RAVI S. Dhavan, J. - (1.) When the Court rendered its order of 22 May, 1992- Mahendra Pratap Singh and another v. Padam Kumari Devi, AIR 1993 All 143, the estate which was being fought upon was of the son of a dowager. The dowager was the late Smt. Padam Kumari Devi. The son was Mahendra Pratap Singh. The dowager died twenty days after the orders of the Court. Before that this Court had assumed the jurisdiction over the person of Smt. Padam Kumari Devi and placed her under the guar dianship of the District Magistrate and Col lector, Dehradun. The Court recorded in this order. ". . . . She is placed under the guar dianship of the District Magistrate and Col lector, Dehradun. Ajit Singh Panwar shall not be her escort. The District Magistrate and Collector, Dehradun, is her guardian until further instructions from this Court. He shall take Padma Kumari Devi in his custody and care and place her in a good hospital. Through his good offices, the Dis trict Magistrate and Collector, Dehradun, will convey to the military authorities in Dehradun a request on behalf of the High Court, that regard being had to the cir cumstances that Padma Kumari Devi is the mother of a retired Air Force officer and also the mother of a daughter who is mar ried to the Commander-in-Chief of the Nepal Army, they may consider giving her medical care and nursing facilities. . . . . . "ibid, page 157. The Court gave other directions, these are: (60) Thus, this Court assumes jurisdiction over the person of Padma Kumari Devi and until further orders are made by this Court or by any other Court by leave of this Court, she is placed under the guardianship of the District Magistrate and Collector, Dehradun. Ajit Singh Panwar shall not be her escort. The District Magistrate and Collector, Dehradun is her guardian until further instructions from this Court. He shall take Padma Kumari Devi in his custody and care and place her in a good hospital. Through his good offices, the District Magistrate and Collector, Dehradun will convey to the military authorities in Dehradun a request on behalf of the High Court, that regard being had to the circumstances that Padma Devi is the mother of a retired air force officer and also mother of a daughter who is married to the Com mander-in-Chief of the Nepal Army, they may consider giving her medical care and nursing facilities until between this son and daughter, that is, Wing Commander Narendra Pratap Singh (retired) and Nirmala Rana, one of them or both seek custody of their mother by leave of this Court. The properties and assets which stand in the name of Padma Kumari Devi or are in the hands of Ajit Singh Panwar, are attached to the Court of the District Judge, Dehradun, and such properties, until further orders of the Court are custodia legis. Ajit Singh Panwar is bound to dis close the properties, movable and immovable, to the District Judge, Dehradun. The District Judge, Dehradun, may independently make enquiries on the assets of Padma Kumari Devi whether alienated or standing in her name. In making these enquiries the District Judge may issue a proclama tion and may order the presence of any body for the purpose of receiving information and further is authorised to write to any authority in collecting information on the assets which stood in the name of Padma Kumari Devi and continue to be recorded in the name of Padma Kumari Devi. The enquiry report of the District Judge will be avail able to this Court within six weeks. (61) The power of attorney of Ajit Singh Panwar or any other power of attorney which may have been executed by Padma Kumari Devi in his favour and a copy of which is appended to the affidavit and marked as Paper No. A-40/24/25/26/27 is declared null and void and is not capable of being acted upon. The District Judge, Dehradun, is directed to intimate the Sub-Registrar, Dehradun that this power of attorney registered with the Sub-Registrar, Dehradun is cancelled. The District Judge, Dehradun, there after shall cause a proclamation to be issued to that effect. (62 ). The proclamation aforesaid, if needed, maybe issued in a newspaper having wide circula -. tion at Dehradun and in addition two national * newspapers one in Hindi and other in English. (63 ). As case No. 27 of 1987 was filed on behalf of Padma Kumari Devi but without a next of friend or guardian and Padma Kumari Devi suffers from mental infirmity and unsound mind, a fact on which there is no issue. Ajit Singh Panwar who continues to conduct cases on the basis of power of attorneys and the said Ajit Singh Panwar, is neither a guardian nor a next of friend of Padma Kumari Devi, as the record reveals that his inter est is adverse to that of Padma Kumari Devi, and he has obstructed the course of justice and prevented the Court from making enquiries and ascertaining the truth, the case filed by him or by the counsel whom he instructs, shall be taken off the file. As both Ajit Singh Panwar, acting on a power of attorney and counsel who take instruc tions from him appear and keep away from Court at their choice this Court will consider costs under Order XXXII, Rule 2 against one or either of them, later, let this be a notice to them. (64) The aforesaid Ajit Singh Panwar, is called upon by this Court to furnish security for payment of costs as he may have drawn and charged to the Assets of Padma Kumari Devi to create a litigation on the estate of the late Mahendra Pratap Singh which he seeks from the principal, who by her mentai infirmity and un sound mind, cannot hoid assets and properties, including her own. Ajit Singh Panwar shall deposit costs as may be assessed and determined by this Court. Later, for pursuing Testamentary Case No. 27 of 1987 and for opposing the plaintiff in suit No. 2, of 1988 and for his acts and omissions as an agent when he was fully aware that the person whom he claimed as his principal was not in a position to authorise him. Further, as he hold charge of Padma Kumari Devi's assets and properties, he has to account for them to this Court. The power of attorney in favour of Ajit Singh Panwar describes Padma Kumari Devi as owning vast amounts of money in the form of Fixed Deposits and Savings Bank accounts in banks in my own name and also own other mov able properties like jewellery, household effects, cash, etc. as also immovable properties in the form of agricultural land and residential premises in village Adhojwala, district Dehradun, standing in my own name. It is the case of Ajit Singh Panwar that Padma Kumari Devi owns large and colossal assets, monies, jewellery and real estate. On her mother's properties, her son Wing Commander Narendra Pratap Singh, reiving on record, says in his application/affidavit (A/28) in paragraph 8 that his mother belongs to a very wealthy family of Nepal, is hardly educated, has become very old and infirm and is possessed immense wealth as is also evident by the undisputed will of the late father of the applicant, a photostat copy whereof is annexed hereto as Annexure 1. " Thus, for costs and accountability of. her assets and until ac counted, this Court considers that it would be a modest sum, that Ajit Sirighpanwar shall, aandon ad interim measures directed to furnish securities to the satisfaction of the Registrar, High Court, on an account for Rupees ten lakhs within six weeks from today. (65)'the estate of the late Mahendra Pratap Singh regard being had to the facts and cir cumstances already noticed by the Court is at tached to. the Court of the District Judge, Dehradun, until further orders of the Court. For the purpose of attachment for identifying the proper ties, a copy of the plaint in Suit No. 2 of 1988 