Dr. (Mrs.) Shakuntala S. Jaiman vs Mrs. Unou Behl Satsangi and Others

Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.—The suit has been filed by the plaintiff for declaration, perpetual injunction and mandatory injunction of possession of properties left behind by late Lt. Col. Prem Saran Satsangi, who died on 1.4.2005. It is submitted by the plaintiff that deceased Lt. Col. Prem Saran Satsangi had executed a Will on 13.4.1988 in favour of plaintiff who is daughter of deceased Lt. Col. Prem Saran Satsangi from his first wife. This was the last Will of Lt. Col. Prem Saran Satsangi and in accordance with this Will he left behind all his properties in favour of the plaintiff. Mother of plaintiff who was first wife of the deceased, had died in a car accident on 19.4.1984. Thereafter, Lt. Col. Prem Saran Satsangi remarried with defendant No. 1 and defendants No. 2 & 3 are the children of defendant No. 1.

The contention of defendant No. 1 to 3 in the WS is that the Lt. Col. Prem Saran Satsangi had revoked his earlier Will dated 13.4.1988 and had executed another Will dated 3.1.2005 and in the latter Will he specifically made an observation that the earlier Will was being revoked. By the Will dated 3.1.2005 defendant No. 1 had become owner of immovable properties and movable assets except flat No. 369, Sector-A, Pocket-C, Vasant Kunj, New Delhi which had been bequeathed in favour of the plaintiff by late Shri P.S. Satsangi and rest of the properties had been bequeathed in favour of defendants No. 1, 2 & 3.

There is no dispute that Lt. Col. Prem Saran Satsangi had conducted second married and had a child from the second marriage also. The second wife of deceased Lt. Col. Prem Saran Satsangi is still alive. It has also been brought to the notice of the Court that a Probate Petition has been filed by defendant No. 1 for probate of Will dated 3.1.2005 being Probate Petition No. 18/2008 titled as Mrs. Unou Behl Satsangi v. State and Ors., which is pending adjudication.

The plaintiff in the replication has contended that the Court should ignore the second Will relied on by defendants No. 1 to 3 since it was a forged Will and the plaintiff has obtained an opinion from an handwriting expert in respect of this.

It is settled law that the Probate Court is the exclusive Court to decide about the genuineness of the Will. The plaintiff has not obtained probate of the Will dated 13.4.1988 in her favour while defendant had applied for probate of the will dated 3.1.2005. Obviously, the plaintiff would have opportunity to assail and object to the Will propounded by Defendants No. 1-3 and she would also have a right to propound the Will dated 13.4.1988. It is the Probate Court that will decide as to which of the Wills is genuine. The result of the present suit would depend upon the result of the Probate Court proceedings. If the Will of the defendants is held genuine, the properties left behind by Lt. Col. Prem Saran Satsangi would have to go in accordance with the Will propounded by defendants, if the Will propounded by plaintiff is held to be genuine the properties would have to go in accordance with Will dated 13.4.1988. I, therefore, consider that this suit is liable to be stayed till the Probate Court gives its finding about the genuineness of either of the Wills. I, therefore, stay the proceedings in this case. The case be adjourned sine die. The parties would be at liberty to revive this suit as and when the decision of the Probate Court comes.