"Delhi High Court Rejects Later Will, Upholds Registered Testament Amid Doubts on Testator's Mental Capacity"
Safiya Malik
The Delhi High Court Single Bench of Justice Dharmesh Sharma, delivered its judgment on 27 March 2025, upholding the Probate Court's order declaring a registered Will dated 16.03.2005 as the last valid testament of the deceased Kulbir Singh Dhingra. The court dismissed the appeals filed by the deceased's daughter seeking recognition of a subsequent Will dated 02.08.2009, citing lack of revocation and suspicious circumstances surrounding its execution.
The High Court concluded that the Probate Court rightly granted probate in favour of the Will dated 16.03.2005, rejecting the later Will on grounds of suspicious circumstances, questionable attestation, and inadequate proof of revocation. All pending applications were also disposed of by the court.
The case revolved around the estate of Kulbir Singh Dhingra, who passed away on 03.02.2010, leaving behind a property situated at 9-C, North-West Avenue, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi. The deceased's daughter, Ms. Inder Pal Kaur, propounded a Will dated 02.08.2009 in Probate Case No. 15976/2016. This Will purportedly divide the property equally among his wife, son, and two daughters.
Conversely, the deceased's wife, Mrs. Ravinder Kaur, filed Probate Case No. 15933/2016, seeking probate of an earlier registered Will dated 16.03.2005, which named her the sole beneficiary of the same property. This Will was attested by her son and daughter, including Ms. Inder Pal Kaur.
In the trial, both cases were consolidated. Ms. Inder Pal Kaur relied on the testimony of herself and two witnesses—Rajbir Singh and Dalip Rawat—to prove the second Will. The Will was claimed to have been executed in the presence of all legal heirs at their residence. The witnesses, however, were not family members.
On the other hand, Mrs. Ravinder Kaur produced documentary evidence and examined witnesses, including staff from the Sub-Registrar's office who verified the registration of the 2005 Will. Medical experts from Delhi Heart and Lungs Institute and Sir Ganga Ram Hospital also testified, revealing that the testator suffered from cerebral atrophy and other neurological ailments in 2009, the year the second Will was allegedly executed.
The Probate Court, after considering all evidence, found the 2005 Will to be genuine and valid, while holding the 2009 Will unconvincing and legally insufficient due to multiple factors, including lack of revocation and concerns about the testator's mental condition.
Justice Dharmesh Sharma recorded that the second Will dated 02.08.2009 did not contain an express revocation of the registered Will dated 16.03.2005.
"The second Will... generally declares that all previous relevant Wills and testamentary dispositions are revoked... What emerges... is that the testator has not given any reasons for revoking the earlier Will..."
The Court stated that the attesting witnesses to the 2009 Will were not family members and their testimonies were similar in content, raising concerns of reliability. The Court noted:
"Considering their deposition almost in a parrot like manner... the learned Trial Court has committed no error... the least [the appellant] could have done... was to seek attestation of the Will by her brother, mother, or... her real sister."
The Court further stated that the appellant failed to explain why the testator would change his earlier Will in favour of equal distribution, nor did she address the suspicious circumstances adequately.
Citing Surendra Pal v. Saraswati Arora (Dr.), the Court stated:
"The propounder has to show that the Will was signed by the testator; that he was at the relevant time in a sound disposing state of mind... and that he has signed it in the presence of the two witnesses who attested it in his presence..."
The Court relied on medical testimony and reports, noting that the testator was diagnosed with cerebral atrophy, had been admitted to neurology departments repeatedly, and suffered from "altered sensorium" during the period in which the second Will was allegedly executed. It stated:
"All these reports prove that the testator was suffering from brain problem... he had developed cerebral atrophy which is loss of brain cells... Hence, it is held that he was not in a fit state of mind on the day of execution of the Will."
Furthermore, the Court acknowledged that the first Will had been validly proven by Mrs. Ravinder Kaur and her son Jaswinder Singh. The Will bore signatures of both attesting witnesses, including the appellant.
On the legal standard for proving a Will, the Court cited Pentakota Satyanarayana v. Pentakota Seetharatnam, noting:
"The witness should further state that each of the attesting witnesses signed the instrument in the presence of the executant. These are the ingredients of attestation and they have to be proved by the witnesses."
The Court found that the evidence did not meet these criteria in regard to the 2009 Will.
The Court dismissed the appeals FAO 215/2021 and FAO 216/2021 filed by Ms. Inder Pal Kaur.
"In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is unable to find any illegality, perversity or incorrect approach adopted by the learned Probate Court in passing the impugned judgment dated 28.07.2021. Hence, the present appeals are dismissed."
All pending applications were disposed of accordingly.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Appellant: Mr. Rajat Wadhwa, Mr. Gurpreet Singh, Ms. Anisha Rastogi
For the Respondents: Ms. Sumati Anand, Mr. Sandesh Kumar
Case Title: Ms. Inder Pal Kaur v. The State of NCT of Delhi & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025: DHC:2022
Case Numbers: FAO 215/2021 and FAO 216/2021
Bench: Justice Dharmesh Sharma
[Read/Download order]
