference prior ones.

Ultimately, the High Court concluded that the 2008 Will was proved in accordance with the law, and the requirements of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, and Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, were satisfactorily fulfilled.

Finding no infirmity in the Trial Court's order, the Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal, bringing a measure of finality to the property's disposition as per the 2008 Will.

Section 68, Indian Evidence Act - 1872  

Indian Evidence Act, 1872  

Section 63, Indian Succession Act - 1925  

Indian Succession Act, 1925