PAWAN JOLLY & ANR vs. STATE

.* HIGH COURT OF DELHI: NEW DELHI

Judgment pronounced on: 22.02.2012

+ TEST. CAS. No.21/1995

PAWAN JOLLY & ANR ..... Petitioners
Through Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Adv. with
Mr. Harpreet Singh, Adv.

Versus


STATE ..... Respondent
Through Mr. Raman Kapur, Adv. for the
Objector, Shri Anil Jolly.

CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN SINGH

MANMOHAN SINGH, J.

1. The petitioners filed the above-mentioned petition under Section 276
of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 for grant of probate in respect of the
registered Will dated 05.02.1991 executed by deceased Shri Brij Bhushan
Jolly with regard to his estate. The said Shri B.B. Jolly died on 21.01.1995.
2. The particulars of legal heirs of the deceased Shri B.B.Jolly are given
as under:-
(i) Mr. Pawan Jolly – Son (Petitioner No.1)
(ii) Mrs. Nirmal Jolly – Widow (Petitioner No.2)
(iii) Mr. Anil Jolly – Son (Objector)
(iv) Mrs. Beena Mehra – daughter
(v) Mr. Rakesh Jolly – Son
Test. Cas. No.21/1995 Page No.1 of 19


3. The above said Will and testament of the deceased Shri B.B.Jolly
was duly executed and registered with the Registrar vide Book No.606,
Volume No.III, Addl. Book No.588, Pages 153-157 on 05.02.1991. The
petitioner No.2 who was the widow of the deceased, died on 07.05.2007
during the pendency of the present proceedings.
4. It is alleged that a plot was purchased on 08.09.1969 by the deceased
Shri B.B.Jolly and subsequently constructed a building thereon in the year
1971. The property consists of 1.1/2 storey building at that point of time
and later on, the first floor of the said property was sold in the year 1984 to
Mr. O.P. Hasija and the Barsati Floor of the property was sold in the year
1989 to Mrs. Mala Sahgal.
5. It is also submitted that later Shri B.B.Jolly and petitioners No.1 & 2
have been residing on the ground floor and the terrace rights of the building
are also with the beneficiary of the aforesaid Will.
6. The particulars of the immovable and movable properties left by the
deceased Shri B.B.Jolly are mentioned in Schedule-A filed along with the
petition. The details of the same are given as under:-
Sr. No. Particulars Amount
1. Immovable property bearing -----
No.J-38, New Delhi South
Extension Part-I, New Delhi.

2. Movable Property Rs.10,00,000/-


7. As per the petitioners, the deceased Shri B.B.Jolly had executed his
last Will and testament dated 05.02.1991 in the presence of the following
two witnesses:-
Test. Cas. No.21/1995 Page No.2 of 19


(i) Shri A.K.Bajpai, Advocate,
40/3, Kidwai Nagar (East),
New Delhi-110023.

(ii) Smt. Beena Mehra,
A-40, Defence Colony,
New Delhi-110024.

8. The suit property as mentioned in the Will as property No.J-38, New
Delhi South Extension Part-I, New Delhi was transferred in favour of the
petitioners.
9. The petition is contested by the Objector, Shri Anil Jolly, who in his
written statement, has inter-alia challenged the petition on the following
grounds:-
(a) Shri B.B.Jolly died intestate and he had not made any Will and
much less a conscious one and of his free consent.
(b) Purported Will has been fraudulently brought into existence in
conspiracy with the witnesses and was not a conscious exercise of
Shri B.B.Jolly.
(c) Shri B.B.Jolly much prior to the purported date of Will was
suffering from mental disorder, imbalance and paralysis and had
been confined to bed and was at a mercy of petitioner No.1.

10. Citations of these proceedings were effected in the newspapers “The
Statesman” (New Delhi Edition) and “Hindustan” (Hindi Edition). The
valuation was also received and placed on record.
11. Vide order dated 27.10.1998, the following issues were framed:-
1. Whether the testatrix at the relevant time was mentally infirm
and was not at all in a disposing state of mind?
2. Whether the Will dated 05.02.1991 is a forged document?
3. Relief and costs.
Test. Cas. No.21/1995 Page No.3 of 19


