RANJAN RATTAN VADHERA vs STATE & ORS.

Judgment text excerpt

* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Judgment delivered on: 22.08.2025 + FAO 203/2008 RANJAN RATTAN VADHERA .....Appellant Versus STATE & ORS. .....Respondents Advocates who appeared in this case For the Appellant : Mr. Jai Sahai Endlaw, Mr. Saran Suri, Ms. Ruchi Jain, Mr. Sahil Goyal & Mr. Zubin John, Advocates. For the Respondents : Mr. Naresh Kumar Bhalla, Advocate for R-2&3. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJAS KARIA JUDGMENT TEJAS KARIA, J CM APPL. 44515/2025 1. The Appellant / Applicant has filed the present Review Application (“Application”) praying for review of the Judgment dated 25.06.2025 (“Judgment”) passed by this Court in FAO No.203/2008. 2. The Appellant / Applicant has filed the present Application on the ground that certain issues and pertinent questions of law have either been inadvertently overlooked or not taken note of while passing the Judgment. 3. The Appellant / Applicant has submitted that the Judgment is required Signature Not Verified FAO 203/2008 Page 1 of 16 Signed By:NEELAM SHARMA Signing Date:22.08.2025 16:22:00 to be reviewed as: i. There was no objection from any Respondents with respect to the execution of the Will. As the factum of attestation of the Will has been proved, the probate ought to have been granted in favour of the Petitioner / Applicant. Respondent No.2 had submitted written objections and Respondent No. 3 did not object to grant of probate in favour of the Petitioner / Applicant. ii. There is a presumption in law in favour of the Appellant / Applicant regarding the genuineness attached to the signatures of the Testatrix as the signature of one of the attesting witnesses was duly proved. Unless the signature of Testatrix is rebutted by any cogent evidence, the Court ought to have accepted her signature on the Will. iii.