Sameer Paul Chaudhary & Ors. vs. State & Ors.

$~43
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
th
Date of Decision: 9 February, 2024
+ TEST.CAS. 20/2022 & I.A. 3278/2022

Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)
1. This hearing has been done through hybrid mode.
2. This is a petition filed by the Petitioners - Sameer Paul Chaudhary and
others under Section 276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 for grant of
Letters of Administration (hereinafter, ‘LOA’) of the Will dated 21st June,
2017 of Late Ms. Susheila Chaudhury. The said Will is a registered Will.
3. A brief background of the family would be required in order to decide
the issues, which are raised in the present test case. Ms. Susheila Chaudhury
(hereinafter, ‘ the testatrix ’) is the daughter of Late Shri L.C. Chaudhury.
TEST.CAS. 20/2022 Page 1 of 21

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:15.02.2024
17:04:02

The testatrix had four brothers and six sisters. Thus, including the testatrix,
there were eleven children of Late Shri L.C. Chaudhury. The names of the
brothers and sisters are set out below:

4. The only siblings, who are currently alive, are the sisters at serial
numbers 8, 9, 10, 11 above. Thus, the testatrix herself was unmarried and
she died on 20th April, 2021. The Will of the testator is set out below:
“ I (Miss) Susheila Chaudhary (D/o Late Mr. L.C.
Chaudhary, Aged 91 Years, resident of 1/10
Sarvapriya Vihar, New Delhi-110016, Hereby in full
senses and Sound mind declare that this is my last and
TEST.CAS. 20/2022 Page 2 of 21

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:15.02.2024
17:04:02

Final WILL for the above address mentioned property
and other belongings of mine.

Now therefore, I declare as under:- I owe nothing to
anyone and am absolutely free of any debts.

I, hereby declare that on my death all my movable and
immovable belongings including my personal apparels
as expressly provided in this WILL shall devolve and
rest in the following manner:-

I hereby give full authority and legal rights to get the
house 1/10 Sarva Priya Vihar N. Delhi-16 Vacated by

1. Mrs Meenakshi Gupta R/o II-C/13 Aashirwad
Vaishali Ghaziabad (U.P)
2. Sandeep Chaudhary R/o J-1906 (F.F) CR Park
Delhi - 19
3. Sameer Chaudhary P-135 Pallav Puram M.I.G Flats
Phase II Modi Puram Meerut (UP).
By giving two months notice to the tenants the
authorised committee members will sell the said house
within a period of one year. In case of any difficulty the
period can be extended by the consent of the majority
but the consent of Mrs. Meenakshi Gupta and Sameer
Chaudhry is a must After paying the brokerage and
other Municipal Taxes etc in respect of the above said
house the person and pérsons taking up the initiative
and responsibility for getting the sale transaction
effected, shall get Rs 200,000/- (Rupees two lacs only)
towards incentive sale which shall be distributed
equally or according to the effort of individuals.
The balance amount of the sale of the said house will
be distributed thus by
1. Mrs. Meenakshi Gupta
2. Mrs. Aunila shaw
3. Mr. Prem paul chaudhary
In case of any mishappening to the above mentioned
TEST.CAS. 20/2022 Page 3 of 21

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:15.02.2024
17:04:02

persons, the decision will be taken by the rest of the
committee members.
(I) house Money will be divided proportionately among
the following Seven persons.
1. Aunila shaw - Sister - 1
2. Deepa Benjamin - Sister - 1
3. Meenakshi Gupta - Sister - 1
4. Kusmanjali Wilson - Sister - 1
5. Prem Paul Chaudhary’s - grand children
6. Nephews- Sanjay Chaudhary 2/3
Sandeep Chaudhary 1/3
7. Sameer Chaudhary 2/3, Ashima Kumar 1/3 ”

