S.B. Wad, J.
(1) This appeal is on board for the last on week. The appeal was admitted ex-parte and a stay was given of the operation of the order of the District Judge, issuing letters of administration in favor of Man Singh/respondent No. 1. In the presence of the counsel for the appellant the appeal was expedited for hearing as the stay order was operating against the respondent. In spite of it, neither the appellant nor his counsel are present. On the facts of the case and the urgency of the matter, I do not think that I should dismiss the matter only in default. I, Therefore, proceed to dispose of the appeal on merits.
(2) This is an appeal filed by Balbir Singh, one of the sons of testator Chandgi Ram, against the order of the District Judge dated 19.9.1984 granting Letters of Administration in favor of one Man Singh. respondent No. 1. in respect of Plot No. A-3/145, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi
(3) Chadgi Ram made a Will on 16.7.1979 and died on 27.7.1981. He left behind two sons, viz. Balbir Singh and Amar Singh; and three daughters, viz. Smt. Brahmo Devi, Smt. Kapoori Devi and Smt. Phoolo Devi. Man Singh, in whose favor the letters of administration are issued,is the son of the Sister of Chandgi Rani. Although Chandgi Ram had two sons he was staying with Man Singh, the sister''s son. Man Singh looked after Chandgi Ram during his old age and also attended his medical needs till his death.
(4) Through the said Will Chandgi Ram gave plot No. A-3/145, Paschim Vihar, New Delhi, to Man Singh, while the old house in Village Piran Garbi, one Gher and the other leasehold property in the village was given to his two sons, viz. Balbir Singh and Amar Singh.
(5) Man Singh filed the application for letters of administration after the death of Chandgi Ram. Only Balbir Singh. the appellant, out of five heirs, two sons and three daughters, filed objections to the granting of letters of administration to Man Singh. He submitted in his objections that the deceased had no right to execute the Will, that he was not in a position to understand anything long before his death, that the Will was a forged document and that the valuation of the plot A-3/145 Paschim Vihar, New Delhi, was Rs. 50,000.00 and not Rs. 20,000.00 as mentioned in the application for letters of administration. When in reply to the objections Man Singh pointed out that Balbir Singh was a witness to the Will Along with his brother Amar Singh, both of whom had signed the Will and that Balbir Singh was also a witness to the indemnity bond filed in the D.D A. by Man Singh for transfer of the said plot in his name and also that Amar Singh had filed a separate affidavit dated 24.12.1981 stating that he had no objection to the plot being transferred in the name of Man Singh and that he did not have any claim or right to the said plot, the objector Balbir Singh took a new plea that he had never signed the Will as attesting witness and that he had never signed any indemnity bond.
(6) The evidence was led by the parties and the arguments were heard by the learned Judge, who then fixed 18.8.1984 as the date for pronouncement of the order. On that date appellant Balbir Singh made an application for amendment of his objections. Through the said amendment Balbir Singh sought to incorporate in his objections that the petitioner Mix Singh "bad obtained his signatures on blank papers telling him that there were some plots of his father in D.D.A. and as such a power of attorney was to be executed for prosecuting the case with the D.D.A." and that the objector had not visited the office of the Sub-Registrar nor had he signed any indemnity bond and the alleged signatures of the objector were obtained on a blank paper.
(7) The Trial Court found that the application for amendment under Order 6 Rule 17 was made at a very late stage when the matter was listed for orders after the arguments on 18.8.1984 and the application for amendment was moved to wriggle out of the admissions already made. The learned Judge further held "neither in his objection petition nor in his rejoinder the objector had taken the plea that the petitioner had obtained his signatures on the blank papers. Even when the petitioner appearing as his own witness as PW/1 had proved that the indemnity bond submitted by the petitioner with the D.D.A. had been attested by the objector as an attesting witness, it was nowhere suggested to the petitioner that he had obtained his signatures on blank papers telling him that they were needed for executing a power of attorney for obtaining a plot for the land belonging to the father of the objector. It is for the first time on 8.8.84 when the objector himself entered into the witness-box that he set up this case." The Trial Court held that the appellant wanted to till the lacuna which was specifically pointed out during the course of the arguments on 16.8.84; that the case being setup by the appellant was neither in his pleadings, nor in the cross-examination of the petitioner.
(8) The indemnity bond was a registries indemnity bond which was signed by the appellant. This was proved by the Clerk from the office of the Sub-Registrar. The plea set up by the appellant through the amendment petition was thus false and made at a very late stage in the proceedings only to have the last minute attempt to get the Will declared as not genuine. The Trial Court rightly rejected the application under Order 6 Rule 17.
(9) Counsel for the respondents has taken me through the evidence of PW/2, Vijender Singh Shokeen, Advocate, who had scribed the Will and in whose presence the appellant has put his signature as witness. There is another attesting witness, Diwan Singh who has signed in the presence of the deceased to whom the Will was read out in the presence of Diwan Singh. PW/4, Amar Singh, is another brother of Balbir Singh. His evidence has also been read out. It is seen from the evidence that he could not property explain as to how he filed affidavit with the D.D.A. admitting the signature in which it was stated that the plot in question was given Man Singh by the Will and that he had no interest in it. Balbir Singh. RW/I, offered himself as a witness. On a specific question could not explain as to which land was to be allotted by the D.D.A. and for what purpose the power of attorney was to be made his theory being that the blank paper was got signed by Man Singh when the power of attorney was to be made. With the evidence of the Clerk from the office of the Sub-Registrar he was confronted about his denial of being present in the office of the Sub-Registrar and signing the indemnity bond as a witness. He could not answer satisfactorily. Another witness examined by the appellant is RW/2, Shri Kamal Singh. I have gone through the evidence of this witness also. I do not think that this witness can help the appellant in any way regarding the Will not being genuine. He did not have any knowledge about the deceased or his family. He met him only two days prior to his death and he went to Court on the asking of the appellant.
(10) The evidence of Shri Vijender Singh Shokeen. Advocate, and Shri Diwan Singh is quite trust-worthy. The Will was executed by the deceased when he was in a sound state of mind. There is no evidence brought by the appellant to show that the deceased was not in a sound state of mind. The appellant was a witness to the Will which is further proved independently by the fact of his being a witness to the indemnity bond filed with the D.D.A. The genuineness of the Will is further and established, independently by the affidavit of Amar Singh
(11) In his objections in the Trial Court the appellant has submitted that the District Judge, Delhi, is not competent under the Indian Succession Act to issue letters of administration and what be could do is only to issue the succession certificate. He has relied upon Sections 57, 213(2)(ii) and 370 in support of his submission. There is nothing in the said sections to bar the jurisdiction of the Delhi District Judge since the deceased and the concerned parties were staying in the local jurisdiction of Delhi and also the property is situated in the local limits of Delhi. In fact, he did not press the point before the District Judge at the time of framing of the issues or at the time of the arguments nor has he taken it as a ground of challenge in the appeal.
(12) There is no reason to interfere with the order of the District Judge. The appeal is dismissed.