12. In order to prove their case, the petitioners examined three witnesses,
namely, Mrs. Beena Mehra (daughter of the deceased) as PW.1, Shri L.S.
Rawat, Upper Division Clerk in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Asaf Ali
Road, New Delhi as PW.2, Shri A.K.Bajpai, Advocate as PW.3. Besides
them, petitioner No.1 examined himself as PW.4.
13. On the other hand, the objector Anil Jolly filed his own affidavit only
as RW-1.
ISSUES NO.1 & 2
14. Mrs. Beena Mehra (PW.1) has deposed that she was an attesting
witness to the Will in question dated 05.02.1991, marked as Exh.PW-1/1.
She proved the execution of the same. PW-2, Shri L.S. Rawat, Upper
Division Clerk in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Asaf Ali Road, New
Delhi had brought the summoned record, i.e. the register containing the
Will of the deceased Shri B.B.Jolly as document No.606 on pages 153 to
157 in Book No.3, Volume No.588 on 05.02.1991 and proved the same.
Shri A.K.Bajpai, Advocate was examined as PW.3. He was also an
attesting witness to the Will in question. His examination-in-chief was
recorded on affidavit which was exhibited as Exh.PW-3/A. In his
cross-examination, he deposed that he had signed the Will only as a witness
and in no other capacity. He also deposed that the Will was drafted by him
on the instructions of the deceased Shri B.B.Jolly and he along with
Mrs. Beena Mehra and deceased Shri B.B.Jolly were present in the office
of the Sub-Registrar when the Will was registered. He denied the
suggestion that at the time of execution of the Will, the deceased was not in
a good health and of sound mind.
Test. Cas. No.21/1995 Page No.4 of 19


15. Petitioner No.1 examined himself as PW.4. His examination-in-chief
was also produced by way of affidavit. In his cross-examination, he denied
that late Shri B.B.Jolly (his father) was admitted in hospital for treatment
immediately before the execution of the Will. He, in fact, deposed before
the Court by reiterating the facts stated in the petition.
16. The objector Shri Anil Jolly (RW.1) filed his affidavit in evidence. In
his cross-examination, he admitted that during the life time of the deceased,
he had filed a civil suit against him. He also admitted that during the
lifetime of his father, he had vacated the suit property. No other affidavit
as evidence was filed by the objector and vide order dated 25.01.2008 his
evidence was closed. Later on, he moved an application under Section 151
CPC being I.A. No.2625/2008, inter-alia, praying for allowing him to place
on record the report of the handwriting expert to challenge the signatures of
the testator on the Will in question.
17. The report of the handwriting expert, namely, Shri B.N.Srivastava
along with his affidavit was filed by the objector. The said handwriting
expert had opined in his affidavit that the signatures of the testator/deceased
Shri B.B.Jolly on the Will have not been written in normal course and were
not the signatures by a person of sound mind, as there were unnatural
inconsistencies in the formation of letters, lack of legibility and smoothness
of strokes in the signatures of the testator. In his cross-examination, the
said handwriting expert admitted that he is not a medical practitioner and is
not clinically certified to comment upon the mental condition of a person.
He also deposed that there is no authority which says that the handwriting
expert can comment on the mental condition of a person. He also admitted
that illegibility of the strokes in the handwriting of a person might be due to
Test. Cas. No.21/1995 Page No.5 of 19


poor health, tremors of old age and in all such cases it is not possible that
the illegality is because of the unsound mind. He also commented that
there are two types of writings, skilled and semi-skilled, and the features of
semi-skilled handwriting are letters not showing good speed, letters are not
clear cut, letters are not well-formed and there may be stoppages in
formation of letters and signatures. He also opined that semi-skilled
writing does not mean that the person/author of the same is of unsound
mind.
18. It is the admitted position that the objector in the present case has not
led any medical evidence in support of his contention that the deceased
Shri B.B.Jolly at the time of his death was not of a sound health and had no
disposing mind. In the written statement, the said objector contended that
his father was suffering from mental disorder, imbalance and paralyses.
However, in the cross-examination of PW-4, when he was suggested that
the deceased was having heart problem and diabetes, the said suggestion
was denied by the said witness.
19. Mr. Raman Kapur, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
objector has argued that the Will had been fraudulently brought into
existence in the conspiracy with the witnesses. The deceased was totally an
invalid patient without sound disposing mind. Actually, he was at the
mercy of petitioner No.1. He was also suffering from mental disbalance,
paralysis and was confined to bed. Otherwise, no person would affix his
signatures in the manner as has been done upon the impugned Will. The
learned counsel also argued that the evidence led by the petitioners is not
trust-worthy and the same cannot be relied upon, rather the opinion of the
expert witness whose report is Exh.RW-2/1 proved the case of the objector
Test. Cas. No.21/1995 Page No.6 of 19


