# Rakesh Srivastava & Ors v. Smt. Sudha Srivastava (Since Dead) & Ors

- **Citation:** (2025) 12 ILRA 1104
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2025-12-16
- **Case number:** First Appeal No. 1276 of 2023
- **Bench:** Sandeep Jain
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rakesh-srivastava-ors-v-smt-sudha-srivastava-since-dead-ors-52791
- **Pages:** 26

## Text

_Characters 0–39,905 of 89,329. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39905 for what follows._

1104 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
word has been indicated on the said aspects
of the matter.

28. The most outstanding feature
rather the deficiency of the judgement
impugned is that though at the end of para
91
(underlined
hereinbefore),
it
was
observed by the Commercial Court that the
respondent was prepared to enhance the
rent from 11.10.2023 and had only
objection
qua
the
retrospective
enhancement, no order has been passed for
paying the enhanced license fee, which as
noticed, was volunteered/offered to be paid
with effect from 11.10.2023 and a blanket
order has been granted not to evict the
respondent and further not to take any
coercive measures. The manner in which
the order has been passed, cannot be
countenanced/approved.

29. None of the settled parameters
have been complied with / adhered to and
to
top
it
all
despite
noticing
the
concession/offer/volunteering
enhanced
payment, no direction in this regard has
been issued which is wholly unjustified.

30. Consequently, the appeal is
partly allowed. The order dated 12.6.2025
passed by the Tribunal is set aside. The
matter is remanded back to the Commercial
Court to hear and decide the application
afresh, keeping in view the observations
made hereinbefore, complying with the
requirements for passing an order under
Section 9 of the Act of 1996 as well as
keeping in view the offer made by the
respondent, which aspect has not been
disputed by the respondent.

31. However, till such time that a
fresh order is passed by the Commercial
Court, status quo as it exists on the date of
passing of this order, shall be maintained.
The parties shall appear before the
Commercial Court on 5.1.2026 and the
Commercial Court is directed to pass a
fresh order after hearing the parties before
31.01.2026.
----------
(2025) 12 ILRA 1104
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.12.2025

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SANDEEP JAIN, J.

First Appeal No. 1276 of 2023
&
First Appeal No. 1274 of 2023

Rakesh Srivastava & Ors. ...Appellants
Versus
Smt. Sudha Srivastava (Since Dead) & Ors.
 ...Respondents

Issue for Consideration
Whether Parmanand Lal Srivastava (testator)
had validly revoked his registered Will dated
20.09.1996
by
executing
a
subsequent
unregistered Will dated 25.05.2002 in favour of
the appellants, and whether the subsequent Will
stood proved in accordance with law free from
suspicious circumstances?

Headnotes
Indian Succession Act, 1925 - Ss. 59, 63
- Evidence Act, 1872 - Ss. 67, 68 -
Probate - Proof of Will - Suspicious
circumstances - Revocation of earlier
registered Will - Subsequent unregistered
Will - Burden on propounder - Judicial
conscience
-
Active
participation
of
beneficiary - Non-disclosure in mutation
proceedings - Contradictions regarding
place of execution - Attesting witness
unreliable - Effect - Subsequent Will
held not proved - Earlier registered Will
upheld.

Held:
The earlier registered Will dated 20.09.1996
executed by the testator in favour of his
12 All. Rakesh Srivastava & Ors. Vs. Smt. Sudha Srivastava (Since Dead) & Ors.
1105
surviving daughter and sons of deceased
daughter was not in dispute. The controversy
centered around the alleged revocation thereof
by an unregistered Will dated 25.05.2002.

The Court reiterated that where execution of a
Will is surrounded by suspicious circumstances,
the onus lies heavily on the propounder to
remove
such
suspicion
by
cogent
and
satisfactory evidence, and mere proof of
signature and attestation is insufficient. [Paras
49-53]

The following suspicious circumstances were
found to be proven on record:

(i) Ill health and advanced age of testator
- At the time of alleged execution of the Will
dated 25.05.2002, the testator was about 80
years old, ill and unable to walk; evidence
disclosed
he
was
bedridden
and
under
treatment. The propounder's version that the
testator himself typed the Will was found
improbable. [Paras 57-59]

(ii) Contradictions regarding place of
execution - The propounder (DW-1) gave
contradictory versions, at one stage stating that
the Will was prepared at Civil Court and at
another that it was typed at the residence of the
testator. The attesting witness (DW-2) deposed
that it was prepared at Durgakund residence.
The inconsistency rendered the execution highly
doubtful. [Paras 60-61]

(iii) Active participation of beneficiary -
The propounder admitted that he brought the
attesting witnesses and participated in the
preparation of the Will, constituting a suspicious
circumstance requiring strict scrutiny. [Para 62]

(iv)
Non-disclosure
in
mutation
proceedings - Immediately after the death
of the testator, the propounder moved a
mutation application claiming succession on
the basis of inheritance and not on the basis
of the alleged Will dated 25.05.2002. The
application was drafted by the same Advocate
who allegedly drafted the Will. The absence
of any reference to the Will in mutation
proceedings led to the inference that the Will
was not in existence at that time. [Paras 6365, 71]
(v) Attesting witness unreliable - The
attesting witness (DW-2) admitted that his
affidavit was prepared by the propounder and
that he had not read it. He also admitted that
his wife had received land from the propounder.
His testimony did not inspire confidence. [Paras
66-68]

(vi) Unconvincing reason for revocation -
The explanation in the subsequent Will that
fraud had been played upon the testator in
execution of the earlier Will was not supported
by
convincing
evidence
and
appeared
improbable in the facts proved. [Paras 69-70]

Held, the cumulative effect of the above
circumstances
created
grave
suspicion
surrounding the alleged Will dated 25.05.2002.
The propounder failed to dispel such suspicion.
Judicial conscience not satisfied as to its
genuineness. The trial court rightly rejected
probate of the Will dated 25.05.2002 and
granted probate of the registered Will dated
20.09.1996. Appeals dismissed. [Paras 71-75]
(E-14)

