'Friction In Wheels Of Justice': Delhi High Court Frowns Upon 38-Year Delay In Will Case, Grants Letters Of Administration
The Delhi High Court recently disposed of a 38-year-old Will dispute, remarking that the case exemplifies the “friction” in the wheels of justice, against which the Supreme Court had cautioned in Yashpal Jain v. Sushila Devi and Others (2023).Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav observed that it took 38 long years to decide the dispute and meanwhile, most of the original parties passed away...
The Delhi High Court recently disposed of a 38-year-old Will dispute, remarking that the case exemplifies the “friction” in the wheels of justice, against which the Supreme Court had cautioned in Yashpal Jain v. Sushila Devi and Others (2023).
Justice Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav observed that it took 38 long years to decide the dispute and meanwhile, most of the original parties passed away and numerous counsels were changed.
“The justice delivery system functions on mutual trust between the Bar, the Bench, and the parties. Each stakeholder, the litigant, the counsel, and the Court, bear a shared responsibility towards upholding its integrity. Any lapse diminishes confidence in the system as a whole. The delay, upon perusal of the case record, can be attributed to various factors, including the conduct of the parties. Such delay not only clogs the justice delivery system, but also drags the parties into protracted litigation. It also gives scope for administrative lapses, ultimately, to the detriment of litigants themselves,” the judge remarked.
Briefly put, the Petitioner, sole executrix of the will, had filed this plea back in 1987 for grant of probate in respect of the Will executed by Raja Pratap Bhan Prakash Singh. The plea was later converted for grant of letters of administration.
The plea was however opposed by the testator's widow and children, alleging suspicious circumstances, undue influence, mental incapacity, and ancestral nature of properties, which could not have been bequeathed.
After perusing the material on record, the High Court noted that one of the attesting witnesses had deposed that the testator had affixed his signature on the Will in the presence of both the attesting witnesses at his residence and there was nothing on record to impeach his competency.
“The respondents have attempted to set up a case that the purported execution of the Will was surrounded by suspicious circumstances. In order to substantiate this contention, the respondents have relied upon various circumstances such as the precarious medical condition of the testator, involvement of ancestral properties in the Will, willingness of the testator to proceed against the properties of his sister, presence of averments similar to the Will in the affidavit of the petitioner, etc. However, the alleged circumstances fail to make out a reasonable case against the credibility of the execution of the Will as they are neither supported by any material nor by the surrounding set of facts,” the Court said.
It added that mere fact that the natural legal heirs had been excluded from inheritance in the Will cannot be deemed to be suspicious, especially in light of the averments in the Will which give a detailed explanation for such exclusion.
“It is not a case of unexplained silence in relation to the exclusion of the natural legal heirs, as the Will is self-explanatory. The testator has recorded matrimonial discords that he had with his wife, and that his children were hostile and disaffectionate towards him,” the Court said and allowed the executrix's plea to issue letter of administration.
Appearance: Dr. Meenakshi Kalra, Mr. S.N. Kalra, Mr. Gade Meghana, Mr. Kamal, Ms. Anjali Chaudhary, Ms. Sakshi Gupta, Advs. with Madhulika Tripathi in Person; Ms. Avni Singh, Panel Counsel for R1.Mr. Rishi Matoliya and Ms. Achal Singh Bule Advs for R-5. Ms. Francesca Kapur, Adv. for R-2-4
Case title: V. Prabha & Ors. v. State & Ors.
Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Del) 1526
Case no.: TEST.CAS. 4/1987