and the said report clinches the issue in question. He further argued that the
statement of Mr. A.K.Bajpai, Advocate (PW.3) does not meet the
requirement of law and the same is not reliable. Similarly, the statement of
Mrs. Beena Mehra cannot be relied upon, as she is also not a trust-worthy
witness. Her signatures at different places are different on record. His last
submission is that there is total discrepancy in the evidence of the two
witnesses and as the petitioners have failed to prove the Will in question
beyond any doubt and suppression, the petition is liable to be rejected. In
support of his submissions, the learned counsel has relied upon the
following judgments:-
(i) Vijay Kumar Tiwari (Sh.) vs. The State and Anr. , reported
in 2009 I AD (Delhi) 496, the relevant para of which reads as
under:-
“21. The law relating to the wills is clear that the proof of
due execution of will always lies upon its propounder who
must satisfy the judicial conscience that the instrument is the
last will of a free and capable testator. Though no specific
standard of proof can be enunciated which must be applicable
to all the cases as every case depends on its circumstances,
courts must be vigilant and zealous in examining evidence for
the reason a will is a solemn document and speaks for the
dead. Suspicious circumstances are the presumptions which
hold against a will. Greater is the suspicion more heavy would
be the onus to be discharged by he who propounds the will.
Unless suspicious circumstances are satisfactorily explained
by removing the cloud of suspicion, a court would not readily
accept the document propounded as the last legal and valid
testament of the deceased. It may be true that nature of proof
required to prove a will is not different from that required to
prove other documents except the requirement of attestation
prescribed under Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act but it
cannot be lost sight of that what distinguishes a will from other
documents is that the testator is not available to testify the
same as his last will. Thus, an element of solemnity is
Test. Cas. No.21/1995 Page No.7 of 19


introduced in the decision. The proof of a will is to be tested
on the satisfaction of a prudent mind. Unnatural disposition,
improbable or unfair in the light of relevant circumstances or
other indications that the disposition was not the result of the
testator's free will and mind cast a very heavy initial onus on
the propounder and unless satisfactorily discharged the court
would not be justified in treating the document as the last will
of the testator. A sound mind required under Section 59 of the
Indian Succession Act may not mean that the testator should
have his mental faculty in their fullest vigour, but it means that
at least the testator should have the capacity to understand the
nature of his property; memory to remember the relations and
persons normally having claim on his bounty and also a
judgment.
(ii) Des Raj Gupta vs. State , reported in 159 (2009) Delhi Law
Times 738, the relevant para of which reads as under:-
“19. A “Will” is one of the most solemn documents known to
law. It is essential for the propounder of the “Will” that
trustworthy evidence should be produced before the Court to
establish genuineness and authenticity of the “Will”. The
Court has not only to consider the testimony of the witness and
the manner in which witnesses changed stances but it is open
to the Court to consider the circumstances brought out from
the evidence. In the present case, the testator was under
treatment in the hospital. He was a well-known personality
and was being taken care of by the Doctors in a very well
manner in a private room of a hospital of repute. The Doctor
who did not even know him personally, allowed the discharge
of the patient without payment of the bill merely because he
was sure that the payment from family of such a well-known
personality will not be withheld. There was no necessity for
the patient to move to his home for executing the “Will”. The
activity of the execution of the “Will” gained momentum soon
after discharge of the patient from the hospital. The evidence
of PW-1 shows that the “Will” in question was finalized
within 3 days of the discharge of the patient…..”
(iii) Vidya Rani & Anr. vs. Surinder Kaur & Anr. , reported in
1998 VI AD (Delhi) 522, the relevant para of which reads as
under:-
Test. Cas. No.21/1995 Page No.8 of 19

20. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners has
refuted the submissions made on behalf of the objector. His submission is
Test. Cas. No.21/1995 Page No.9 of 19


that the objector has not been able to show as to how the Will is forged. He
further argued that due to the facts and circumstances of the present case
and the evidence adduced in the matter, the objector has not, in fact, denied
the execution of the Will, but has merely challenged the manner in which
the Will had been executed, inter-alia, on the ground that the Will was not a
conscious act on the part of the deceased and was not made by him out of
his free consent. The said contention has not been proved in evidence by
the said objector. Therefore, the decisions referred by the learned counsel
for the objector do not help the case of the objector.

