Jagjit Singh Gurumukh Pandhaal v Tejinder Singh Pandhal & 1 other

The will was signed by the deceased and attested by two competent witnesses, satisfying section 11 of the Law of Succession Act. Both the appellant and the 2nd respondent acknowledged the deceased's signature in evidence. Countersigning each page is not a statutory requirement, and no evidence of the deceased's alleged 'usual practice' of countersigning was adduced. Mental incapacity was neither pleaded nor proved by any medical evidence, and unproved incapacity raised only in post-hearing submissions cannot found invalidity.

Section 30 of the Act bars applications under Part III after confirmation of the grant, which occurred in 2010 and 2012. The appellant's prayer had been dismissed by M. Thande, J. on 9th October 2020, and that ruling was neither appealed nor reviewed, so it became res judicata. On the merits, the appellant had received and sold three of the eleven estate properties, and no credible evidence of need or inequitable distribution was presented.

Revocation under section 76 requires proof of defective proceedings, fraud, untrue allegations, failure to administer diligently, or that the grant has become useless and inoperative. The appellant's case rested solely on an alleged invalidity of the will, which the Court rejected. The claim that the executrix suffered dementia was unfounded and unsupported by credible evidence, including the video clips produced. Having accepted and sold three estate properties, the appellant was estopped by approbate and reprobate from impeaching the process.

Withdrawal of the initial Motion did not strike out the replying affidavits; the subsequent Chamber Summons was identical, and the appellant himself annexed the affidavits to his own supporting affidavit, introducing them into the record. The 2nd respondent testified and was cross-examined, and the appellant bore the burden of proving his own case. Nothing in the conduct of the proceedings suggested bias or a denial of fair hearing.