and a copy of petition in Testamentary Case No. 27 of 1987 shall be forwarded by the Registrar, High Court, to the District Judge, Dehradun. (66) The Registrar, High Court, will send a letter of request under Section 77 of the Code of Civil Procedure to Nirtnaia Rana, daughter of Padma Kumari Devi wsjo appeared in this Court on January 20 and 21,1992, if she would be kind enough to depose before the Court on a date which she may indicate to the Registrar, High Court, between 6 and 17 July, 1992. This Court issues this 'letter of request' as Shrimati Nirmala Rana, the Court has already been given to under stand is a citizen of Nepal, and resides in Kathmandu, Nepal (67) Application A-28 seeking recall of the order of the dismissal of the suit for 'want of prosecution, the Court is satisfied, regard being had to the circumstances, noticed by this Court in this order, and earlier orders noticing the proceed ings between 11 December, 1991 and as of date in the interests of substantial justice, equity and good conscience has to be allowed, with costs, which this Court shall determine subsequently. (68) The Registrar will intimate the authorities concerned, as referred to in this order, of the directions given by the Court, forthwith. (69) List before this Court, to receive the report of the Collector and the District Magistrate, Dehradun and the District Judge, Dehradun, immediately after six weeks. (70) Reference orders of the Hon'ble the Chief Justice, dated 29 January, 1992 on applica tion A-38 of Wing Commander Narendra Pratap Singh (retired) seeking, in effect, custody of his mother, Padma Kumari Devi, let a copy of this order be placed before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice for his perusal. " 2, Against this order, Ajit Singh Pan-war did not file an appeal before the High Court, which he could but went to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court passed a limited ad interim order and stayed the directions of the High Court requiring the aforesaid Ajit Singh Panwar to furnish security to the satisfaction of the Registrar, High Court, amounting to Rs. 10 lakhs. The rest of the order remained. 3. Subsequently by an order dated 23 January 1995, the Supreme Court desired that this matter be concluded as the Supreme Court would like to have the opinion of the High Court on these tes tamentary cases. There has been delay in these proceedings no doubt. The last when the Court could proceeded with this matter was in 1994 and 1995, whereas the Supreme Court had desired, in effect, day to day proceedings. The Court never constituted. The Court was shown with this case on 23 May 1996, but on that day several other cases were listed, also, yet the Court proceeded inasmuch as it could. The next day, 24 May, 1996, was the last working day before the summer vacations. Without ref erence to Court, the Judge was shown in Chambers. During the middle of October, 1996, Counsel for the progenies of Smt. Padma Kumari Devi, grandsons joined by her daughter-in-law applied that the matter be listed. The Registrar, High Court, saw the Court in Chambers, if the matter could be listed. He was told that the Court had no control with the listing process and the Ad ditional Registrar (Listing) was asked a pointed question whether between any day on 23 May, 1996 and the call on the Judge by the Registrar in Chambers, had any request been made to the Judge to list the matter. The answer in the presence of the Registrar was in negative. This then is the manner in which the case was listed taken off and listed. The rest is recorded in the proceed ings of 23 May, 1996. 4. Now the complexion of cases has also changed. Smt. Padam Kumari Devi has also died. In between her only surviving son Wing Commander Narendra Pratap Singh had also died. The Court, thus, has issues before it on the estate of the late Mahendra Pratap Singh. Mahendra Pratap Singh was Smt. Padam Kumari Devi's eldest son. He predeceased her. Where would this estate to? While the matter may not have been led at the Supreme Court, and by the time the Supreme Court made its order of 30 June 1992. Smt. Padam Kumari Devi had also died. In this regard as the Court judges the situation today the issues are on (a) estate of Mahendra Pratap Singh to which the order of 22 May, 1992 referred to. Mahendra Pratap Singh and another v. Padam. Kumari Devi, AIR 1993 All. 143. (b) the estate of the late Smt. Padam Kumari Devi. As of now the cases before the Court are: (1) Testamentary Case No. 13 of 1986 (con verted into Testamentary Suit No. 2 of 1988) filed by Wing Commander Narendra Pratap Singh in the matter of the goods and estate of Mahendra Pratap Singh. (2) Testamentary Case No. 27 of 1987 (con verted into Testamentary Suit No. 10 of 1995) filed by Padma Kumari Devi in the matter of the goods and estate of Mahendra Pratap Singh. (3) Testamentary Case No. 6 of 1992 (con verted into Testamentary Suit No. 11 of 1995) filed by Smt. Nirmala Rana and others in the matter of the goods and estate of Padam Kumari Devi. (4) Testamentary Case No. 5 of 1993 (con verted into Testamentary Suit No. 12 of 1995) filed by Ajit Singh Panwar in the matter of the goods and estate of Padma Kumari Devi. 5. Between the estates of a mother and a son, the son having predeceased the mother, these four cases were filed, as tes tamentary cases between 1986 and today. In 1986 Testamentary Case No. 13 of 1986 in the matter of the goods of Mahendra Pratap Singh was filed at the High Court in its original jurisdiction. The deceased had a younger brother. He was Wing Commander Narendra Pratap Singh, then a serving of ficer with the Indian Air Force. He applied for letters of administration to the High Court as the basis of a will annexed with his petition. He stated that his elder brother, Mahendra Pratap Singh, died on 1 Decem ber 1985 at 11-A Kalidas Road, Dehradun, within the jurisdiction of the Allahabad High Court. The original will was deposited with the Court. He fairly gave the blood relatives left by the deceased, being himself, his mother, Smt. Padam Kumari Devi, his sisters Smt. Manhar Kumari Panwar, wife of Pratap Singh Panwar, resident of Baroda, and the other sister Smt. Nirmala Rana, wife of Brigadier General, Gadul Shamsher Jang Bahadur Rana, residing at Kathmandu in Nepal. 6. Wing Commander, Narendra Pratip Singh, placed on record that a case for suc cession has been filed by his mother, Smt. Padam Kumari Devi, before the Sub-Judge, Delhi. He prayed in this testamentary case that on the basis of a will which has been left, letters of administration be granted. This case was subsequently converted into Tes tamentary Suit No. 2 of 1988. Wing Com mander Narendra Pratap Singh himself died on 25 March, 1992. His wife and two-sons applied for being substituted. Application A-45 filed on 18 June 1992. His wife Manjula Singh and the sons Lav Singh and Abhimanyu Singh were, thus, substituted in the place of their father. 7. Another case was brought in the matter relating to the goods of Sri Mahendra Pratap Singh. It was filed one year later. Ostensibly it was filed by the mother of the late Mahendra Pratap Singh. She also claimed letters of administration on a will dated 7 August, 1985 and a codicil 27 November 1985. In this petition, the mother Padam Kumari Devi, claimed that to the best of her knowledge no application had been made prior to her petition seeking letters of administration on the estate of her son Mahendra Pratap Singh and that her son. Wing Commander Narendra Pratap Singh, had on a fraudulent will filed a Tes tamentary Case No. 13 of 1986. In this peti tion, she made no reference to a succession case which had been filed by her, or ar ranged to be filed by her before the Sub-Judge at Delhi. 