5. The evidence has been led in the case. The following persons have
given evidence in the matter:
(i) PW-1 - Mrs. Renu Nayak, Sr. Assistant in the Sub-Registrar V-A,
Hauz Khas, New Delhi. She has confirmed that the Will is a registered Will,
which has been exhibited as Ex.PW-1/A.
(ii) PW-2 is Mr. Ravi Ahuja, who is one of the attesting witnesses. He
filed his affidavit in evidence and has stated on 10th August, 2023 as under:
“I tender my evidence by way of affidavit, which is
exhibited as Ex.PW2/A bearing my signatures at points
'A' and 'B'. I am one of the attesting witness of Will
and Testament dated 21.06.2017 registered on
21.06.2017 as document no.756, which is already
exhibited as Ex.PW1/A.
At this stage, original Will dated 21.06.2017 is taken
out from the sealed cover and the same is shown to the
witness.
I identify my signatures at point 'A-1', 'A-2' and 'A-3'
on the Will Ex.PW1/A as attesting witness. 1 also
identify the signatures of testator Miss Susheila
Chaudhary at points 'B-1' to 'B-7' on the Will
Ex.PW1/A.
I had signed on the Will Ex.PW1/A in presence of
TEST.CAS. 20/2022 Page 4 of 21

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:15.02.2024
17:04:02

the testator and other attesting witness. The testator
had also signed the Will Ex.PW1/A in my presence and
presence of other attesting witness. We had also
appeared in the office of Sub-Registrar for registration
of the Will and we all also signed on the endorsement
of registration before Sub-Registrar. ”

No cross examination was conducted qua the said witness.
(iii) PW-3 - Mr. Sunil Lall has also stated as under:
“I tender my evidence by way of affidavit, which is
exhibited as Ex.PW3/A bearing my signatures at points
'A' and 'B'. I am one of the attesting witness of Will and
Testament dated 21.06.2017 registered on 21.06.2017
as document no.756, which is already exhibited as
Ex.PW1/A.
At this stage, original Will dated 21.06.2017 is taken
out from the sealed cover and the same is shown to the
witness.
I identify my signatures at point 'C-1', 'C-2' and 'C-
3' on the Will Ex.PW1/A as attesting witness. I also
identify the signatures of testator Miss Susheila
Chaudhary at points 'B-1' to 'B-7' on the V/ill
Ex.PW1/A.
I had signed on the Will Ex.PW1/A in presence of
the testator and other attesting witness. The testator
had also signed the Will Ex.PW1/A in my presence and
presence of other attesting witness. We had also
appeared in the office of Sub-Registrar for registration
of the Will and we all also signed on the endorsement
of registration before Sub-Registrar. ”

In his cross-examination, he has stated that he had also taken pictures
on his mobile phone of Will before it was signed and same was not shared
by him with anyone. He has also not been cross-examined on merits.
(iv) PW-4 - The Petitioner Mr. Sameer Paul Chaudhary - son of Late
TEST.CAS. 20/2022 Page 5 of 21

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:15.02.2024
17:04:02

Rajinder Pal Chaudhary, who is also one of the nephews of the testatrix, has
also given his evidence. He has exhibited the Aadhar card of the testator as
Mark A and death certificate is exhibited as Ex.PW-4/1 and the Will.
6. From the evidence it is clear that none of the Respondents are
challenging the execution of the Will. However, the issue is only in respect
of the interpretation of one clause in the Will itself.
7. The Court has perused the original Will and the evidence on record.
The portion of the Will, which requires interpretation, is as under:
“ I hereby give full authority and legal rights to get the
house 1/10 Sarva Priya Vihar N. Delhi-16 Vacated by

1. Mrs Meenakshi Gupta R/o II-C/13 Aashirwad
Vaishali Ghaziabad (U.P)
2. Sandeep Chaudhary R/o J-1906 (F.F) CR Park
Delhi - 19
3. Sameer Chaudhary P-135 Pallav Puram M.I.G Flats
Phase II Modi Puram Meerut (UP).
By giving two months notice to the tenants the
authorised committee members will sell the said house
within a period of one year. In case of any difficulty the
period can be extended by the consent of the majority
but the consent of Mrs. Meenakshi Gupta and Sameer
Chaudhry is a must After paying the brokerage and
other Municipal Taxes etc in respect of the above said
house the person and pérsons taking up the initiative
and responsibility for getting the sale transaction
effected, shall get Rs 200,000/- (Rupees two lacs only)
towards incentive sale which shall be distributed
equally or according to the effort of individuals.
The balance amount of the sale of the said house will
be distributed thus by
1. Mrs. Meenakshi Gupta
2. Mrs. Aunila shaw
3. Mr. Prem paul chaudhary
TEST.CAS. 20/2022 Page 6 of 21

