Khetri Trust wins legal battle against State of Rajasthan in Delhi High Court after 36 years

Following a legal battle spanning 36 years, the Delhi High Court has granted a trust founded by the erstwhile ruler of Khetri, Raja Bahadur Sardar Singh possession of all his assets and rejected the stand of the Rajasthan government [Ajit Singh & Ors v. State & Ors]..Justices Najmi Waziri and Vikas Mahajan passed the order in an appeal against a single-judge verdict that had dismissed the testamentary case seeking probate of the will of Raja Bahadur Sardar Singh. Holding that the execution of the will by Singh stood “duly proven”, the Bench set aside the single-judge’s order and granted the probate to Lord Northbrook, the only surviving executor and trustee of the Khetri Trust..Singh, an erstwhile ruler of Khetri before independence and a former Rajya Sabha member, had no legal heirs at the time of his death in January 1987. Prior to his demise, Singh had executed a will - drafted by his friend, Senior Advocate Danial Latifi - at Delhi’s Tis Hazari court in 1985. The will was executed in the presence of two attesting witnesses and the Registrar. The testator had willed his entire estate, including movable and immovable assets, to the Khetri Trust and appointed four executors and trustees. The bequeathed assets were to vest in the Trust and was to be used primarily for educational, research and scientific purposes.He was conscious that his property could be frittered away or otherwise lapse to the State by the law of escheat, if he did not bequeath it according to his wishes. .Following the execution of the will, Singh executed a codicil (document to make changes in the will without creating a new one) in the same year in two parts. It clarified certain aspects, including the role of the trustees and executors residing in the United Kingdom. The same two witnesses who stood during the will’s execution were present during the execution of the codicil. .Upon Singh’s death, a testamentary case seeking probate was filed by the executors in the Delhi High Court.Three of the four executors subsequently passed away, leaving Lord Northbook as the only executor. On September 25, 2004, he was examined by the probate court to ascertain if he was willing to discharge his legal obligations as an executor. He recorded his statement in the affirmative..In 1996, the State of Rajasthan was added a party respondent to case, following which it alleged non-compliance with the requirements of the provisions of the Succession Act.The probate petition was dismissed by single-judge because it was not proven that Singh and the attesting witnesses had signed the will at the same time, in the presence of each other. Suspicion was raised over the testimony of one of the attesting witnesses, who had deposed that he had not seen Singh sign the will..The appellants contended that the single-judge's order went beyond assessing whether the will and codicils were executed and proved in terms of the law. The order, it was argued, was contradictory in its assessment of the various testimonies and placed undue reliance on the testimony of only one attesting witness, despite the unopposed testimonies of two other witnesses and the Registrar’s office..The State defended the single-judge’s order, referring to the suspicion around the alleged will in view of the deposition of one of the attesting witnesses. It contended that the Khetri Trust was not a registered trust, and the will has not been proven in accordance with Section 63 of the Succession Act.It further argued that the probate proceedings could be sustained only on the basis of an original will and not on a copy of the duplicate will, as seen in the case..The Bench observed that the original duplicate copy of the will was produced with the petition and the will contained in a sealed envelope, produced from the office of the Registrar, was opened in court, seen and resealed. “It was identical to the will propounded by the appellant. It had been kept secured with the Registrar by the testator as an exercise in caution and prudence, so that the original would be made available at the appropriate time…"The State's contention was, therefore, rejected..On the point of the attesting witness RK Singh’s testimony, the Bench found it “contrary to all rationale and logic of a reasonable person”. It came on record that Singh, a lawyer by profession, worked with Latifi, who had raised a bill of ₹1,000 for working on a will in 1985-86. “For a person of his background, it would be expected that he has a fair legal experience and would not sign blindly on papers, all the more if he is to present himself before the Registrar of Assurances,” highlighted the Court.It further observed that to resile from his signatures in attestation of the will was "unusual to say the least". "The only thing that can be inferred is that for reasons best known to RK Singh, who only appeared upon repeated summons being issued to him is that he was a reluctant witness. What occasioned his reluctance is not for the court to dwell upon.".The argument that Singh might have been manipulated by one of the late executors was rejected by the High Court..Senior Advocate Paras Kuhad and Advocates Manu Aggarwal, Jitin Chaturvedi, Shouib Hussain and Shubham Budhiraja along with Senior Advocate Sandeep Sethi and Advocates Fareha A Khan, Niyati Kohli and Rishabh Parikh appeared for the appellants.Advocates Kirtiman Singh and Shreya Mehra for the trustee.For State of Rajasthan, Senior Advocates TK Ganju and Dr Manish Singhvi with Advocates Prateek K Chadha, Sreekar Aechuri, Arpit Prakash and Vrishank Singhania appeared.The Delhi government was represented by Advocates Rishikesh Kumar, Aditya Raj, Muhammad Zaid, Sudhir Kumar Shukla and Sheenu Priya.Advocates Devendra Raghav and Rajeshwavi appeared for interveners..[Read Judgment]

Khetri Trust wins legal battle against State of Rajasthan in Delhi High Court after 36 years

Related Stories