8. These two cases, that is Testamen tary Case No. 13 of 1986 converted to Tes tamentary Suit No. 2 of 1988 filed by Wing Commander Narendra Pratap Singh, and Testamentary Case No. 27 of 1987, con verted to Testamentary Suit No. 10 of 1995, claimed to be, filed by Padam Kumari Devi, subsequently presented issues before this Court whether Padma Kumari Devi could have filed the case at all and whether she may be opposing her son Wing Commander Narendra Pratap Singh, in the case filed by him. 9. In the case filed by Padma Kuma2i Devi, the Advocate, who filed the case, stated before the Court that he had neither met nor seen Padam Kumari Devi. He ad mitted that he was taking instructions from the power of attorney holder acting on be-hali of Padma Kumari Devi. He further stated that he met Padma Kumari Devi for the first time on 19 January, 1992 and before that he had not met the lady who was sup posed to be his client. Order dated 22 May, 1992' (A/42 in Testamentary Suit No. 2 of 1988) AIR 1993. The estate was of Mahendra Pratap Singh, that is, brother of Wing Commander Narendra Pratap Singh, and the son of Padam Kumari Devi. The case, in fact could not proceed and, there after, the progress stood hampered for all times to come. The reasons are sufficiently recorded in the order of the Court dated 22 May 1992 (A/42 Testamentary Suit No. 2 of 1988) (AIR 1993 All 143) which order is under consideration of the Supreme Court in Special Leave Petition, being perused by one Ajit Singh Panwar. 10. After the Court gave its afore3aid order of 22 May 1992, (A/42 Testamentary Suit No. 2 of 1988) (AIR 1993 All 143), in the two cases pending at that time, a fortnight later Padam Kumari Devi died at a hospital in Dehradun after custody of her person, on an application (Paper No. A/38, Testamentary Suit No. 2 of 1988), which the Court treated as a habeas corpus petition, was placed by the High Court in the charge of the District Magistrate and Collector, Dehradun. This application was filed by the son, Wing Commander Narendra Pratap Singh. It was assigned by the Chief Justice of this Court. (The order of the Hon'ble the Chief Justice dated 29-1-1992 ). 11. On Padam Kumari Devi's death, two more cases were filed seeking letters of administration on her estate. One case was brought by her progenies. They were Nir-mala Rana, her daughter, and Messrs. Lav Singh and Abhimanyu Singh, her grand sons, sons of Wing Commander Narendra Pratap Singh. They gave certain details in their petition of the apprehension they have of the illegal usurpation of the estate of their uncle (Mahendra Pratap Singh) and grand mother (Padma Kumari Devi) as the context may be, and further stated that Padam Kumari Devi was not mentally stable nor normal for a long time at least seven years prior; not able to comprehend to make a testamentary disposition. They submitted that she died without leaving any testamen tary disposition, in fact, intestate. They ap plied jointly and agreed that the letters of administration be granted to Lav Singh for taking charge and being accountable for the estate of Padam Kumari Devi. This case, as Testamentary Case No. 6 of 1992, was con verted to Testamentary Suit No. 11 of 1995. 12. Another case was brought seeking charge of the estate and the goods of late Padam Kumari Devi. This was Testamentary Case No. 5 of 1993, subsequently, converted to Testamentary Suit No. 12 of 1995. The petitioner in this case was Ajit Singh Pan-war. He claimed that the late Padam Kumari Devi had left a will in his favour and her son Mahendra Pratap Singh who had predeceased her left a will in her favour and, thus, by this analogy the assets of Mahendra Pratap Singh on the basis of the will were inherited by Padam Kumari Devi. There after, he says that as Padam Kumari Devi has executed a will in his favour, thus, by im plication the estate of Padam Kumari Devi inclusive of the estate of Mahendra Pratap Singh, her son, now stands inherited by him. The original will, he says, has already been filed by him as an objector in Testamentary Case No. 6 of 1992 (Testamentary Suit No. 11 of 1995) which case was filed by Nirmala Rana, daughter of Padam Kumari Devi, and Lav Singh and Abhimanyu Singh, grand sons of Padam Kumari Devi. Thus, on the basis of that will, dated 13-11-1986, he seeks letters of administration to administer the estate of Padam Kumari Devi. He himself says in this petition that he is claiming let ters of administration on the estate of Padam Kumari Devi and the inclusive inter est and right over the property of Mahendra Pratap Singh. Who is he? Ajit Singh Panwar, is the husband Parineeta of the grand daughter of Padam Kumari Devi, that is to say, husband of the daughter of the daughter of Padam Kumari Devi. It may also be men tioned that this will of 13 November 1986, not filed earlier in any proceedings is being set up for the first time on 9 March, 1993, as an objection to the letters of administration by the progenies of Padam Kumari. 13. Before the Court goes into the merits of the three cases, as Case No. 27 of 1987, was struck of and taken off the record, when Padam Kumari Devi supposedly seek ing charge of the estate of her son deceased Mahendra Pratap Singh died. This is so recorded in the order dated 22 May, 1992. It is claimed by Ajit Singh Panwar that Padam Kumari Devi had filed this case as petitioner. Wing Commander Narendra Pratap Singh filed Testamentary Case No. 13 of 1986, also to seek letters of administra tion on the estate of his brother, Mahendra Pratap Singh. All issues could, thus, be debated in this case with the only difference that Padam Kumari Devi, as mother, would have to oppose and depose against her son. 14. The balance of the three cases which remain, the broad features are very clear and distinct, Charge of the estate was being sought by first degree heirs on either the estate of Mahendra Pratap Singh or the estate of Padam Kumari Devi. 15, On the other hand a person who claims the same estates as a rival, is not a blood relative nor the progeny of any of them (Padam Kumari Devi or Mahendra Pratap Singh who died as a bachellor ). This person is a stranger to the family, but mar ried in one branch of it. Padam Kumari Devi's other daughter Manhar Kumari has a daughter, Parnita. She is married to Ajit Singh Panwar. Thus, the husband of a grand daughter, through a daughter, was also set ting up a claim to the same estate in juxta position to blood relatives and direct progenies. He claims to represent Padam Kumari Devi. He says he has authority to do so to act on her behalf as her agent. He says he represents her, as Padam Kumari Devi gave him the power of attorney to act on her behalf. The entire case which has been set up by Ajit Singh Panwar in based on a pyramid of power of attorneys. By these power of attorneys he is supposed to have taken charge, possessed and amassed assets of Padam Kumari Devi. He also seeks the estate of Mahendra Pratap Singh, Padam Kumari's eldest son who predeceased her on the basis of a will which he claims makes him, in effect, an executor. He conducts the case of Padam Kumari Devi on the basis of a power of attorney and speaks for her. Every where she is supposed to make a statement before the Court, he claims he can substitute for her. 16. Under law, the status of a person holding a power of attorney cannot be beyond the person who authorised the agent. When the Court wasprima facie satis fied that the truth must prevail, and it would be best to ask Padam Kumari Devi on what she has to say on the estate of Mahendra Pratap Singh, her