21. In support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the petitioners
has relied upon the following judgments:-
(i) Meenakshiammal (Dead) through LRs. and others vs.
Chandrasekaran and another , reported in (2005) 1 Supreme
Court Cases 280, the relevant para of which reads as under:
“16. We do not find any merit in this civil appeal. The
onus of proving the will is on the propounder and in the
absence of suspicious circumstances surrounding the
execution of the will, proof of testamentary capacity and
proof of the signature of the testator, as required by law,
is sufficient to discharge the onus. Where, however,
there are suspicious circumstances, the onus is on the
propounder to explain them to the satisfaction of the
court before it accepts the will as genuine. Even where
the circumstances give rise to doubts, it is for the
propounder to satisfy the conscience of the court. The
suspicious circumstances may be regarding the
genuineness of the signature of the testator, the
condition of the testator's mind, the disposition made in
the will being unnatural, improbable or unfair in the
light of relevant circumstances, or there might be other
indications in the will to show that the testator's mind
was not free. In such a case, the court would normally
expect that all legitimate suspicions should be
Test. Cas. No.21/1995 Page No.10 of 19


completely removed before the document is accepted as
the last will of the testator.”

(ii) Sridevi and others vs. Jayaraja Shetty and others , reported
in AIR 2005 Supreme Court 780, the relevant para of which
reads as under:
“14. The propounder of the Will has to show that the
Will was signed by the testator; that he was at the
relevant time in sound disposing state of mind; that he
understood the nature and effect of dispositions and had
put his signatures to the testament of his own free will
and that he had signed it in the presence of the two
witnesses who attested in his presence and in the
presence of each other. Once these elements are
established, the onus which rests on the propounder is
discharged. DW-2 the scribe, in his testimony has
categorically stated that the Will was scribed by him at
the dictation of the testator. The two attesting witnesses
have deposed that the testator had signed the Will in
their presence while in sound disposing state of mind
after understanding the nature and effect of dispositions
made by him. That he signed the Will in their presence
and they had signed the Will in his presence and in the
presence of each other. In cross-examination, the
appellants failed to elicit anything which could persuade
us to disbelieve their testimony. It has not been shown
that they were in any way interested in the propounders
of the Will or that on their asking they could have
deposed falsely in court. Their testimony inspires
confidence. The testimony of the scribe (DW-2) and the
two attesting witnesses (DWs-3 and 4) is fully
corroborated by the statement of the handwriting expert
(DW-5). The Will runs into 6 pages. The testator had
signed each of the 6 pages. The handwriting expert
compared the signatures of the testator with his admitted
signatures. He has opined that the signatures on the Will
are that of the testator. In our view, the Will had been
duly executed.”

Test. Cas. No.21/1995 Page No.11 of 19


(iii) L.C. Lai & Ors. vs. State , reported in 2002 (65) DRJ 130, the
relevant paras of which read as under:
“10. The law is well settled that the burden of establishing
that at the time of the execution of the Will the deceased was
in a sound disposing mind is on the petitioner who propounds
the Will but this burden is very light for the reason that there is
a presumption of soundness of mind in favor of every testator.
Unless there is some cogent material on record to doubt his
capacity to dispose, the Court must go by this presumption.
The propounder of the Will stands discharged of the onus of
establishing sound disposing state of mind if he asserts that the
testator was in sound disposing mind and there is nothing on
record to show that the testator was not in a sound disposing
mind. It is also equally settled that mere deprivation of the
natural heirs in a Will by a testator should not be taken as a
suspicious circumstance because the whole idea behind
execution of the Will is to interfere with the normal course of
succession. Ordinarily in every Will natural heirs are either
debarred or their shares are interfered with by a testator and,
therefore, this in itself cannot be taken as a suspicious
circumstance. A Will contains the last desire of a testator and
as such, the Courts should normally act in accordance with the
wishes of a testator. However, if a Will is clouded by some
suspicious circumstance and the propounder fails to remove
the suspicion, the Will should not be propounded. The
judgment of the Apex Court in Rabindra Nath Mukherjee
and Another v. Panchanan Banerjee and Others , AIR 1995
SC 1684 lays down guidelines for the approach to be adopted
by the Courts in Probate petitions. In Pushpawati and Others
v. Chandraja Kanamba and Others , AIR 1972 SC 2492 and
Surendra Pal and Others v. Dr. (Mrs.) Saraswati Arora
and Another , AIR 1974 SC 1999, the Supreme Court of India
held that the burden of proving a Will is on the propounder
and where there are suspicious circumstances, the propounder
of the Will has to explain them away to the satisfaction of the
Court. It is, therefore, clear that only those suspicious
circumstances have to be explained which are brought to the
notice of Court. A Propounder is not expected to presume
them and then explain each and every imaginary suspicious
Test. Cas. No.21/1995 Page No.12 of 19

