The Delhi High Court in the case Mr. Bhupinder Singh and Ors v. State and Others observed and has stated that only where it is found that there are substantial changes sought to be introduced to a Will by cuttings and overwriting on it, it can be open for the Court in order to conclude that the Will is suspect and has to be rejected.
The bench headed by Justice Rekha Palli in the case observed that the effect of cuttings and overwriting in a Will would always depend on the facts and circumstances of each case.
The court in the case observed that in cases of such cuttings and overwriting in a Will, the effect has to be examined regardless of whether such changes have been carried out as per Section 71 of the Succession Act.
The court stated that as per section 71, any deletion, modification, or alterations made to a Will after its execution shall not have legal effect, unless its text or meaning has become illegible or indiscernible due to the alteration.
The court noted that it is found that there are substantial changes sought to be introduced to a Will by the cuttings and overwriting present on it, can it be open for the Court to conclude that the Will is suspect and the same has to be rejected.
The bench of Justice Palli in the case observed wherein the plea is moved by three individuals seeking grant of probate of a Will executed in 2012 by an unmarried woman Kanval Dhillon who died in 2015.
Therefore, it being the case of petitioner that they were the executors of the Will which was attested by Dhillon’s two friends.
The petitioner in the plea averred that the petitioners told Dhillon’s sisters about the existence of the Will.
However, the court stated that when the Will was recovered, some overwriting and cuttings were found in it. The court stated that while Dhillon was desirous of incorporating changes to the Will, thus, the corrections made by way of cutting and overwriting were not sweeping changes that materially affected the bequeathals made therein.
The court in the case stated that it is quite likely that with passage of time the testatrix was contemplating making certain modifications to her Will which she could not unfortunately make.
Further, the court stated that the cuttings and overwriting seem to be made to inter alia delete properties which had been sold after the execution of the subject Will, or readjust amounts or movables bequeathed, or record her musings as a side note.
The said court did not find that the side notes, cuttings and overwriting in the Will were as substantial to discredit the original Will which contained an expression of Dhillon’s final wish regarding the distribution of her assets.
The bench of Justice Palli in the case observed that these cuttings and overwriting are evidently minor rearrangements that may have been contemplated by the testatrix in the 3 years since executing her Will and do not invite any suspicion.
The court while considering the facts and circumstances of the case observed and has granted to the petitioners the Letters of Administration with respect to the Will on filing necessary Administration and Surety Bond, as well as the stamp duty.
Accordingly, the court allowed the plea.
The counsel, Advocates Mr. Ashok Ms. Shefali Gupta appeared for the petitioner.
The counsel, Advocates Mr. Amit Agrawal, Mr. Rahul Kukreja, Ms. Sana Jain, Mr. Satyajit Sarna & Ms. Reaa Mehta represented R-2 & 3.