elder son, which was being made an issue at the High Court, she was required to make her disposition in these proceedings before this Court. She came to Allahabad. But she was not permitted to appear in Court. She was whisked away from Allahabad, thereafter, never to be made available to record her testimony on what would have been her statement. She was kept away from the Court deliberately. This was done by the aforesaid Ajit Singh Pan-war. This was gross obstruction in the course of public justice and proceedings of the Court. These proceedings with details on the manner in which public justice was thwarted are recorded in the order of 22 May 1992 (AIR 1993 Allahabad 143 ). Thus, the best evidence on what exactly was the correct state of affairs on the conduct of relations between the direct progenies or blood relatives, that is, between brothers and sisters of Mahendra Pratap Singh was kept away from the Court. The star witness or the main witness at that time was deliberately withheld from giving evidence. She was Padam Kumari Devi. She came with Ajit Singh Panwar to Allahabad and she was taken out of Allahabad stealthily by the same Ajit Singh Panwar. This act in obstructing public justice is contempt of the grossest kind. 17. Mr P. M. Gupta, counsel for Smt. Nirmala Rana (daughter of Padam Kumari Devi and wife of General J. S. J. B. Rana, Chief of Army Staff of Nepal Army ). Lav Singh and Abhimanyu Singh, sons of late Wing Commander Narendra Pratap Singh, (son of Padam Kumari Devi) resident at Dehradun, stated that he would begin his arguments by taking up the case of his clients seeking letters of administration on the estate and the goods of the late Mahendra Pratap Singh and Padam Kumari Devi, mother of Nirmala Rana and Mannar Kumari; two daughters who are alive. She had two sons. Mahendra Pratap Singh, who predeceased her. He was a bachellor. He died in 1985. The other son Wing Com mander, Narendra Pratap Singh also died in 1992, the same year as Padam Kumari. 18. Nirmala Rana describes her mother, Padam Kumari, in her petition (Testamentary Suit No. 11 of 1995) filed jointly with her nephews. She says that her mother in 1985 was about 82 years old; she had. become mentally incapacitated by December 1985, she had almost lost her memory and talked incoherently. She had become hard of hearing, feeble in health and unable to do her daily routine work herself. She was hardly educated and was a pardanashin lady. In 1964, she executed a general power of attorney in favour her elder son, the late Sri Mahendra Pratap Singh, a copy of her power of attorney. (Paper No. A 40/21 in Suit No. 2 of 1988) in English is appended as Annexure 3 to the affidavit of Ajit Singh Panwar, dated 28january, 1992, sworn at Delhi in Testamen tary Suit No. 2 of 1988. Smt. Nirmala Rana, Lav Singh and Abhimanyu Singh, that is, the daughter and the grandsons of Padam Kumari, state in their petition that Padam Kumari "belonged to a very wealthy family of Ranas of Nepal, was hardly educated, and was possessed of immense wealth. " They have made this statement on oath. Their statements are, in context, a personal wealth it must have been as the tussle and fight to vie for her property by a stranger in the family is so clear to see. 19. Counsel for one daughter, Nirmala Rana, and the grandsons of Padam Kumari, urge that the only other surviving heirs are the two daughters, Nirmala Rana and Man-har Kumari, and the two sons of Wing Com mander Narendra Pratap Singh. Manhar Kumari, he submits is basically a spectator to what is going on. "to substantiate the submission made by Nirmala Rana, daughter, and Luv Singh and Abhimanyu Singh, grandsons, he says that Padam Kumari was mentally incapacitated before the year 1985 having lost her memory and was talking incoherently. He draws the at tention of the Court to the state of affairs as perceived by Padam Kumari herself. Padam Kumari wrote a letter in Nepali. Counsel emphasises that this is an important fact to be kept in mind that she corresponded in Nepali as English definitely was beyond Padam Kumari Devi's comprehension. This letter of 11 February, 1985, (Paper No. A 40/63 in Suit No. 2 of 1988) was written to her daughter, Manhar Kumari. By this let ter, Padam Kumari, was herself telling her daughter that her mental faculties and memories were vaining and were low. She was telling her daughter that on the last occasion when she was with her at Deh radun, she had lost part of her memory, but as she was writing to her (middle of February), the state of affair is such that she has lost her memory completely and that she is finding it difficult to go about her chores as she is without help. She made a request that her grand daughter, that is, Manhar Kumari's daughter, 'neeta' be sent to Deh radun and that she and her elder son, Mahendra Pratap Singh, then can escort her to come to Baroda to visit them. She described her physical condition as very frail. Counsel for Nirmala Rana, Mr P. M. Gupta, says that this letter is the translation of the letter, the original text of which is in Nepali and the letter in Nepali has been appended by Manhar Kumari to her af fidavit (A 40/50 in Testamentary Suit No. 2 of 1988 ). He draws the attention of the Court to notice the text and the language of the letter of Padam Kumari as mother to her daughter, Manhar Kumari. He desired the Court to notice the averments in paragraph 7 of the affidavit of Manhar Kumari which says that". . . . . . . . deponent's mother' who was about 80 years in 1985, was not well, have developed serious toothache and her upper jaw was heavily paining due to septic, she was feeling nervous. " She refers to her mother as 'ailing'. She says that her mother was apprehending that she may not be able to see her daughter because of failing health. The affidavit of Manhar Kumari has been affirmed on 28 January, 1992 at New Delhi, before a notary. He desires the Court to notice that on the mental faculties of Padam Kumari, in failing health, failing memory and difficulty to comprehend, was a state of affairs which has been mentioned in the letter, dated 11 February 1985, in Nepali, and is referred to by both the daughters of Padam Kumari. He desires the Court to notice that the physical state of Padam Kumari, of her mental incapacity and incapability in comprehending has been stated by Padam Kumari herself in this letter and this has been reiterated, jointly, by her two daughters as a statement on oath. By Nirmala Rana in her petition seeking letters of administration (Testamentary Suit No. 11 of 1995) the petition was affirmed on oath on 17, June 1992. The affidavit of Manhar Kumari (A-13) has been affirmed on 30 July 1992. It is submitted before the Court that there could be no better statement than the statement of the patient Padam Kumari Devi herself and the personal knowledge of the two daughters on the state of health of their mother. Affirming and confirming on what their mother herself was writing in her letter. of 11 February 1995, that she was losing her memory and is finding it difficult to comprehend, counsel stresses that now Padam Kumari is dead. The Court had sum moned her during the winter of 1992. She was brought to Allahabad. She was kept in bondage by Ajit Singh Panwar at a local hotel. She was not permitted to appear before the Court. The Court had her ex amined by a Commission. The order appointing the Commission is 21 January, 1992 in Testamentary Suit No. 2 of 1988. The report of the Commission dated 22 January, 1992 is A-34, in the said case. The Commission reported that Padam Kumari was in a deplorable state of health having lost her memory and mental faculties and could hardly understand the Commission itself and of the little which she could com prehend it was only the Nepali language. He draws the attention of the Court to three orders which were passed on 20 January, 1992. These three orders record of the presence of Padam Kumari in Allahabad, but the arguments put by counsel who os tensibly claimed to appear on her behalf with Ajit Singh Panwar instructing him were excuses why Padam Kumari could not be produced. What was so radically wrong with Padam Kumari that she was a plaintiff and would not appear or was being prevented from appearing? The Court has recorded these circumstances in its order of 22 May, 1992. Why has she put a thumb mark which has been identified by a local doctor on an application which commits that she will be produced, accompanying an application by the power of attorney holder? Is it that she could not write? Or is it that she could but was not in a state to write ? Or is it that her vernacular was Nepali? All that the Court has before it are circumstances that the petitioner plaintiff (Padam Kumari Devi) was not permitted to give her testimony? 