“‘Executor Withheld Crucial Facts’: Delhi High Court Sets Aside Probate Over ‘Glaring Suspicious Circumstances’ in Hospital-Registered Will”
Isabella Mariam
The Delhi High Court, Single Bench of Justice Manoj Jain, has set aside a probate order granted by the Additional District Judge (West), Tis Hazari Courts, concerning the Will of Ms. Karuna Raj Vaderaa. The Court found that the execution of the Will was surrounded by multiple suspicious circumstances, particularly because it was executed while the Testatrix was hospitalized, and the Sub-Registrar who allegedly registered the Will at the hospital was never examined. The Court noted “the initial onus was never discharged by the petitioner in the desired manner.”
The Court further noted that the Executor, Mr. Amitabh Narayan, who drafted the Will and was named as the Executor therein, did not enter the witness box. The judgment directed that the probate granted to Mr. Narayan be set aside, given the unexplained irregularities surrounding the Will’s execution and registration process.
The case concerns a probate petition filed by Mr. Amitabh Narayan, who was named as Executor in the Will of Ms. Karuna Raj Vaderaa, executed on February 5, 2003, and registered by a Sub-Registrar at Mool Chand Hospital, New Delhi, while the Testatrix was admitted there. The Will disposed of significant immovable and movable properties, including residential property at South Extension, New Delhi, agricultural lands at Lado Sarai, and Vaderaa Farms in Gurgaon.
The Objector, Mr. Ashval Vaderaa, one of the Testatrix’s sons, challenged the validity of the Will, alleging that his mother was unconscious and under medication at the time of execution. He contended that the Will was forged and fabricated, pointing to existing civil and criminal litigation between the Testatrix and another son, Mr. Asheesh Vaderaa, who was a primary beneficiary under the Will.
It was further argued that no explanation was provided for the unequal distribution of assets and that the Testatrix could not have voluntarily executed such a document while admitted to the hospital. The Objector questioned the absence of any medical certificate confirming her sound mental condition on the date of execution and challenged procedural lapses in summoning the Sub-Registrar.
The petitioner, Mr. Narayan, submitted that the Will was duly executed and attested by two witnesses, including Dr. Vinod Rai. He argued that the Sub-Registrar’s visit to the hospital was lawful and that the Will was properly registered. It was further submitted that there were no suspicious circumstances warranting interference with the probate.
Mr. Asheesh Vaderaa and his wife, Monica Vaderaa, filed statements stating no objection to the probate, while the other son, Mr. Kanishka Vaderaa, mentioned certain factual clarifications regarding properties but did not object to the Will’s validity.
The Objector presented medical records, tax returns of the Testatrix, and hospital records, arguing that the petitioner had not proved compliance with mandatory safeguards when executing a Will in a hospital setting. The Objector relied on multiple precedents to support that the onus to dispel suspicions always rests heavily on the propounder.
The petitioner and other respondents argued that the attestation by two witnesses, the registration of the Will, and the deposition of Dr. Thakur (Testatrix’s treating physician) were sufficient to prove due execution.
Justice Manoj Jain recorded “a testamentary court is a court of conscience and one of the essential pre-requisites is to show that maker of the Will was in sound disposing mind at the relevant time.” The Court noted that while the Will was registered, significant omissions and procedural lapses were evident.
The Court observed, “it is not comprehensible as to why such a crucial fact that the Testatrix was admitted in a hospital and that the Sub-Registrar had come to the hospital has not even been whispered in the petition.”
Justice Jain found that Mr. Amitabh Narayan, as the Executor and drafter of the Will, failed to disclose critical information during trial and did not enter the witness box. The Court recorded, “to make things worse, he does not even think of entering into witness box. This according to me is nothing but a suspicious circumstance in itself.”
The Court further recorded, “there is nothing to indicate as to how and when request was sent to Sub-Registrar. This aspect is not mere procedural in nature.” It noted that neither was there any advance notice or evidence that a formal request was made for the Sub-Registrar to register the Will at the hospital, nor was there any explanation regarding how the Sub-Registrar satisfied himself about the Testatrix’s mental condition.
The medical certificate relied on by the Executor was dated February 3, 2003, whereas the Will was executed on February 5, 2003. The Court stated, “this certificate cannot establish that the Testatrix continued to remain in the same sound disposing condition and was physically and mentally alright on 05.02.2003 as well.”
Regarding the Sub-Registrar’s conduct, the Court noted, “the concerned Sub-Registrar had come to the hospital... There is nothing which may indicate that any doctor had assured the Sub-Registrar that the Testatrix was in sound disposing mind.” It further remarked, “without even bothering to verify the identity of the Testatrix, he simply endorsed that she had executed the Will on medical ground on the basis of some medical certificate.”
The Court found that “the initial onus was never discharged by the petitioner in the desired manner.” It also commented on the lack of testimony from family members who were present during the hospitalization.
The Court set aside the probate order granted to Mr. Amitabh Narayan and directed that the probate petition stands dismissed. It observed that the Will’s execution was clouded by material irregularities and suspicious circumstances, which had not been adequately addressed.
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Appellant: Mr. Ramesh Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent No.1: Mr. Suraj Prakash, Advocate
For Respondent Nos. 2 & 4: Mr. Dayan Krishnan, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ravikesh K. Sinha and Mr. Sanjeevi, Advocates
Case Title: Ashval Vaderaa vs. Amitabh Narayan & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:1736
Case Number: FAO 283/2018
Bench: Justice Manoj Jain
[Read/Download order]