(iv) Khazan Singh vs. State etc. , reported in 45 (1991) Delhi Law
Times 352 (DB), the relevant paras of which read as under:
“20. As mentioned above, the learned Single Judge however
has enumerated 7 “suspicious” circumstances. It is well
settled that any and every circumstance is not suspicious
circumstance. A circumstance would be suspicious when it
is not normal and is not normally expected in a normal
situation or is not expected of a normal person. The said
circumstances in the light of the evidence adduced by the
appellant, it is urged, would show that most of the stated
circumstances are by no means suspicious. We have
considered the matter thoughtfully and feel inclined to agree
with.
21. In so far as the exclusion of close relatives and Class-I
heirs of the testatrix is concerned, a Will in favour of
husband or vice-versa to the exclusion of others, stands on a
different footing as compared to a Will in favour of other
heirs or strangers. The concept of Will itself envisages
preference to one over the other. In our society it is not
unnatural or unusual for husband or wife to bequeath his/her
Test. Cas. No.21/1995 Page No.13 of 19


whole property to each other to the exclusion of their
progeny. It is often resorted to keep up amity in the family
and sometimes to ensure proper care, status and respect to
the living spouse after the demise of the other. Furthermore,
in the instant case, although contesting respondent has set up
a case that the Will is not genuine, he has not produced any
evidence in support thereof. In our opinion, therefore, the
stated circumstance is not suspicious. In our view, facts in
the instant case are clearly distinguishable from the facts
prevailing in Kalyan Singh v. Chhoti and others (supra)
and Ram Pyari v. Bhagwant (supra) relied upon by the
learned counsel for the respondent.”
(v) Santosh Kakkar & Ors. vs. Ram Prasad & Ors. , reported in
71 (1998) Delhi Law Times, 147. Relevant para 15 reads as
under :
“15. The propounder has been able to show by cogent and
satisfactory evidence that the Will in question is signed by the
testator; the testator at the relevant time was in a sound and
disposing state of mind, that he understood the nature and
effect of the disposition and put his signatures to the document
of his own free Will.”
(vi) Smt. K. Kusuma Kumari vs. Grandhi Surya Bhaghawan
and others , reported in AIR 1982 Andhra Pradesh 163, the
relevant para of which reads as under:

"This is a congenital condition due to the defective
development of the mental faculties. All grades of this
condition exist from the helpless life mere vegetable
organism to one which can be compared with the life of
young children, as far as mental development is
concerned. An idiot is wanting in merely and willpower,
is devoid of emotions, has no initiative of any kind, is
unable to fix attention any subject and "is unable to
guard himself against common physical dangers". He is
usually quiet, gentle and timid, though he can be easily
Test. Cas. No.21/1995 Page No.14 of 19

Dealing then with imbecility, Modi observed:

Dealing then with feeble-mindedness, Modi observed:
"Under the Mental Deficiency (England) Act, 1913
feeble-minded persons or mornes are defined as persons
in whose early age mental defectiveness not amounting
to imbecility, yet so pronounced that they require care,
supervision and control for their own protection, or for
the protection of others, or, in the case of children that
they by reason of such defectiveness appear to be
Test. Cas. No.21/1995 Page No.15 of 19