20. On the state of mind and the men tal capacity of Padam Kumari, there is no doubt, nor any issue and the facts and cir cumstances are admitted on record on whoever be the litigating parties. On behalf of the progenies of Padam Kumari, seeking letters of administration being her grand sons Lav Singh and Abhimanyu Singh, joined by their mother, Manjula Singh, wife of the late Wing Commander Narendra Pratap Singh, counsel submits that the very letter which has been, appended by Manhar Kumari daughter of the Padam Kumari, the letter of 11 February 1985 (A-13/16 Tes tamentary Suit No. 11 of 1995) written in Nepali the translation of it has also been appended by Mrs. Manjula Singh, wife of the late Wing Commander Narendra Pratap Singh, and their sons, Lav and Abhimanyu Singh. Thus, when both and only surviving direct heirs, the two daughters rely on the same document, there is no issue between them on facts and circumstances on the health and mental state of their mother Padma Kumari, as a mentally incapacitated and memory impaired, frail and feeble old lady early in the year 1985, itself not being a fiction but a fact, she was a person, who herself said in her letter to her daughter that she could only live with the assistance of others. Thus, with a failing memory her life hereinafter was to depend upon the trus4 of others and not upon herself. 21. If the mental faculties of Padam Kumari were at low ebb in early 1985 and she could not comprehend and had lost her memory and no other statement could be better than her statement given to her daughter that she is losing her memory, the question arises how much could she be bound by her acts and could others take advantage of this incapacity of hers of a failing memory and mental incapacity. This state of affairs was reiterated and affirmed by the other daughter, Nirmala Rana, who came to the High Court to record her tes timony on oath and nobody dare challenge her testimony as it lies uncontroverted even today. 22. The crucial question which needs to be reflected upon seriously is who would question her? The best persons who could question her were blood relatives, her mother, her brother, all dead. The other sister Mannar Kumari would not appear before the High Court at Allahabad, though she came to Delhi to affirm a notarised statement. Even then she joined her sister in describing the health and mental incapacity of their mother. The other sister had plenty of opportunities to come to Allahabad and depose more and further, but she was neither kept away or herself kept away from these proceedings. Her elder brother, Mahendra Pratap Singh, had died and his estate is in issue. The other brother, Wing Commander Narendra Pratap Singh, also died while this matter was pending and she never appeared in Court to take issues with him. Her nephews, the sons of Narendra Pratap Singh, joined her in giving direct evidence in their pleadings on the state of their grand mother. Padam Kumari herself, mother to both Nirmala Rana and Manhar Kumari, was in Allahabad, but was prevented from deposing in Court by Ajit Singh Panwar. But the Court was fortunate to have the assessment of its Commission. This Commission examined Padam Kumari and gave a finding that the state of mind of Padma Kumari Devi showed incoherence, difficulty in comprehending and no capacity to understand. This only confirms the aver ments of the two daughters that from 1985 to 1992 their mother was incapable of an independent, mind, was mentally in capacitated, incapable of comprehending. This was the reason that she was kept away from the Court so that the truth can never surface that Padam Kumari Devi was a frail, feeble and mentally handicapped person until she died. Now of any act which may be said to be done on behalf of Padam Kumari willhave to be viewed by the Court from this angle. 23. When Wing Commander, Narendra Pratap Singh, was applying for letters of administration on the gaffe and effects of his elder brother, Mahendra Pratap Singh, by Testamentary Case 13 of 1986 (converted into Testamentary Suit No. 2 of 1988), the first objection (A-13) was filed in January 1987. It came as an affidavit, not an objection by any blood relative as at that time, apart from Wing Commander, Narendra Pratap Singh, the brother who had applied for letters of administration, there were three other blood relatives; the mother, Padam Kumari, one sister, Nirmala Rana; and the other Manhar Kumari. Ex cept Nirmala Rana who supported the case of her brother Wing Commander Narendra Pratap Singh, whatever it may be, the others either did not appear or were prevented from appearing. 24. The objection was filed by one Ajit Singh Panwar, a stranger claiming to act as an agent of Padam Kumari on the basis of a general power of attorney. He claimed that he is well acquainted with the facts of the case as he holds a general power of attorney. He claimed on oath in paragraph 9 of the objections (A- 13) that the will which was being relied and acted upon by Wing Com mander, Narendra Pratap Singh, (in his words)". . . . . the alleged will is not executed by late Mahendra Pratap Singh and the same is a manufactured document. This case has been filed only to harass the applicant-objector who is the mother of the petitioner as well as the deceased. The deceased had, in fact, executed one will dated 7- 8-1985 and a codicil dated 27-11-1985. " The power of at torney-holder claiming to be acting on behalf of the Padam Kumari was making al legations that a son was dispossessing his mother on the estate of his brother. The statement was made on personal knowledge on oath. The statement was made by a power of attorney-holder. The principal who is supposed to have given the power of attor ney was incapable and incapacitated from delegating her authority to elect an agent. The deponent, the power of attorney-holder, Ajit Singh Panwar, had not an ticipated that five years later, the daughter of Padam Kumari, will be filing a letter of Padam Kumari herself and the same letter would be relied upon by the grandsons of Padam Kumari and the wife of her another deceased son, to show that Padam Kumari Devi was impaired mentally. From hereinafter the contrast between the statements apparatus the truth from the false. The factor in the agent of Padam Kumari had been foreseen that there lay a statement of Padam Kumari herself in her letter of 11 February 1985, a letter written six months before the first will of 7 August 1985 and nine months of the codicil dated 27 Novem ber, 1985. Padam