Case Law Cited
H.
Venkatachala
Iyengar
v.
B.N.
Thimmajamma & Others, 1958 SCC OnLine
SC 31 - Relied upon; Shashi Kumar
Banerjee v. Subodh Kumar Banerjee, 1963
SCC OnLine SC 114 - Relied upon;
Shivakumar v. Sharanabasappa, (2021) 11
SCC 277 - Relied upon; A. Kamala Bai (D)
through LRs v. B. Kanna Rao (D) through
LRs, Civil Appeal No. 136 of 2013 - Relied
upon; Pramila Tiwari v. Anil Kumar Mishra
and others, Testamentary Suit No. 6 of
2012, decided on 15.10.2020 ; Kavita
Kanwar v. Mrs. Pamela Mehta and others,
AIR 2020 SC 2614 ; Sunita Upadhyay v.
State of U.P., 2023 (159) RD 712 (All)

List of Acts / Statutes
Indian Succession Act, 1925; Indian Evidence
Act, 1872; U.P. Land Revenue Act; Hindu
Succession Act, 1956.

List of Keywords
Will; Probate; Revocation of Will; Suspicious
circumstances; Proof of Will; Burden of proof;
Attesting witness; Mutation proceedings; Active
participation of beneficiary; Judicial conscience;
1106 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Registered Will; Unregistered Will; Contradictory
evidence; Testamentary capacity.

Case Arising From
Common judgment and order dated 18.10.2023
passed by the Additional District and Sessions
Judge, Court No. 1, Varanasi in Probate Case
No. 26 of 2007 and Probate Case No. 27 of
2007.

Appearance for Parties
For Appellants: Narendra Mohan; Siya Ram
Verma.
For Respondents: Alok Kumar Mishra; Anil
Kumar
Aditya;
Jainendra
Kumar
Sharma;
Mayank Krishna S. Chandel; Rahul Saxena;
Shyam Singh Somvanshi; Vinod Kumar Chandel;
Vivek Singh Chandel.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Sandeep Jain, J.)

1. First Appeal no. 1274 of 2023 has
been filed by the Rakesh Srivastava and
others under Section 299 of the Indian
Succession
Act,
1925
against
the
impugned judgment and order dated
18.10.2023 passed by the court of
Additional District and Sessions Judge
Court No.1 Varanasi in Probate Case No.
26 of 2007 Rakesh Srivastava and others
vs.Smt.Sudha
Srivastava
and
others,
whereby application seeking probate
regarding alleged Will dated 25.5.2002
executed
by
Parmanand
Lal
Srivastava(testator) has been rejected.

2. First Appeal no. 1276 of 2023 has
been filed by Rakesh Srivastava and others
against impugned judgment and order dated
18.10.2023
passed
by
the
court
of
Additional District Judge Court no.1
Varanasi in Probate Case No. 27 of 2007
Smt. Sudha Srivastava and others vs.
Krishna Kumar Srivastava and others,
whereby
application
seeking
probate
regarding registered Will executed by
Parmanand Lal Srivastava(testator) on
20.9.1996 has been granted.

3. Probate case No. 26 of 2007 and 27
of 2007 were heard together by the lower
court
and
decided
by
the
common
impugned judgment and order dated
18.10.2023.

4. Since First Appeal no.1274 of 2023
and 1276 of 2023 arise from the same
judgment and order as such, both the
appeals were heard together and are being
decided by this common judgment.

Facts of Probate Case No.
27 of 2007

5. This case was filed by the plaintiff
Smt.Sudha
Srivastava
against
the
defendants Krishna Kumar Srivastava and
others for seeking Probate regarding
registered Will executed on 20.9.1996 by
her
father
Parmanand
Lal
Srivastava(testator),
who
died
on
22.11.2002. It was averred by the plaintiff
that the testator had acquired the residential
house
no.
B.26/116-A
situated
in
Nawabganj, Bhelupura, Varanasi from his
paternal aunt Smt. Gujarati Devi and the
remaining
immovable
property
was
agricultural
land
acquired
from
the
ancestors, which was in the sole name of
the testator and the other properties were in
joint ownership. It was further averred that
the testator was having Savings bank
account no.1893 in State Bank of India,
Branch BHU, Varanasi which was the self
acquired property of testator. It was further
submitted that the testator had willingly
executed his last Will in favour of the
plaintiff through which half property has
devolved on her. It was further averred that
the testator has died on 22.11.2002 in his
above residential house. It was prayed that
the Probate be granted in her favour on the
basis of the above registered Will executed
by the testator.
12 All. Rakesh Srivastava & Ors. Vs. Smt. Sudha Srivastava (Since Dead) & Ors.
1107

6. The defendant Rakesh Srivastava
opposed the Probate application on the
ground that the testator had executed in his
lifetime a Will on 25.5.2002 in presence of
witnesses Vinod Kumar Singh and Lalji, in
favour of Krishna Kumar, Awdesh Kumar,
Madan Kumar, Manoj Kumar, Santosh
Kumar and Rakesh Lal, in which it was
made clear that after the death of testator
his immovable property would devolve on
Krishna Kumar and others whereas, the
movable property would devolve on Sudha
Srivastava and sons of Radha Srivastava. It
was further averred that the testator died on
22.11.2002, as such, his Will dated
25.5.2002 has become effective, which was
also the last Will of the testator, due to
which the earlier Will of the testator dated
20.9.1996 has become ineffective and on
the basis of the earlier Will of the testator,
no probate can be granted. It was further
submitted that the Probate application of
Smt.Sudha
Srivastava
has
become
infructuous. It was further submitted that
the Will deed dated 25.5.2002 has been
executed by the testator correctly, which
has been signed on each page by the
testator, on which the photograph of
testator is also affixed, which has been
executed by the testator willingly. With
these submissions it was prayed that the
Probate application moved by Smt.Sudha
Srivastava be rejected.