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:15.02.2024
17:04:02

In case of any mishappening to the above mentioned
persons, the decision will be taken by the rest of the
committee members.
(I) house Money will be divided proportionately among
the following Seven persons.
1. Aunila shaw - Sister - 1
2. Deepa Benjamin - Sister - 1
3. Meenakshi Gupta - Sister - 1
4. Kusmanjali Wilson - Sister - 1
5. Prem Paul Chaudhary’s - grand children
6. Nephews- Sanjay Chaudhary 2/3
Sandeep Chaudhary 1/3
Sameer Chaudhary 2/3, Ashima Kumar 1/3 ”

The Will of Ms. Susheila Chaudhury is annexed as Annexure 1 with this
order.
8. The testatrix is a Post-graduate and was highly qualified. Thus it
appears that the Will was executed with due application of mind.
9. A perusal of the Will would show that the testatrix had given
authority to Mrs. Meenakshi Gupta, Mr. Sandeep Chaudhary and Mr.
Sameer Chaudhary to get the tenants evicted, after two months notice and
also to sell the house being 1/10, Sarvapriya Vihar, New Delhi-110016.
10. The sale after being effected, the testatrix had permitted Rs.2 lakhs to
be distributed equally to Mrs. Meenakshi Gupta, Mr. Sandeep Chaudhary
and Mr. Sameer Chaudhary for their efforts for getting the tenants evicted
and for sale of the property. Post the sale being effected, the balance was to
be distributed in the following manner.
“1. Aunila shaw - Sister - 1
2. Deepa Benjamin - Sister - 1
3. Meenakshi Gupta - Sister - 1
TEST.CAS. 20/2022 Page 7 of 21

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:15.02.2024
17:04:02

4. Kusmanjali Wilson - Sister - 1
5. Prem Paul Chaudhary’s - grand children
6. Nephews - Sanjay Chaudhary 2/3
- Sandeep Chaudhary 1/3
Sameer Chaudhary 2/3, Ashima Kumar 1/3 ”

11. The amount of consideration was to be distributed by three
individuals i.e. Mrs. Meenakshi Gupta, Ms. Aunila Shaw and Mr. Prem Paul
Chaudhary. Mr. Prem Paul Chaudhary died on 29th April, 2021. In case of
any mishappening with any of three individuals, the decision to distribute
has to be taken by the remaining two individuals. However, the distribution
of the house money (balance of amount of sale of the house) was to be done
amongst the above mentioned persons.
12. The contention of the Petitioners is that the distribution has to be in
seven shares but the contention of the Respondent No. 4 – Mrs. Meenakshi
Gupta and Respondent No. 5 - Mrs. Kusumanjali Wilson is that the
distribution has to be in six shares.
13. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioners submits that the nephews of the
testatrix i.e., Mr. Sanjay Chaudhary and Mr. Sandeep Chaudhary constitute
one share and Mr. Sameer Chaudhary and Ms. Ashima Kumar constitutes
the second share. Thus, though the names of Mr. Sameer Chaudhary and
Ms. Ashima Kumar are not numbered separately with the numeral `7’, the
fact that they have to get 2/3rd and 1/3rd would show that there are seven
groups for whom the share has to be given.
14. On the other hand, Respondent Nos. 4 and 5 submit that since there is
no numbering against Mr. Sameer Chaudhary and Ms. Ashima Kumar, the
TEST.CAS. 20/2022 Page 8 of 21

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:15.02.2024
17:04:02

nephews are to get only 1/4th each of the 6th share and thus, the
consideration is to be distributed only in six groups.
15. All other Respondents support the stand of the Petitioners.
16. It is clear that the Will does have some errors such as
(i) wrong indentation,
(ii) non-numbering of Mr. Sameer Chaudhary and Ashima Kumar
and;
(iii) description of the niece Ms. Ashima Kumar as a nephew.
17. In the opinion of this Court, the Will has to be interpreted in letter and
spirit. Clearly, the testatrix reposed trust in Mr. Sanjay Chaudhary and Mr.
Sandeep Chaudhary, both of whom are her nephews. She has also divided
the cash equally among various individuals, out of which Mr. Sanjay
Chaudhary, Mr. Sandeep Chaudhary, Mr. Sameer Chaudhary and Ms.
Ashima Kumar are the part. The Will does not show or reflect any intention
to divide only one share amongst the four nephews. Moreover there is also
no intention to non-suit them or reduce their share.
18. The Will of the testatrix has to be interpreted in the spirit of law. The
same has been clearly laid down in Navneet Lal v. Gokul , (1976) 1 SCC
630 . The relevant portions of the said judgement are set out below:
8. From the earlier decisions of this Court the following
principles, inter alia, are well established:
(1) In construing a document whether in English or in
vernacular the fundamental rule is to ascertain the intention
from the words used; the surrounding circumstances are to
be considered; but that is only for the purpose of finding out
the intended meaning of the words which have actually been
employed. (Ram Gopal v. Nand Lal [1950 SCC 702 : AIR
1951 SC 139 : (1950) SCR 766, 772] )
(2) In construing the language of the will the court is
TEST.CAS. 20/2022 Page 9 of 21