Kumari is said to have been conscious and aware of a will or a codicil supposedly of her elder son made in August 1985 and November 1985 respec tively. But the same Padam Kumari told her daughter in early in 1985, that she has lost her mental faculties. She wrote: 'i have lost my memory. I do not remember anything and I am finding it difficult to get on in my life. " The issue now is not on the facts that there was a will, assuming there was, but of a testator, a son, to devolve his estate as an inheritance, with a deliberate intention, on a mother who by her mental incapacity could not hold it, and this son knew of this handicap and incapacity of his mother, a natural consequence of old age, and yet made a bequest. The mother's letter of 11 February 1985 accepts that she had ap prehended that her loss of memory and depleting mental faculties may be taken ad vantage of by some one. With what con fidence can the Court rely on this will or codicil when six months or nine months prior to the documents alleged to be recorded by the elder son (Mahendra Pratap Singh) this lady, Padam Kumari had told her children that she has lost her mental facul ties. The circumstances now were such that the principal on whose behalf Ajit Singh Panwar was acting was not capable of looking after herself including her material needs nor was in a position to take hold of herself. The objections of the caveator, under the cloak and in reality Ajit Singh Panwar, acting on a power of attorney is worthless and cannot confer any delegation nor authority in an agent. It is unethical and immoral, because, Padam Kumari who was supposed to have been the principal has been shown beyond reasonable doubt without mental capacity to give any instruc tions. This is witnessed by her letter in Nepali to her daughter, the letter dated 11 February 1985 (A-13) (Testamentary Suit No. 11 of 1995) and the statement of the other daughter recorded on oath, that is, of Nirmala Rana, (A-20/89), (Testamentary suit No. I'l of 1995), in the same case. 25. On 16 January 1987, an application was filed before the Testamentary Judge which was supported by an affidavit. The application was supposed to be on behalf of Padma Kumari Devi. The application is A-13/1 and the affidavit is A-13/5. These were filed in Testamentary Suit No. 2 of 1988. The application is signed by counsel Mr. Prabhu Kant Mishra. The affidavit on behalf of Padma Kumari Devi has been affirmed by Ajit Singh Panwar claiming to be holder of general power of attorney and Pairokar (agent ). Mr. P. K. Mishra has already made a statement before the Court that he had never seen his client until she came to Al lahabad, in January 1992, reference orders recorded in order dated 22 May, 1992 (supra) in Testamentary Suit No. 2 of 1988 (Testamentary Case No. 13of 1988 ). 26. Later on in this case, Testamentary Case No. 2 of 1988 an objection was filed of Padam Kumari. This is A-20. This counter affidavit was filed on 15 October 1987. The affidavit claimed to be of Padam Kumari Devi was affirmed in Dehradun on 16 Sep tember, 1987, before a notary public. Coun sel who is supposed to have been acting on behalf of Padam Kumari was Mr. P. K. Mish ra, Advocate. He received a tailor made af fidavit from Dehradun. Had he met his client? Who was his client? The power of attorney holder. Ajit Singh Panwar, acting as an agent or the principal, Padam Kumari, herself? 27. The affidavit of the power of attor ney holder not of Padma Kumari Devi had already taken the stand that the will on which Wing Commander Narendra Pratap Singh relies is a forged document. Padma Kumari Devi if she could give her version was tied down by the objection made by her agent who claims to have her power of attor ney. The case for Padma Kumari Devi had already Keen outlined by her agent that the mother would oppose her son. Padma Kumari Devi, it is claimed, filed an objec tion along with a caveat about eight months after the agent had already taken a stand for her to oppose her son Wing Commander Narendra Pratap Singh. The objection of Padraa Kumari Devi on an affidavit, A-20, accompanies a caveat A-21. The affidavit as an objection, A-20, is dated 16 September 1987 The caveat is dated 10 October 1987. She repeats, provided the affidavit is of Padma Kumari Devi, the objections already taken by her agent. Why did Padma Kumari Devi, if she ultimately had to file her objec tions, not do so earlier and instead per mitted an agent or power of attorney holder to depute for her in a testamentary matter. Family disputes cannot be resolved by taking stands through an agent. The crucial question which faces the Court at every given time in this case is whether Padma Kumari Devi was in a mental state to give instructions at all. In February 1985 she herself is conscious of the fact of her failing memory, ill health and impaired mental capacity. This situation could not have im proved two years later. The affidavit which came as an objection eight months after the objections of the agent (Ajit Singh Panwar) both are questionable. Assuming that the contents of the will of Mahendra Pratap Singh offered by Narendra Pratap Singh may be questionable, is one aspect of the matter. The contents would be attributed to the author. But for an agent of a natural heir (mother) to make an allegation against a son is itself without authority and misplaced in a testamentary case. The authority, of course, was never there and lacking under the law. Padma Kumari Devi was in no state of mind to authorise an agent nor she had an independent mental disposition to rationalise that the will of her elder son may be forged. 28. Then, there is something odd about the pleadings submitted by or on behalf of Padma Kumari Devi. The age of Padma Kumari Devi, at least, ought not to be in issue. The issue is not between her son and daughters. This discrepancy of Padma Kumari Devi's age is with her agent. Sons and daughters do know their mother's age. In this very case, Testamentary Suit No. 2 of 1988 (filed as Testamentary Case No. 13 of 1986), the age of Padma Kumari Devi has been given by various persons thus. Firstly, so-called agent in Ajit Singh Panwar arran ges the following declaration of age. The so-called affidavit of Padma Kumari Devi, A-20, gave her age in 1987 'about 76 years'. This implies that Padma Kumari Devi in the year 1991- 92 would be about eighty two years. Ajit Singh Panwar arranges to file a Doctor's certificate in January, 1992 (A-2/10) which gives the age of Padma Kumari Devi as "about 87 years". This implies that in the year 1987, five years earlier Padma Kumari Devi would be eighty-two years, Ajit Singh Panwar in his affidavit, A-33, affirmed in January 1992, declares the age of Padma Kumari Devi as eighty-seven years, implying thereby that five years prior in 1987, Padma Kumari Devi would be about 82 years of age. The question arises even if Ajit Singh Panwar's version has to be taken how could Padma Kumari Devi gives her age as seventy six years in September 1987. Was this affidavit of Padma Kumari or it was arranged to be an affidavit of Padma Kumari Devi? On the other hand the deceased son of Padma Kumari Devi, Mahendra Pratap Singh in his will, dated 25 November 1985 (A-3/12) gives a declaration describing his mother's age as 82 years in 1985. The mother's age is referred to in late Mahendra Pratap Singh's will at page 12 in the-fifth line. Thus, by all reliable accounts this leaves Padma Kumari Devi at about 87 years of age in 1991-92. In 1987 she was about eighty-two years of age. She was not 76 years. In 1987 she was too far gone in her memory and mental capacity to make any declaration whether they be the contents of the objection, A-20, or even her age. The affidavit or objection of Padma Kumari Devi opposing her son Wing Commander Narendra Pratap Singh casting allegations of forgery on her only surviving son is a questionable document. Mothers rarely cast such allegations on their progenies and ex perience of life shows that they would rather suffer the situation, then, come out with such strong insinuating allegations against their children casting reflection of moral turpitude on their sons and daughters. The words put in the mouth of Padma Kumari Devi in her affidavit cannot be attributed to her. She had no mental faculties. She had no mental capacity to know what she was saying and on which document she is appending her signatures. 