7.
The
registered
Will
dated
20.09.1996
of
the
Parmanand
Lal
Srivastava(testator) reads as under:-

"मैं कक परमानन्ि लाल श्रीर्ाथतर् र्ल्ि मरहूम
कर्श्वनाथ प्रसाि श्रीर्ाथतर्, साककन मकान नम्बरी बी० 26/116ए
र्ाका मोहल्ला नबाबगंज, हल्का भेलूपुर, शहर र्ाराणसी का हूूँ।

िूूँ कमनमुककर की मौजूिा उम्र तख्मीनन 75 साल की
हैं जईफी के आलम में कमनमुककर की सेहत काफी खराब हो गई हैं र्
कजथमानी हालात ठीक नहीं हैं। कमनमुककर अक्सर बीमार रहता हैं,
कजसके सबब से कमनमुककर को अपनी कजन्िगी नापायिार का कोई
भरोसा नहीं रह गया है न जाने ककस लमहा ककस ठौर र् ककस तौर
पर पाक रूह काकलब अन्सरी से परर्ाज कर जार्े कमनमुककर को
मौरूसी जायिाि के अलार्ा ककता िो मंकजला मकान नम्बरी बी०
26/116ए, नबाबगंज शहर र्ाराणसी र्जररये र्सीयतनामा मोरखा
18-5-87 को नकर्थता मु० गुजराती िेर्ी बेर्ा कमला प्रसाि
श्रीर्ाथतर् कजसका इन्िराज िफ्तर सब रकजथरार र्ाराणसी के बही
नं० 3 कजल्ि 1015 सफात 53/57 िथतार्ेज नं० 369 पर
बतारीख 25-5-87 ई० को िजव रकजथटर हैं कजसका नफाज र्ाि
र्फात मु० गुजराती िेर्ी हुआ बतौर र्सी हाकसल हुआ र् कमनमुककर
र्ाि र्फात मु० गुजराती िेर्ी कमकल्कयत मकान मजकूर पर बतौरत
तनहा माकलक काकबज िकखल हुआ र् िला आता हूूँ र् कमनमुककर
का नाम र्ाराणसी नगर कनगम के ररकाडव कडमाण्ड रकजथटर में बतौर
तनहा माकलक िजव रकजथटर िला आता है। हर शख्स को र्ाकजब र्
लाकजम हैं कक अपने हयात में अपनी तमामी मनकूला र् गैर मनकूला
जायिाि का मुकम्मल इन्तजाम कर िेर्े ताकक र्ाि उसके र्फात
िरम्यान र्ाररसान बाबत कमकल्कयत कोई कनजान रह जाये। कमनमुककर
को महज िो िुख्तरान के अलार्ा कोई पेसरान नहीं है िोनों िुख्तरान
की शािी अरसा कर्ल हो िुकी है, कजसमें से बड़ी िुख्तर श्रीमती
राधा िेर्ी फौत कर िुकी हैं मौजूिा र्क्त में मु० राधा िेर्ी के पेसरान
कृष्ण कुमार श्रीर्ाथतर्, योगेश कुमार उफव गोली र् सोमेश कुमार उफव
ऋिी र् कमनमुककर की छोटी िुख्तर श्रीमती सुधा श्रीर्ाथतर् जौजा श्री
मिन मोहन मेरे साथ रह कर हर समय मेरी कखिमत गुजारी र्
फरमार्रिारी में मुथतैि रहते हैं और उनकी कखिमत र् फरमार्रिारी
से कमनमुककर खुश हूूँ। कमनमुककर की किली ख्र्ाकहश है कक मकान
मजकूर अपने तीनों नाती कृष्ण कुमार, योगेश कुमार उफव गोली र्
सोमेश कुमार उफव ऋकि पेसरान सुरेश्वरी प्रसाि साककनान हाल मुकाम
बी० 26/116ए, र्ाका मोहल्ला नबाबगंज, हल्का भेलूपुर शहर
र्ाराणसी र् श्रीमती सुधा श्रीर्ाथतर् पत्नी मिन मोहन श्रीर्ाथतर्
साककन मकान नम्बरी सी० 7/59ए-1ए र्ाका मोहल्ला सेनपुरा
हल्का िेतगंज शहर र्ाराणसी हाल मुकाम बी० 26/116ए,
नबाबगंज भेलूपुर, र्ाराणसी को र्सीयत कर िूं। पस कमनमुककर
बिुरुथती होशो, हर्ाश र् बहालत सेहत, जात र् सर्ाते अकल
कर्ला ककसी नाजायज और िबार् र् जब्र इकराह बखुशी र् रजामन्िी
खुि र्सीयतनामा हाजा तहरीर करके कृष्ण कुमार, योगेश कुमार उफव
गोली र् सोमेश कुमार उफव ऋिी, पेसरान सुरेश्वरी प्रसाि र् श्रीमती
सुधा श्रीर्ाथतर् जौजा श्री मिन मोहन साककनान मुन्िजव सिर को
हथब शरायत जैल अपनी र्सी मुकरवर करके हुक्म िेता हूूँूँः-

1:- यह कक जब तक कमनमुककर कजन्िा रहेगा मकान
मजकूर र् इसके अलार्ा जुमला मनकूला र् गैर मनकूला जायिाि
1108 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
का खुि माकलक हैं र् रहेगा। र्ाि र्फात कमनमुककर िुख्तर कमनमुककर
श्रीमती सुधा श्रीर्ाथतर् जौजा श्री मिन मोहन, मकान मजकूर के
शकी (पूर्ी) जुज कहथसे जो नक्शा मुन्सकलका र्सीका हाजा में सुखव
कतरछी लकीरों से जाकहर ककया गया है की माकलक होंगी। तथा गरबी
(पकिमी) जुज कहथसे को नक्शा मुन्सकलका र्सीका हाजा में सब्ज
कतरछी लकीरों से जाकहर ककया गया है के मुथतकाव माकलकान कृष्ण
कुमार, योगेश उफव गोली र् सोमेश उफव ऋिी पेसरान श्री सुरेश्वरी
प्रसाि श्रीर्ाथतर् होंगे।