22. In view of the decisions referred by the learned counsels for the
parties, it is necessary at this stage to refer paras-3 & 7 of the Will in
question, which read as under:-
“3. That I have got three sons, namely, 1. Anil Jolly,
2. Pawan Jolly and 3. Rakesh Jolly and one daughter
Smt. Bina Mehra wife of Shri Ajay Mehra. Sh. Anil Jolly
never maintained good relation with me however, keeping in
view the responsibility of father I helped him and got started
Test. Cas. No.21/1995 Page No.16 of 19


his business in the name and style of M/s. A.J. & Company
and I invested lot for his business but he never paid me back
single penny or to my family and his treatment was unbearable
and inhuman towards me and never took care of fulfilling his
duties towards parents and on the contrary he started harassing
and abusing, beating me and my wife and ultimately I asked
him to separate and to occupy second floor for his use but after
sometime he again started misbehaving and abusing and
beating me and my wife and always demanded money from
me. When limit was crossed I debarred him and gave pargati
to him which was published in Newspaper. Due to his
constant nagging I was not able to bear tensions and on his
pressurize I had to pay Rs.35,000/- by cheque and Rs.15,000/-
in cash and 30 tulas of gold and then only he vacated and gave
possession of said second floor. Since I had not funds as
money was taken by Anil Jolly the circumstances compelled
me to sell second floor. Due to his behavior and
circumstances I have decided once for all that I shall not give
anything from my movable and immovable property or any
share to Anil Jolly and his heirs, successors and
representatives.
7. It I leave any cash or other assets that shall also go to
my wife and thereafter to Pawan Jolly only. I do appoint my
wife as the Executor of this Will. In case my wife predeceases
me, then after my death my above said house and the other
movable assets including jewellery, cash and other house-hold
luggage, goods and furniture etc. shall go to my son Pawan
Jolly only and he shall become the absolute owner of all the
moveable and immoveable properties whatsoever.”

23. I agree with the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners
that the objector has failed to prove his objections by way of evidence or
any material on record. It is not in dispute that the Will which is the subject
matter of the petition, is a registered one and it has been proved beyond any
doubt. It also clarifies the reason for not making any provision in favour of
the objector who has not denied the fact that he had filed the civil suit
Test. Cas. No.21/1995 Page No.17 of 19


against his deceased father for partition and later on, the dispute was
resolved and he vacated the suit property as per his own sweet will. It
further appears from the evidence that the deceased and the objector were
not having cordial relations, as the objector had been misbehaving with the
deceased. Both the witnesses to the Will have been examined. The Will of
the deceased stands proved. PW.1, who is the sister of petitioner No.1 and
the objector, was one of the witnesses to the Will and she has confirmed the
execution of the same. She, in fact, has deposed before the Court without
looking her own interest in the property. Similarly, PW-3, Shri A.K.Bajpai,
Advocate has also confirmed the execution of the Will as a witness. It is a
registered Will.
24. There is no evidence on behalf of the objector to the effect that the
Will had not been executed. Only the manner, in which the Will had been
executed, has been challenged by the objector. Thus, the question of
suspicion does not arise. No medical evidence has been produced or
proved by the objector. The Will executed by the deceased appears not
unnatural, improbable or unfair in the present case due to the facts and
circumstances mentioned therein, as the objector was, allegedly, not having
cordial relations with the deceased. Further, he already vacated the suit
premises when the deceased was alive. As far as the decisions referred by
the learned counsel for the objector are concerned, in these decisions, the
law related to the Wills has been discussed for which proposition of law
cannot be disputed by anyone. However, these decisions do not help the
case of the objector, rather the principles laid down in these cases go in
favour of the petitioners, as the objector has failed to discharge his burden
on the objections raised by him in his written statement.
Test. Cas. No.21/1995 Page No.18 of 19


25. In view of the aforesaid reasons, both the issues are decided in favour
of petitioner No.1 and against the objector, as the burden to prove these
issues was upon the objector and he has failed to discharge the same. This
Court has no hesitation in concluding that the evidence on record shows
that at the time of execution of the Will in question, the deceased testator
Shri B.B.Jolly was in a sound disposing state of mind.
ISSUE No.3/RELIEF & COSTS
26. It appears that the Will has been proved beyond any shadow of
doubt. Under these circumstances, the present petition is allowed. The
probate is granted in favour of petitioner No.1 (since petitioner No.2
already expired during the pendency of these proceedings) qua the Will
dated 05.02.1991, in respect of the estate of the deceased Shri B.B. Jolly as
detailed in Schedule-A filed along with the petition.
27. The probate petition is accordingly disposed of, but no order as to
costs.


MANMOHAN SINGH, J.
FEBRUARY 22, 2012/ka
Test. Cas. No.21/1995 Page No.19 of 19