29. Counsel claiming to appear for Padma Kumari Devi, Mr. P. K. Mishra, Ad vocate, had already made a statement that he had never met Padma Kumari Devi, ex cept when she arrived at Allahabad in January 1992. This means that between the affidavit claimed to be of Padma Kumari Devi sworn at Dehradun on 16 September 1987, despite the memoranda of appearance (B-4) in favour of this counsel given in the year 1987, until 1992, counsel has never met his client. Thus, from the record it is clear that the counsel was not aware that his client was not in a position to give instruc tions. She did not have an independent dis position, nor mental capacity to instruct counsel. Counsel engaged had never met her. This Court has already given a finding that counsel for Padma Kumari Devi, Mr. P. K. Mishra, was not clear on whose instruc tions he was acting. This aspect can be found in paragraph 31 of the Court's order dated 22 May, 1992 (AIR 1993 Allahabad 145 ). This implies that any objection or any caveat which has been filed to oppose the petition of Wing Commander, Narendra Pratap Singh, was by a person who did not have the capacity to comprehend. The agent's authority was already, without authority somewhere from the year 1985 when Padma Kumari Devi her self was telling her daughter that she does not have the mental stability nor memory and was finding it difficult to get on in life with these two handicaps. The petition of Wing Com mander Narendra Pratap Singh, was virtually ex-parte from the day when it came. 30. Now the other case which was filed as a parallel to the one filed by Wing Com mander Narendra Pratap Singh, is Testamen tary Case No. 27 of 1987 (Testamentary Suit No. 10 of 1995 ). Who filed this case? The 3 year is 1987. It was filed on 22 December 1987 at the close of the session of the High Court in the year 1987. Did Padam Kumari come to Allahabad to file this case? It is a petition seeking a grant as letters for administration (A-3 ). The petition is supported by an af fidavit. The affidavit was verified on 16 Sep tember 1987 at Dehradun. A person by the name of B. K. Gupta, Advocate, High Court 'practicing at Dehradun verified that the person who affirmed the affidavit was known to him from the perusal of papers produced by her, The contents of the af fidavit are supposed to have been verified by Padma Kumari, paragraphs 1 to 16, from personal knowledge. Did the person who identified Padma Kumari only from the perusal of papers produced by her was aware of the mental state of Padma Kumari? The affidavit does not even given the age of Padma Kumari. Padma Kumari may have signed the verification, but she had herself indicated to her family of her mental state. She may have made a statement, but who recalled the events for her when she could remember nothing? Did she make state ments on her own or she was tutored to make this statement? She had already said on record two years ago (from the filing of this case) to her daughter in a letter (in Nepali), in effect, that "mujhe KUCH YAAD NAHIN RAHTA". Padma Kumari was making an affirmation on oath, in this case Testamentary Case No. 27 of 1987, and there is a very fundamental but, did she understand what she was verifying or stating in her affidavit? She knew only Nepali. She hardly understood Hindi is what her daughter told the Court. She knew no English. The affidavit of Padam Kumari which supports her, petition seeking letters of administration on her son's estate does not say that whatever she has stated in the affidavit in English has been explained to her in the vernacular whatever be the lan guage of her use. Again a tailor made af fidavit verified at Dehradun was placed before the Court on 21 December 1987. Counsel, who represented Padam Kumari, Mr. P. K. Mishra, Advocate, had already indicated that he had never seen his client. It follows that he had no knowledge on the mental faculties of his client. He was given a sworn affidavit accompanying a petition which affidavit was affirmed in Dehradun and he filed it in Court mechanically. Padam Kumari came to Allahabad to give her tes timony but she was not permitted to appear before the Court, but was kept away from the Court by Ajit Singh Panwar. 31. At the expense of repetition, Padam Kumari herself told her daughter on her mental state of health in her letter dated 11-2- 8sta-13/16) (Testamentary Suit No. 2, of 1988), Five years later her other daughter, Nirmala Rana, made a statement on oath before the High Court, referring to the year 1987. Nirmala Rana, made a state ment on oath on the mental state of her mother that "unakiyaddastshakti BAHUT KAM HO GAI THI. UNHONE MERE LARAKE KO BHI NAHIN PAHACHANA. BAAT KARANE PER ULTA SULTA JAWAB DETI THEEN. (Recorded on Sheet No. A-56/4 in Tes tamentary - Suit No. 2 of 1988 ). Nirmala Rana's states that her mother's capacity to remember things had become very feeble. She did not even recognise her son. In con versation she spoke incoherently. A grand mother could not recognise her grand son. A daughter assessed her memory at an all time low. A daughter comprehended that her mother had become incoherent in her talk. On the other hand Mannar Kumari her other daughter has filed a letter dated 11-2-1985 written in Nepali, (Exhibit No. A- 13/16 in Testamentary Suit No. 2 of 1988), a letter written by Padam Kumari herself that she had lost her memory. These are state ments made by the person herself, and for tified by the assessments of two daughters that their mother was too far gone mentally. Padam Kumari from 1985 to 1992 was men tally unstable. A person without memory and comprehension. 32. The petition which was arranged as if filed by her or brought to Court on her behalf being Testamentary Case No. 27 of 1987 (Testamentary Suit No. 10 of 1995) seeking letters of administration on the es tate predeceased son (Late Mahendra Pratap Singh) was a case in which no per sonal instructions were given by the client to counsel. Counsel at Allahabad, Mr. P. K Mishra, had never met his client, Padam Kumari. Padam Kumari may have signed the letter, may have signed the petition or verified it, but Padam Kumari was not in position to comprehend by either (a) giving instructions to counsel and (b) make state ments whatever they may be. The petition was being filed by a person acting as an agent under a power of attorney when the effec tiveness of the authority to act had ceased. The faith or the fiduciary capacity so vested, if it ever did, in Ajit Singh Panwar had erroded early in 1985 when Padam Kumari had lost her mental capacity to act inde pendently. This is assuming that she readily assigned a power of attorney with full con sciousness and having the mental capacity and free will to do so. It was in these cir cumstances that the Court had wanted to know as a first hand account on who exactly and in what mental and physical state Padam Kumari was, Testamentary Case No. 27 