2:- यह कक र्ाि र्फात कमनमुककर र्सीयान मजकूर
कमनमुककर की बककया मनकूला र् गैर मनकूला जायिाि र् बकाया
पेंशन र् थटेट बैंक आफ इकण्डया शाखा सेन्रल आकफस
बी०एि०यू० बित खाता सं० 1893 र् बैंक आफ बड़ौिा शाखा
गुरुधाम कालोनी िुगावकुण्ड रोड में जमा कफक्स कडपाकजट में मुताकर्क
कहथसा शरायत मुतकजकरा सिर कनथफ कनथफ कहथसे के माकलक होंगे
यानी श्रीमती सुधा श्रीर्ाथतर् िुख्तर कमनमुककर कनथफ कहथसा की
तनहा र् बककया कनथफ कहथसा के मुश्तकाव माकलक कृष्ण कुमार
श्रीर्ाथतर् र् योगेश कुमार उफव गोली र् सोमेश कुमार उफव ऋिी
होंगे।

3:- यह कक मेरे र्सीयान कृष्ण कुमार, योगेश कुमार
उफव गोली र् सोमेश कुमार उफव ऋिी को र्ाकजम र् लाकजम होगा
कक र्ाि र्फात कमनमुककर कहन्िू धमव र् कबरािरी के ररकत ररर्ाज के
अनुसार मेरा िाह संथकार, कक्रया, कमव, श्राद्ध, कपण्डिान कर र्
करर्ा िेर्े।

4:- यह कक र्सीयान मजकूर को हक हाकसल होगा
कक र्े मकान मजकूर में मुताकर्क नक्शा मुन्सकलका र्सीयतनामा
हाजा अपने-अपने कहथसे को बजररये तकसीमी िीर्ार अलहिा र्
जुिागाना कर र् करर्ा कर अपने-अपने कहथसे को कजस तरीक पर
िाहें इथतेमान में लार्ें र् बएख्तराज नाम कमनमुककर कागजात
सरकारी र् र्ाराणसी नगर कनगम में अपना-अपना नाम िजव रकजथटर
करर्ा कर अपने-अपने कहथसे के मुताकबक भर्न कर, जलकर,
र्गैरह, अिा करके रसीि अपने नाम से हाकसल करें।

5:- यह कक र्सीयतनामा हाजा कमनमुककर का पहला
र् अकन्तम र्सीयतनामा है। अलार्ा इसके अगर कोई शख्स, िीगर
र्सीयतनामा जाकहर र् पेश करे तो बमुकाबले र्सीका हाजा र्ाकतल
र् नाजायज मुतसव्र्र होगा।

इस र्ाथते कमनमुककर ने यह कलमा बतौर
र्सीयतनामा बहक श्रीमती सुधा श्रीर्ाथतर् पत्नी मिन मोहन र् कृष्ण
कुमार, योगेश कुमार उफव गोली र् सोमेश कुमार उफव ऋिी तहरीर
करके पढ़ र् पढ़र्ा र् सुन समझ कर असरात र्सीका हाजा से
मुतमइन र् बखूबी र्ाककफ होकर रुबरू सब रकजथरार र्ाराणसी
बगर्ाहान हाकसया र्सीका हाजा बिुरुथती होशो हर्ाश, बहालत
सेहत जात र् सर्ाते अकल कबला ककसी नाजायज जोर िबार्, जब्र
एकराह बखूशी र् रजामन्िी खुि अपनी िथतखत बना िेता हूूँ ताकक
सनि रहे र् र्क्त पर काम आर्े।

मसकर्िाकतावूँः- (कमकथलेश कुूँर्र खेरे एडर्ोकेट,
कलेक्टरी किहरी, र्ाराणसी।)

टाईपकतावूँः- (हररहर नाथ पाण्डेय) कलेक्टरी,
किहरी र्ाराणसी।

तहरीर किनांकूँः- 20-9-96 ई०"

8. On the basis of the pleadings of the
parties the following issues were framed by
the trial court:-

(i)Whether
Parmanand
Lal
Srivastava had executed on 20.9.1996 a
registered Will in favour of plaintiff and
defendant no.1 to 3?

(ii)Whether after the death of
Parmanand Lal Srivastava, the plaintiff and
defendant no. 1 to 3 are in possession of the
disputed property, on the basis of Will? If
so,effect?

(iii)Whether
Parmanand
Lal
Srivastava
had
executed
a
Will
on
25.5.2002, by revoking his previous Will
dated 20.9.1996, in favour of defendant No.
4 to 9, due to which his earlier Will dated
20.9.1996 has become infructuous?

(iv)Whether the defendants No. 4
to 9 have fabricated Will dated 25.5.2002?

(v)To what relief, if any, the
plaintiff is entitled?
12 All. Rakesh Srivastava & Ors. Vs. Smt. Sudha Srivastava (Since Dead) & Ors.
1109

Facts of Probate Case No.
26 of 2007

9. This case was filed by the plaintiff
Rakesh Srivastava and others under Section
276 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925
seeking Probate of alleged Will executed
by Parmanand Lal Srivastava (testator) on
25.5.2002, who died on 22.11.2002 in
Varanasi. It was alleged by the plaintiffs
that the testator acquired house No.
B.26/116-A
situated
in
Nawabganj,Bhelupura, Varanasi from his
paternal aunt Smt. Gujarati Devi wife of
late Kamla Prasad and the remaining
immovable
property,
which
was
agricultural
land
and
orchards,
was
ancestral property regarding which the
testator had willingly executed his last Will
in favour of the plaintiffs, who died testate
on 22.11.2002 in his residential house No.
26/116-A,
Nawabganj,Bhelupura,
Varanasi. It was prayed that the plaintiffs
be granted probate regarding the above
Will executed by the testator on 25.5.2002.

10. The defendants opposed the
plaintiffs Probate application by submitting
their objections. The defendants averred
that the testator had only 2 daughters
namely
Smt.Sudha
Srivastava
and
Smt.Radha Srivastava, who had no male
issue.Smt.Radha Srivastava died during the
lifetime of the testator, leaving behind her
husband and three sons, who are defendants
No. 2 to 4 in the probate petition. It was
further averred that the testator was in
service as section officer in estate office at
B.H.U., Varanasi, who was the sole
recorded owner in possession of house
no.B.26/116-A,
Nawabganj,
Bhelupura,
Varanasi, which was acquired by him after
the death of his issueless aunt Smt. Gujarati
Devi through her registered Will deed
executed during her lifetime in the sole
name of the testator, wherein he lived as
sole owner in possession till his death.

