The Delhi High Court has set aside a 2009 judgment of a Single Judge and granted probate of a Will executed by a man in favor of his friend’s mother, to the exclusion of his own parents and sister. The Division Bench held that the disinheritance of natural heirs is not a suspicious circumstance when the testator had strained relations with his family and had found support in the beneficiary’s family.
The Division Bench, comprising Justice Anil Kshetarpal and Justice Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, allowed the appeal in Vikram Chopra v. State & Others, observing that “mere benefit to a non-relative or disinheritance of natural heirs is not sufficient ground to discard a will.”
Case Background
The Appellant, Vikram Chopra, challenged the judgment dated September 11, 2009, passed by the learned Single Judge in a Test Case refusing to grant probate of a registered Will executed by the Late Sh. Praveen Malhotra (the Testator). The Will, executed on July 26, 1994, and registered on July 27, 1994, bequeathed the Testator’s movable and immovable properties to Ms. Shalini Asha Chopra (the Beneficiary), the mother of the Appellant.
The Testator died on the intervening night of December 19-20, 1994.
The facts revealed that the Testator’s wife had predeceased him in 1989, leading to criminal prosecution for dowry death against the Testator, his parents, and his sister. While the Testator resided on the first floor of their Defence Colony home, his relations with his parents were strained.
The Objectors (the State and relatives) contended that the Beneficiary was a stranger to the family, and the Will was surrounded by suspicious circumstances, including allegations that the Testator suffered from head injuries, was a chronic alcoholic, and was under the undue influence of the Beneficiary. The Single Judge had identified sixteen suspicious circumstances to deny probate.
Arguments of the Parties
The Appellant argued that the Testator was in a sound disposing state of mind. It was submitted that the Testator had developed a friendship with the Appellant since 1980. Counsel for the Appellant highlighted that the Testator’s relationship with his natural heirs had deteriorated significantly, evidenced by civil suits filed by the parents against the Testator and a public notice issued by the father disowning him. It was argued that the Beneficiary took care of the Testator’s meals and medical needs, justifying the bequest.
Per contra, the Respondents supported the Single Judge’s findings, arguing that the Beneficiary was a stranger whose acquaintance with the Testator was recent. They alleged that the Testator’s mental and physical condition was compromised due to a head injury sustained in April 1994 and alleged chronic alcoholism. They contended that the execution of the Will and Power of Attorney in close succession indicated manipulation.
Court’s Analysis
The Division Bench minutely examined the medical evidence and the sequence of events, systematically dismantling the sixteen suspicious circumstances cited by the Single Judge.
1. Mental Capacity and Head Injury: The Court noted that while the Testator fell from a rickshaw in Banaras in April 1994, medical records from AIIMS and private hospitals did not suggest incapacity. The Bench cited an AIIMS Medical Board report stating that the Testator “never lost his consciousness, there was no neurological deficit… and there was no loss of memory at any time.”
The Court observed, “The finding of the Learned Single Judge to the effect that he never recovered from injuries and was constantly under medical treatment is not substantiated.”
2. Allegation of Alcoholism: Refuting the claim that the Testator was a chronic alcoholic, the Court relied on the AIIMS report which stated, “there is nothing suggestive of chronic Alcohol intake and its withdrawal seizures.” The Court rejected an OPD card relied upon by the Respondents, noting discrepancies in the patient’s name and date.
3. Disinheritance of Natural Heirs: The Court placed significant weight on the documentary evidence proving the breakdown of familial relations. The Bench noted that the Testator’s parents had filed suits for injunction and specific performance against him. Furthermore, the Testator had filed written statements alleging that his parents were misusing blank papers signed by him.
The Court observed: “The Testator… having strained relations with his parents, and sister (only sibling) resulting in him residing on the first floor of his parental home and later being thrown out of his house and residing at a guest house, does showcase the fact of strained relationship of the Testator with his family.”
4. Relationship with the Beneficiary: Rejection the Single Judge’s finding that the Beneficiary was a “stranger,” the Court accepted the Appellant’s evidence of a 14-year friendship. The Bench noted, “A friend of a son is treated as a son and not a stranger particularly, when there is a long association.”
Legal Principles Applied
The Court referred to the landmark Supreme Court judgments in H. Venkatachala Iyengar v. B. N. Thimmajamma and the recent decision in Shivakumar & Ors. v. Sharanabasppa & Ors. regarding the proof of Wills.
The Bench reiterated that:
“A circumstance is ‘suspicious’ when it is not normal or is ‘not normally expected in a normal situation or is not expected of a normal person’.”
The Court held that the propounder is not required to establish active enmity between the Testator and his parents, though in this case, such strained relations were evident.
Decision
The Division Bench concluded that the Single Judge erred in refusing probate. The Court held that the Will was validly executed and registered, and the Appellant had discharged the burden of proof.
“The Will, read conjointly with the contemporaneous documents, clearly represents the Testator’s voluntary and conscious decision,” the Bench ruled.
Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, the impugned judgment dated September 11, 2009, was set aside, and the Will dated July 27, 1994, was held to be genuine and deserving of probate.
Case Details:
- Title: Vikram Chopra v. State & Others
- Case No: FAO (OS) 30/20