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:15.02.2024
17:04:02

entitled to put itself into the testator's armchair (Venkata
Narasimha v. Parthasarathy [41 IA 51, 72 : 21 IC 339 : 15
Bom LR 1010] ) and is bound to bear in mind also other
matters than merely the words used. It must consider the
surrounding circumstances, the position of the testator, his
family relationship, the probability that he would use
words in a particular sense. But all this is solely as an aid
to arriving at a right construction of the will, and to
ascertain the meaning of its language when used by that
particular testator in that document. (Venkata Narasimha
case and Gnanambal Ammal v. T. Raju Ayyar [1950 SCC
978 : AIR 1951 SC 103 : (1950) SCR 949, 955] )
(3) The true intention of the testator has to be gathered not
by attaching importance to isolated expressions but by
reading the will as a whole with all its provisions and
ignoring none of them as redundant or contradictory. (Raj
Bajrang Bahadur Singh v. Thakurain Bakhtraj Kuer [AIR
1953 SC 7 : (1953) SCR 232, 240] )
(4) The court must accept, if possible, such construction as
would give to every expression some effect rather than that
which would render any of the expressions inoperative. The
court will look at the circumstances under which the
testator makes his will, such as the state of his property, of
his family and the like. (Pearey Lal v. Rameshwar Das [AIR
1963 SC 1703 : 1963 Supp (2) SCR 834, 839, 842] )
(5) It is one of the cardinal principles of construction of
wills that to the extent that it is legally possible effect
should be given to every disposition contained in the will
unless the law prevents effect being given to it.
(Ramachandra Shenoy v. Hilda Brite Mrs [AIR 1964 SC
1323 : (1964) 2 SCR 722, 735] ) .
Xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx
18. It is, therefore, abundantly clear that the intention of
the testator will have to be gathered from all the relevant
and material contents in the entire will made in the
situation in which the testator was placed in life in the
background of his property, his inclinations, wishes,
desires and attitudes as can be clearly and unambiguously
TEST.CAS. 20/2022 Page 10 of 21

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:15.02.2024
17:04:02

found either from the recitals from the instrument or from
absolutely undoubted contemporaneous legally admissible
evidence .

19. Further, guiding principles for interpretation of Wills was discussed in
the case of Sadaram Suryanarayana v. Kalla Surya Kantham, (2010) 13
SCC 147. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgement are set out below:
“16. In Pearey Lal case [AIR 1963 SC 1703 : 1963 Supp
(2) SCR 834], this Court recognised the following guiding
principles in the matter of interpretation of wills: (SCR pp.
834-35)
(i) the intention of the testator by reading the
will as a whole and if possible, such construction
as would give to every expression some effect
rather than that which could render any of the
expressions inoperative must be accepted ;
(ii) another rule is that the words occurring more
than once in a will shall be presumed to be used
always in the same sense unless a contrary
intention appears from the will;
(iii) all parts of a will should be construed in
relation to each other;
(iv) the court will look at the circumstances under
which the testator makes his will, such as the state
of his property, of his family and the like;
(v) where apparently conflicting dispositions can
be reconciled by giving full effect to every word
used in a document, such a construction should
be accepted instead of a construction which
would have the effect of cutting down the clear
meaning of the words used by the testator;
(vi) where one of the two reasonable
constructions would lead to intestacy, that
should be discarded in favour of a construction
which does not create any such hiatus.