11. It was further averred that the
testator has already bequeathed his entire
movable and immovable properties in
sound state of mind without any coercion,
pressure or undue influence, through his
registered Will deed dated 20.9.1996
executed in favour of Smt.Sudha Srivastava
and defendants No. 2 to 4 and accordingly,
during his lifetime he also erected partition
wall separating the house in two portions
giving actual physical possession of the
eastern portion to Smt. Sudha Srivastava
and western portion to defendant No. 2 to
4. It was further averred that the testator
never revoked his Will dated 20.9.1996 as
such, no question arises of executing the
alleged Will deed dated 25.5.2002.

12. It was further averred that two
years before his death, the testator
sustained fracture of his iliac bone resulting
in his confinement to bed and since
thereafter, he was under care of the
defendants who since long back were living
with him and were looking after him and
managing his treatment but unfortunately
he could not recover till his last breath. It
was further submitted that after the death of
testator, his registered Will deed dated
20.9.1996 was acted upon and Smt.Sudha
Srivastava became the absolute owner of
eastern portion and the defendants No. 2 to
4 became joint owners of the western
portion
of
the
house
no.B.26/116-A
mentioned above and they also acquired
equal shares in his movable as well as other
immovable properties and agricultural
lands. It was further submitted that on the
basis of Will dated 20.9.1996 Smt.Sudha
Srivastava applied for mutation in revenue
records and the names of defendants were
mutated vide order dated 9.4.2003 passed
1110 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
in mutation Case No. 540 of 2003. It was
further submitted that after information of
mutation of defendants in revenue records,
the plaintiffs managed to set aside the
above
referred
mutation
order
dated
9.4.2003 and presently Case No. 540 of
2003 Sudha vs. Krishna Kumar and No.
332 of 2002 Krishna Kumar vs. State are
pending before the Naib-Tehsildar, Kaswar
Raja, Varanasi between the parties.

13. It was further averred that neither
the plaintiff Rakesh Srivastava nor socalled attesting witnesses ever came to the
residence of the testator or the defendants
and the testator never executed and signed
the alleged Will deed dated 25.5.2002
revoking his previous registered Will deed.
It was specifically averred that the alleged
Will deed dated 25.5.2002 is a forged
document which has been fabricated after
the death of testator and after knowledge of
the mutation of the defendants in the
revenue records in order to grab the
properties of the defendants by hook or
crook. It was submitted that the probate
petition was not maintainable and was
liable to be dismissed.

14. The unregistered Will dated
25.05.2002
allegedly
executed
by
Parmanand Lal Srivastava(testator) reads as
under:-

"मैं कक परमानन्ि लाल श्रीर्ाथतर् पुत्र थर्गीय
कर्श्वनाथ प्रसाि श्रीर्ाथतर् मूल कनर्ासी गंगापुर टाउन एररया (सूई
िक) परगना कसर्ार राजा कजला र्ाराणसी र्तवमान कनर्ासी मकान
नम्बर बी० 26/116ए नर्ार्गंज शहर र्ाराणसी का हूूँ।

