$-30 T + IN TIIl,l ilI(;II COIJRT Ol' DIILIII AT NIIW DELHI +' lllST.CAS. 15/200tt & I.A. Nos.3413-341412008 SARDAR GUITCIIAITANJI'I' SINGII & ORS. .. Petitioners 'Ihrough Ml. Ajay I(r. f'andon & Mr. Ranjan Rai, Advocates VCTSLIS S1'A1]' AND O'I'Iil]RS ..... Respondents <.a 'l'hrough Ms. Maldccp Siddhu, Advocate for rcsnondent nos. 2 to 4. CORAM: HON'BI,I' MII. JIISTICII S.ITAVINDIIA I}IIAT OIIDI.]'R 18.08.2010 1. In thcse proceeclings, Lcttcrs of Adrninistration in respect of the Will of Late SardarI'hakar Singh Ahluwalia (rcfclrccl to as "tcstator") IVo 52135, Old RajinderNagar, New Delhi is soughl by thc pctitioncrs. 2. 1'hc pctitionors contcnded that thc testator uscd to livc in I)elhi in the said Rajinder Nagar propcrty and that hc diccl on 07.07.2004. In support of the submission, a copy of the dcath certificate lias bccn filcd. 'fhc petitioners have propounded the will dated 05.05.2000, (markcd as lix-PW-1/1 cluring thc course of prooecdings). According to them, thc r.vill was cxccuted by thc tcstalor in a sound disposing frame of mind without undue influencc ol plcssurc whatsoevcl; it is submitted that the Will was signcd in the presence of two attcsting witncsscs, Jatinder Kumar and Mahcsh Knmar. The petitioners rely upon the affidavits ol' thc saicl trrc individuals who vcrified the plcadings as prescribcd by Scction 2tl1 of thc Inclian Succcssion Act. 7 Digitally Signed By:AMULYA Signature Not Verified \ a-\ I After noticc was issucd and citation published, the Rcspondent nos. 2 to 5, other ' legal hcirs of tcslator, bcing his daughtcrs cntered appearance and filed a common reply, stating that thcy wcre objccting to thc proceedings. A closc reading of the.objection however suggests that in matcrial pai-ticulars as legards the will, its contents and execution, the said objcctor did not laise any disputc in the averments (in the objection). In the circumstances, it was suggcstcd that C<lurt should proceed to issue Letters of Adrninistration. Ilor.vcvcL, sincc tho fonnal clcpositions of the attcsting witnesses who clairn to have been prcsent whcn will was cxecuted had not been recorded, the parties were required to conplctc thc proccss. 4. In cornpliance with the Court's clirection, the affidavit depositions of the two attesting witncsscs Mahcsh Kumar & Jatincicr Kumar were tendered as Ex. PW-1/A and Ex.PW-2/A; bolh are dated 20.02.2010. 'I'hosc witnesscs presented themselves before the Court on 28.05.20i0 and supportcd thc contents of the affidavit. The contesting defendants also plocccdcd to cross-cxaminc them. Although both the witnesses stated that the will was not prcparcd in thcir prcscncc, they unanimously deposed that the testator had executccl thc will in thc prcscncc of both of thern and that they had signed in his presencc. 5. Thc will as notcd earlier is a part of thc recold (Ex-PW-1/1). The same is a holographic Will i.e. one writtcn in the hand writing of a testator. In terms of the material dispositions \to'ere that ground floor of thc Itajindcr Nagar property (on which a house has been constructcd) was to bc cnjoycd by his ulnarricd daughter Ms. Amarjeet 3. Kaur during her lilo timc rvithout property. After' her clcath, propcrty right to cncumbcl of transfcr ownership of the to dcvolvc upon the other four daughters of the any was 17 ))/ testator. Para 4 of thc Will plovidcd that 1he other portions of the property was to be sharcd eclually by other four claughtcrs. Para 5 provided for the devolution of movable deposits and sharcs and secruity ctc. 'fhc testator dcsired that the amounts were to be pooled for thc purposc of creating a Trust known as "Thakar 'frust". 'llhe manner of the utilization of the invcstmcnt bv thc 'I'rust to was indicated in the tenns contained in the will. 6. 'fhe testator, howcvcr, did not appoint any cxecutor. Originally, the petition was preferred by Ms. Rajinder Kaur, one of thc tcstator's daughter and also a joint residuary legatee of the properties. Ilowcver, during thc pendency of the proceedings, she died and was succeeded to fol thc plllposc of lhcsc ploceedings by her legal heirs. 7. 'l.his court has carcfully considcrcd the pleadings as well as the evidence on record; the depositions of the attcsting witnesses, PW-1 &PW-2 clearly bring out the fact that the Will was signcd by the tcstator in thcir prescnce and the presence of each other. It is not disputed by thc contcsting rcsponclcnts about thcir awarcness of the will, or even its due excctttion. 'l'hc Will is a liolograph onc. Flaving regard the facts, the Court is of the opinion that the pctitioncrs havc plovcd thc due exccution of the will; the Court also does not discern any suspioiolts circumstancc which would prevent grant of the relief claimed. In view of the abovc discussion, thc pctitioncrs are entitled to grant of Letters of Administration subjcct to theil furnishing Administration and Security bond; the same shall bc filcd within cight wccks; thc pctition is allorvcd in the above terms. S. ITAVINDRA BHAT.J AUGUST 18,2010 rs