TEST.CAS. 20/2022 Page 11 of 21

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:15.02.2024
17:04:02

XXX
22. It is evident from a careful reading of the provisions
referred to above that while interpreting a will, the courts
would as far as possible place an interpretation that would
avoid any part of a testament becoming redundant. So also
the courts will interpret a will to give effect to the intention
of the testator as far as the same is possible. Having said
so, we must hasten to add that the decisions rendered by
the courts touching upon interpretation of the wills are
seldom helpful except to the extent the same recognise or
lay down a proposition of law of general application. That
is so because each document has to be interpreted in the
peculiar circumstances in which the same has been
executed and keeping in view the language employed by
the testator. That indeed is the requirement of Section 82
of the Succession Act also inasmuch as it provides that
meaning of any clause in a will must be collected from the
entire instrument and all parts shall be construed with
reference to each other.”

20. Bearing in mind the above legal position, after perusing the Will, this
Court is of the clear opinion that the manner in which the share has been
specified as 2/3rd and 1/3rd against Mr. Sanjay Chaudhary and Mr. Sandeep
Chaudhary as also 2/3rd and 1/3rd qua Mr. Sameer Chaudhary and Ms.
Ashima Kumar, clearly, shows that there is an intention to divide the entire
sale consideration into seven groups. Considering the educational
qualifications when the said share of 2/3 and 1/3 is specifically written, it
would be grossly unjust to interpret the same as a ¼ share for all the four
nephews (sic one niece). The intention which can be gleaned from the Will
is that two nephews get 2/3 and 1/3. The other two also get 2/3 and 1/3.
Thus there are four nephews/niece who are to be given two shares to enable
them to distribute the same 2/3 & 1/3. Any contrary interpretation would
TEST.CAS. 20/2022 Page 12 of 21

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:15.02.2024
17:04:02

violate the letter and spirit of the Will.
21. Thus, for the sake of distribution in terms of the Will, which is an
admitted Will, the sale consideration would be liable to be divided into
seven groups with the following shares.
“1. Aunila shaw - Sister - 1
2. Deepa Benjamin - Sister - 1
3. Meenakshi Gupta - Sister - 1
4. Kusmanjali Wilson - Sister - 1
5. Prem Paul Chaudhary’s - grand children
6. Nephews - Sanjay Chaudhary 2/3
- Sandeep Chaudhary 1/3
7. Sameer Chaudhary 2/3, Ashima Kumar 1/3 ”

22. With this clarification, the Will dated 21st June, 2017 of Late Ms.
Susheila Chaudhary is probated and the letters of administration are granted
in favour of all the beneficiaries.
23. It is submitted that there is some discrepancy between the names
mentioned in the Will and the Aadhar cards of the respective individuals.
Accordingly, the Court has perused paragraph 17 of the petition and the
same is extracted herein below in order to avoid procedural technicalities in
the distribution of the shares to the various individuals.
“17. That as compared to their respective names in the
government document/Aadhar, there are few minor
spelling errors in the Will dated 21.06.2017 of the
Testator in respect of the name of the Testator,
Petitioner No.1, 2 & 3 and Respondent No.5 & 7. A
comparison of said spelling errors are described
hereinbelow in table:

TEST.CAS. 20/2022 Page 13 of 21

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:15.02.2024
17:04:02

The aforesaid errors are only typographical mistakes
in the Will and the above persons are individually the
one and same for all purposes. That for the sake of
convenience the name of the parties as well as that of
the Testator are mentioned in the present petition as it
appears in their respective Aadhar.”

24. The petition is, accordingly, disposed of in the above terms. All
pending applications are also disposed of.

PRATHIBA M. SINGH
JUDGE
FEBRUARY 09, 2024/ dk/bh
th
(corrected & released on 15 February, 2024)
TEST.CAS. 20/2022 Page 14 of 21

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:15.02.2024
17:04:02

ANNEXURE 1



TEST.CAS. 20/2022 Page 15 of 21

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:15.02.2024
17:04:02

TEST.CAS. 20/2022 Page 16 of 21

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:15.02.2024
17:04:02

TEST.CAS. 20/2022 Page 17 of 21

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:15.02.2024
17:04:02

TEST.CAS. 20/2022 Page 18 of 21

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:15.02.2024
17:04:02

TEST.CAS. 20/2022 Page 19 of 21

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:15.02.2024
17:04:02

TEST.CAS. 20/2022 Page 20 of 21

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:15.02.2024
17:04:02

TEST.CAS. 20/2022 Page 21 of 21

Signature Not Verified
Digitally Signed
By:RAHUL
Signing Date:15.02.2024
17:04:02