कर्कित हो कक कमनमुककर की अर्थथा इस समय
लगभग 83 र्िव के हो िुकी है इस नश्वर शरीर का कोई कठकाना
नहीं है कक कब इसका अन्त हो जायेगा ऐसी कथथकत में हर व्यकक्त का
यह कतव्य होता है कक अपने जीन काल में अपनी सम्पकत्त की इस
प्रकार व्यर्थथा कर िे कक उसके मृत्यु के पिात् उसके सम्पकत्त को
लेकर उत्तराकधकाररयों के बीि कोई कर्र्ाि उत्पन्न न हो, कमनमुककर
के खानिान में ग्राम सुईिक, गंगापुर परतापी पट्टी, जमीन कनेरी
परगना कसर्ार राजा कजला र्ाराणसी में काफी िल र् अिल
सम्पकत्त कममुककर के पूर्वजों के समय की रही है कमनमुककर के कपता िो
भाई कमला प्रसाि र् कर्श्वनाथ प्रसाि थे ककन्तु कमनमुककर के िािा
श्री कमला प्रसाि ने अपने मेहनत र् मसक्कत से बमुकाम नर्ार्गंज
शहर र्ाराणसी में मकान नम्बरी बी० 26/116 के भूकम को अज
नाम श्रीमती गुजराती िेर्ी अपनी धमवपत्नी के क्रय करके उसपर
मकान पोख्ता कनमावण कराया र् थर्तूँः अपनी पत्नी श्रीमती गुजराती
िेर्ी के साथ मकान उपरोक्ता में आर्ाि रहे और कमनमुककर र्
कमनमुककर के भाई थर्० लक्ष्मीलाल बराबर अपने िािा कमला
प्रसाि र् िािी गुजराती िेर्ी की सेर्ा सुश्रुिा िेखभाल करते रहे
संयोग बश श्री कमला प्रसाि श्रीर्ाथतर् र् श्रीमती गुजराती िेर्ी को
कोई औलाि पुत्र अथर्ा पुत्री नहीं थे इसकलए थर्० कमला प्रसाि र्
श्रीमती गुजराती िेर्ी कमनमुककर र् कमनमुककर के भाई लक्ष्मी लाल
को पुत्रर्त मानते िले आ रहे थे। श्री कमला प्रसाि की मृत्यु के
पिात् श्रीमती गुजराती िेर्ी हम िोनों भाईयों की ईच्छा र् सहमकत के
आधार पर र्सीयतनामा किनांक 18-5-87 ई० अंककत कर, मकान
उपरोक्त को बहक कमनमुककर र् शेि जुकमला िल र् अिल सम्पकत्त
का र्सीयत बहक लक्ष्मीलाल कबरािर हकीकी कमनमुककर कर किया
ककन्तु कमनमुककर र् कमनमुककर के भाई लक्ष्मीलाल बराबर एक साथ
रहकर िोनों जगहों यानी मकान उपरोक्त र् अन्य सभी िल र् अिल
सम्पकत्त की िेखभाल उपयोग र् उपभोग करते िले आ रहे थे र् बाि
र्फात श्री लक्ष्मीलाल उनके पुत्रगण भी र्ही आिरण र् व्यर्हार
करते रहे। िुभावग्यबश कममुककर को भी कोई पुत्र नहीं है केर्ल िो
पुकत्रयां राधा िेबी र् सुधा िेबी थी श्रीमती राधा िेबी की मृत्यु 10
र्िव पूर्व हो गयी कजसके तीन पुत्रगण कृष्ण कुमार, योगेश कुमार उफव
गोली र् सोमेश कुमार उफव ऋिी है कमनमुककर की ईच्छा थी कक
कमनमुककर के पास जो कुछ अिल सम्पकत्त यानी मकान नम्बरी बी०
26/116ए नर्ार्गंज शहर र्ाराणसी र्आराकजयात र्ागात
मकानात आकि र्ाका मौजा सूईिक, गंगापुर परतापीपट्टी, जमीन
कनेरी र् बैरर्न में मौजूि है र्ह सभी पैतृक सम्पकत्त कमनमुककर की है
र्ह खानिान कमनमुककर में ही रह जाय र् कमनमुककर के पास जो भी
जर नकि थटेट बैंक आफ इकण्डया शाखा सेन्रल आकफस
बी०एि०यू० र् बित खाता संख्या 1893 बैंक आफ बड़ौिा
शाखा गुरुधाम कालोनी िुगावकुण्ड रोड र् रकम पेंशन आकि का था
उसे अपने पुकत्रयों र् नाकतयों को िेकर उन्हें संतुष्ट कर किया है ककन्तु
कमनमुककर ने जो र्सीयतनामा किनांक 20-9-96 को अंककत ककया
है उसमें कमनमुककर को धोखे में रखकर पैकत्रक सम्पकत्त के बाबत भी
कमनमुककर की पुत्री एर्ं नाकतयों के र्सीयतनामा अंककत करा कलया है
कजसका ज्ञान कमनमुककर को पूर्व में नहीं था और अब कमनमुककर को
यह जानकारी हो गयी है कक कमनमुककर की पैकत्रक सम्पकत्त के बाबत
भी र्सीयतनामा किनांक 20-9-1996 ई० अंककत करा कलया है
12 All. Rakesh Srivastava & Ors. Vs. Smt. Sudha Srivastava (Since Dead) & Ors.
1111
अतूँः कमनमुककर र्सीयतनामा किनांक 20-9-98 ई० को मंसूख
करते हुए यह नया र्सीयतनामा बाबत मकान नम्बरी बी०
26/116ए नर्ार्गंज शहर र्ाराणसी र् अन्य अिल सम्पकत्त का
उत्तराकधकारी अपने भतीजगान कृष्ण कुमार, अर्धेश कुमार, मिन
कुमार, मनोज कुमार, संतोि कुमार र् राकेश लाल पुत्रगण थर्०
लक्ष्मीलाल कनर्ासीगण टाउन एररया गंगापुर परगना कसर्ार राजा
कजला र्ाराणसी को घोकित करते हुए यह र्सीयतनामा अंककत कर
पाबन्ि शरायत जैल का होता र् करता हूूँूँः-----

1- यह कक जब तक कमनमुककर जीकर्त रहेगा अपने
सम्पूणव िल र् अिल सम्पकत्त का तनहा माकलक रहेगा र् कमनमुककर
की मृत्यु के पिात् कमनमुककर के सम्पूणव अिल सम्पकत्त के माकलक
कमनमुककर के भतीजगान पेसरान लक्ष्मीलाल होंगे और कमनमुककर की
मृत्यु के पिात् कमनमुककर के पास जो कुछ जर नकि र् जेर्रात यानी
हर प्रकार के िल सम्पकत्त के माकलकान मेरी पुत्री सुधा िेबी र् राधा
िेबी के पुत्रगण होंगे।

2- यह कक र्सीयान भतीजगान कममुककर को
अकधकार होगा कक सम्पूणव अिल सम्पकत्त र्सी मकान र्
आराकजयात पर से कमनमुककर का नाम कनरथत कराकर अपना नाम
िजव कराकर जो कुछ टैक्स र् लगान आकि िेय हो अिा करके रसीि
अपने नाम हाकसल करते रहे इसमें कमनमुककर र् र्ाररसान र् कायम
मुकामान कमनमुककर अथर्ा ककसी अन्य व्यकक्त को ककसी प्रकार की
कोई आपकत्त का अकधकार नहीं होगा।

3- यह कक र्सीयान कृष्ण कुमार र्गैरह भतीजगान
कमनमुककर को लाकजम होगा कक कमनमुककर की मृत्यु के पिात्
कमनमुककर की किता को मेरे ककसी नाती द्वारा मुखाकग्न कराकर सम्पूणव
कक्रया कमव आकि मुताकबक कहन्िू धमवशास्त्र के अनुसार र्मुकाम
गंगापुर में करा िेंगे और यह भी ख्याल रखे कक मेरे िाह संथकार
कक्रया कमव में मेरी पुत्री अथर्ा नाकतयों का एक पैसा भी व्यय न हो
अथर्ा मेरी मृत आत्मा को आघात लगेगा।

4- यह कक कृष्ण कुमार आकि भतीजगान कममुककर
को बाध्यता होगी कक मेरी पुत्री र् नाकतयों को यह आभास न होने िे
कक मेरा नकनहाल र् नैहर समाप्त हो गया है।

5- यह कक कमनमुककर ने कुल मजमून र्सीका हाजा
को बखूबी सुन र् समझकर पढ़ र् पढ़र्ाकर यह िन्ि कलमा
बतरीक अंकत र्सीयतनामा के अंककत कर किया कक र्क्त पर काम
आर्े र् प्रमाण रहे।

तहरीर तारीखूँः- 25-5-2002 ई०।

मसकर्िा कतावूँः-मंशा राम कमश्रा, कसकर्ल कोटव
र्ाराणसी।

टाइपकतावूँः- शीतला प्रसाि पाण्डेय, कसकर्ल कोटव
र्ाराणसी।"

15. On the basis of the pleadings of the
parties, the trial court framed the following
issues:-

(i)Whether
Parmanand
Lal
Srivastava
had
executed
a
Will
on
25.5.2002 in favour of the plaintiffs?

(ii)Whether the plaintiffs had
fabricated the Will dated 25.5.2002?

(iii)To what relief the plaintiffs
are entitled, if any?

16. By order dated 2.9.2005, passed by
the lower court, both the above Probate
cases were consolidated and Probate Case
No. 27 of 2007 was made leading case for
evidence purposes, in which entire
evidence was recorded.

17. In documentary evidence, both the
parties filed the original Will's, certified
copies of the documents submitted by them
for mutation before the revenue court, the
certified copies of the orders passed on
mutation applications by the revenue
courts, certified copies of oral evidence of
the parties in mutation proceedings, the
reports of the handwriting experts, etc.

18. On behalf of the plaintiffs in
Probate Case No. 27 of 2007, the following
witnesses were examined:-

(1)Smt.Sudha Srivastava, as PW1(Plaintiff, propounder of Will dated
20.9.1996)
1112 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

(2)Sukhu
Prasad,
as
PW2(attesting witness of Will dated 20.9.1996)

(3)Mithilesh Kunwar Khare, as
PW-3(Advocate preparing the Will dated
20.9.1996)

(4)Sayed Irteja Hussain, as PW4(handwriting expert on behalf of the
plaintiff)

19. On behalf of the defendants in
Probate Case No. 27 of 2007, the following
witnesses were examined:

(1)Rakesh Srivastava, as DW1(defendant, propounder of Will dated
25.05.2002)

(2)Lalji,
as
DW-2(attesting
witness of Will dated 25.5.2002)

(3)Ramnarayan, as DW-3

(4)Vikas Srivastava, as DW4(handwriting
expert
on
behalf
of
defendant)

20. The trial court after perusing the
documentary and oral evidence adduced by
the parties and the relevant case law, has
concluded that there were suspicious
circumstances surrounding the execution of
the subsequent Will dated 25.5.2002 of the
testator, which makes the subsequent Will
doubtful, particularly since the earlier Will
of the testator was registered. The trial
court concluded that the subsequent Will
dated 25.5.2002 was doubtful and a
fabricated document, regarding which no
Probate can be granted. Accordingly, the
trial court has rejected the Probate Case
no.26 of 2007 seeking Probate of Will
dated 25.5.2002 and has allowed the
Probate Case no.27 of 2007 seeking
Probate of registered Will dated 20.9.1996,
by impugned judgment and order dated
18.10.2023, aggrieved against which, the
instant appeals have been filed by the
propounder of subsequent Will dated
25.5.2002.

21. In this judgment, the parties are
being addressed according to their status in
Probate Case No.27 of 2007, which was the
leading
case,
in
which
Smt.Sudha
Srivastava was the plaintiff and Rakesh Lal
Srivastava and others were defendants.

22. Learned counsel for the defendant
appellants submitted that the testator had
earlier executed a registered Will on
20.9.1996 in favour of her two daughters,
which was later on revoked by executing
subsequent Will dated 25.5.2002 in favour
of the defendant appellants, which was duly
proved by examining attesting witness of
the Will, as such, there was no occasion for
the lower court to doubt its execution. It
was further submitted that since the testator
was bedridden and disabled, he was not in a
position to go to the subregistrar office for
getting the Will registered, as such, the
subsequent Will was not registered, but
only on the ground that the subsequent Will
was not registered, it cannot be held to be a
fabricated document. Learned counsel
submitted that a Will is required to be
proved in accordance with law, whether it
is registered or not and merely on the
ground that it is registered, it's genunity
cannot be presumed. It was further
submitted that the testator after second
thought, had revoked the earlier Will,
which was executed in favour of the
plaintiff, and the reason for revoking it, was
also mentioned in the subsequent Will, as
such, there was no suspicious circumstance
surrounding
the
execution
of
the
subsequent
Will.Learned
Counsel
in
12 All. Rakesh Srivastava & Ors. Vs. Smt. Sudha Srivastava (Since Dead) & Ors.
1113
support of his submissions relied upon the
case law of Testamentary Suit no.6 of
2012
decided
by
this
Court
on
15.10.2020,Pramila Tiwari vs.Anil Kumar
Mishra and others Neutral Citation
2024AHC 85067-DB and Kavita Kanwar
vs.Mrs.Pamela Mehta and others AIR
2020 SC 2614.

23. Per contra, learned counsel for the
plaintiff respondent submitted that the
defendants, who were the propounder of
the subsequent Will dated 25.5.2002 had
actively participated in it's preparation and
execution, who were also in it's possession,
but while applying for mutation before the
revenue court, the subsequent Will was
never disclosed. Learned counsel submitted
that there was serious contradiction in the
testimony of the witnesses regarding the
place and the manner, where/in which the
subsequent
Will
was
prepared,
who
participated in it's preparation, which
makes the surrounding circumstances,
suspicious. Learned counsel submitted that
the Advocate preparing the subsequent Will
also moved the mutation application on
behalf of the appellants before the revenue
court but in that application it was not
mentioned that the testator had executed
the alleged Will dated 25.5.2002 and on the
basis of this Will, they are claiming
ownership of the disputed property. In that
mutation
application,
ownership
was
claimed
through
inheritance.
Learned
counsel submitted that only after the
plaintiff respondent moved the mutation
application by claiming ownership of the
disputed property on the basis of earlier
Will dated 20.9.1996, of the testator
bequeathing his property in favour of the
respondent, only then the Will dated
25.5.2002 was subsequently,fraudulently
fabricated by the appellants. Learned
counsel submitted that the appellants could
not
dispel
the
cloud
of
suspicion
surrounding the subsequent Will dated
25.5.2002 as such, the lower court has
rightly disbelieved the subsequent Will and
has rightly allowed the plaintiffs Probate
application.Learned Counsel in support of
his submissions relied upon the case law
Sunita
Upadhyay
vs.State
of
U.P.
2023(159)RD 712(All)

24. I have heard the learned counsel of
both the sides, perused the record of the
lower court and the case law submitted by
them.

25. On the basis of the pleadings,
evidence on record and the submissions of
the learned counsel of the parties the
following issue arises for determination in
this appeal:-

Whether
Parmanand
Lal
Srivastava
(testator)
had
executed
subsequent Will on 25.5.2002 in favour of
the defendant appellants, by which earlier
executed
and
registered
Will
dated
20.9.1996 in favour of the plaintiff
respondents, was revoked ?

Oral evidence of plaintiffs
before the lower court

(Propounder
of
Will
dated 20.9.1996)

26. Sudha Srivastava PW-1, the
propounder of first Will of testator dated
20.9.1996, deposed in her examination in
chief that her father Parmanand Lal
Srivastava(testator) retired from the post of
office
superintendent
in
the
Estate
Department of BHU, Varanasi, was the
owner of the residential house No.
B.26/116-A
situated
in
Nawabganj,Bhelupura,
Varanasi,
who
became the owner of it on the basis of
1114 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
registered Will, who resided in it. She and
Smt. Radha Srivastava were the only
daughters /children of her father.Her sister
Smt. Radha Srivastava and her mother had
died in the lifetime of her father. After
retirement, her father had decided to
distribute his property in favour of her
daughter's children and her, as such he
divided the above house by partition wall,
of which the eastern portion was given to
her and the western portion was given to
deceased daughter's children. She deposed
that her father willingly, without any
coercion, in the presence of Sukhu Prasad
and Mithilesh Kunwar Khare, Advocate,
had
executed
a
registered
Will
on
20.9.1996, by which his property in equal
shares, was bequeathed to her and her
deceased sisters children. This witness has
filed the original Will of the testator dated
20.9.1996.

27. She further deposed that two years
prior to the death of her father, her father
had become disabled due to fracture in the
hip bone, who was unable to move and
perform his routine work,who was looked
after and cared by defendant no.1 to 3. She
further deposed that her father died on
22.11.2002 in her above residential house.
She further deposed that she and defendant
no.1 to 3 have become the owner in
possession of the above residential house
and they have also applied for mutation in
the records of the Nagar Nigam, Varanasi,
which was pending. She further deposed
that her father never executed any other
Will, subsequent to the Will dated
20.9.1996. She further deposed that Rakesh
Kumar Srivastava, Vinod Kumar Singh and
Lalji neither came to the above house of
her father nor her father had executed any
Will dated 25.5.2002 in their favour. She
further deposed that the alleged Will dated
25.5.2002 is a fraudulent and fabricated
document, which has not been executed by
her father, which has been prepared only to
illegally deprive her from the properties
bequeathed by her father.

28.
PW-1
in
cross-examination
accepted
that
Rakesh,
Krishna
Kumar,Awdesh
Kumar,Madan
Kumar,
Manoj Kumar and Santosh Kumar are the
sons of her father's real brother. Her father
had got property in village Gangapur. After
perusing the alleged Will dated 25.5.2002,
she accepted that it bears the photo of her
father. She denied the signatures of her
father on the above Will. She deposed that
signatures of her father has been duplicated
on it. She deposed that the partition
between her father and her father's brother
had
taken
place.
She
deposed
that
agricultural land was partitioned but
orchards were not partitioned. She further
deposed
that
in
the
consolidation
proceeding her father got one third share.
She further deposed that her sister has died
whose 6 children are living separately from
her. The house situated in Nawabganj was
partitioned by her father, she has got
eastern half share in it and the western half
share belongs to her sister. She accepted
that Lakshmi Prasad and her father are real
brothers, the agricultural property situated
in the village was looked after by Lakshmi
Prasad, the residential house situated in
Nawabganj was 2 storeyed, Rakesh is the
son of Lakshmi Prasad.

29. She further deposed that at the
time of execution of the first Will, she was
not present, her husband and sisters son
were present, the same sons were present
who were the beneficiary of the Will, she
has no knowledge of the subsequent Will,
she only became aware of the subsequent
Will after the death of her father, through
her husband, she has not filed any case for
12 All. Rakesh Srivastava & Ors. Vs. Smt. Sudha Srivastava (Since Dead) & Ors.
1115
the cancellation of the subsequent Will, the
Will dated 20.9.1996 was attested by
Sukhu Prasad and Mithilesh Kumar,
Advocate. Mithilesh Kumar, Advocate is
her relative, who is her brother-inlaw(devar). She denied the suggestion that
her father had executed a Will in favour of
Rakesh.

30. Sukhu Prasad PW-2 deposed in his
examination in chief that Parmanand Lal
was an accountant in BHU, who resided
with his paternal aunt Smt. Gujarati Devi,
in a house situated in Nawabganj, which
was bequeathed to Parmanand Lal by Smt.
Gujarati Devi. Parmanand Lal had two
daughters Radha and Sudha, he had no
sons,Radha has died, Krishna Kumar,
Yogesh Kumar alias Goli and Somesh
Kumar alias Rishi are the sons of Radha
Devi. He deposed that he had good
acquaintance and cordial relations with
Parmanand Lal. He deposed that in the
month of September 1996, Parmanand Lal
told him that he intends to bequeath his
entire movable and immovable property in
favour of his daughter Sudha and daughter
Radha's son Krishna Kumar, Yogesh
Kumar and Somesh, requested him to
witness the Will and took him to the
Kutchery.

31. He further deposed that in his
presence Parmanand Lal directed Mithilesh
Kunwar Khare,Advocate to prepare the
Will deed, got typed the Will deed and after
it
was
typed,
after
reading
and
understanding it, Parmanand Lal signed it
in his presence and also obtained his
signature on it.