of 1987 (Testamentary Suit No. 10 of 1987) brought, filed and conducted by Ajit Singh Panwar was tailored for Padam Kumari; she was in no state to pursue it. 33. On 30 October, 1992, Nirmala Rana, daughter of Padam Kumari, Messrs. Lav Singh and Abhimanyu Singh, sons of late Wing Commander Narendra Pratap Singh, and grandsons of Padam Kumari, filed an application (A-20) (Testamentary Suit No. 11 of 1995), under Order XVI, Rule 14 giving certain facts on record. The affidavit was affirmed by Manjula Singh, wife of the late Wing Commander Narendra Pratap Singh. The purpose of the applica tion was that the Court on its own summon parties to the suit. In this regard it may be submitted that the persons sought to be summoned were three, Smt. Manhar Kumari, daughter of Padam Kumari, Smt. Parnita Panwar, wife of Ajit Singh Panwar, otherwise daughter of, aforesaid Manhar Kumari and the grand daughter of Padam Kumari and third one Mohini Singh, aunt of Ajit Singh Panwar, the latter's father's sister. In so far as the first two are con cerned, they are no strangers to any suit because in the family genealogy which is given in para 4 of the application Manhar Kumari is accepted as a daughter of Padam Kumari and Parnita is accepted as the grand daughter of Padam Kumari through Man har Kumari, Manhar Kumari as a first de gree relative was already under notice. 34. Appended to this application is a letter exchanged between the Superinten dent of Police, Dehradun and the District Magistrate, Dehradun. This is letter No. AST/48/dm/1987 is dated 4 July, 1987, (A/20/95-98 in Testamentary Suit No. 11 of 1995 ). This letter of the Superintendent of Police draws the attention of the District Magistrate that a statement of Padam Kumari Devi has to be taken to find out whether she is being kept by Smt. Jaswant Singh (Ajit Singh Panwar's mother) forcibly or she is living there of her own accord. The Superintendent of police is intimating the District Magistrate that he had received a complaint from Smt. Nirmala Rana, daughter of Padam Kumari Devi, that her mother (Padam Kumari Devi) has been lodged against her wishes by Ajit Singh Pan-war at the residence of her sister at Baroda and that her mother is being administered intoxicating drugs and injections and that she has information that a will and Vakalatnamas have been obtained from her mother as a design to possess the properties and the estate of her mother. The Superintendent of police is intimating the District Magistrate that he has a complaint from Nirmala Rana that the Kalidas Marg residence at Dehradun had been locked and that her mother had been kept elsewhere. This letter places on record that the Superintendent of Police had ordered the Station Officer, Police Sta tion Kotwali, that he must establish contact with Padam Kumari Devi and arrange to give access to Smt. Nirmala Rana to meet her mother. The Superintendent of police places on record that Ajit Singh Panwar did not permit Nirmala Rana to meet her mother. The Superintendent of Police places on record that Nirmala Rana, who otherwise resides in Nepal had to leave without meeting her mother and when Ajit Singh Panwar found out that Nirmala Rana had left for Delhi to go by air to Kathmandu, thereafter, he arranged to send Padam Kumari Devi accompanied by Thakur Kishan Singh and one Govind Sharma, a lawyer to his residence. The Superintendent of Police mentions in this letter that Thakur Kishan Singh is the former State Minister as well as a former Member of Parliament and Member of Legislative Assembly. When the aforesaid Thakur Kishan Singh and Govind Sharma came to the residence of Superin tendent of Police, the latter -indicated to them that it was not he who had wanted to see Padam Kumari Devi, but Nirmala Rana, her daughter, who had to leave for Kath mandu disappointed without meeting her mother. The Superintendent of Police again places on record in his letter that at the end of May (1987), Nirmala Rana returned with her youngest son to see her mother, when he had directed the Station Officer, Police Sta tion Kotwali, that he must locate Padam Kumari Devi at the residence of Thakur Kishan Singh, but the police was told that Padam Kumari Devi is with the elder daughter of Smt. Jaswant Singh (Ajit Singh Panwar's mother) at Delhi. The name of this elder daughter Smt. Jaswant Singh is given as Neeta Beri. Padam Kumari Devi was not found at this place. Further investigation revealed that Padam Kumari Devi was seen at the residence of Smt. Jaswant Singh, House No. 323, Vasant Vihar. This informa tion was given to Smt. Nirmala Rana. The Superintendent of Police records that Nir mala Rana complained to him that her mother is being hidden and she is being denied access in meeting her mother. The Superintendent of police gave directions that Padam Kumari Devi be brought to her residence at Kalidas Marg. Padam Kumari Devi was brought to 11 Kalidas Marg, but Ajit Singh Panwar was throughout present there and did not permit the privacy be tween mother and daughter. Smt. Nirmala Rana complained that she desired to meet her mother alone without the presence of Ajit Singh Panwar so that she could find out for herself whether her mother was being maltreated and whether her estate is being usurped wrongfully and illegally by the, aforesaid, Ajit Singh Panwar. She indicated to Superintendent of Police that Ajit Singh Panwar's wife Parnita had already left him and resides with her mother at Baroda. The Superintendent of Police records that Nirmal Rana indicated him that she has infor mation that since May 1986, when Ajit Singh Panwar has taken control of Padam Kumari Devi, he has, in reference to an amount of Rs. 1 lac 40 thousand obtained a power of attorney and has withdrawn this amount and that the aforesaid Ajit Singh Panwar is playing with the estate of her mother and a will has already been obtained by him from her mother, and she was not satisfied that for his illegal gains, he could harm her mother so that whatever Tes tamentary disposition he may have ob tained, her mother may not be able to change it subsequently and it is in these circumstances that he continues to hide his mother and keeps her in his control and custody and is not permitting her to meet her mother. The Superintendent of Police records that he had given directions to the Station Officer, Kotwali, that he should en sure that Padam Kumari Devi be brought at her residence at 11 Kalidas Marg at 1400 hrs. so that she could meet her daughter, Nirmala Rana. The Superintendent of Police records that Padam Kumari Devi was not brought to her residence at 11 Kalidas Marg and instead a message was sent by the family or' Ajit Singh Panwar that Padam Kumari Devi is ill and she does not want to come. Thereafter, the Superintendent of Police places on record that the station of ficer, Kotwali, brought Padam Kumari Devi at 9'o clock in the night to Kwality Hotel accompanied by Smt. Jaswant Singh (mother of Ajit Singh Panwar ). At this, the Superintendent of Police records that Smt. Nirmala Rana met him and desired that he (Superintendent of Police) should accom pany her and the present at the time when she meets her mother because she was con victed that Ajit Singh Panwar will not per mit her to talk with her mother. The Super intendent of Police records that the Station Officer, Kotwali, had indicated to him that Ajit Singh Panwar is not in town and he gave an assurance to Nirmala Rana that a meet ing between her mother and her will be arranged and there will be no impediment to this meeting. The Superintendent of Police records that 9. 20 p. m. he himself drove over to Kwality Hotel and was shock ed to find that Ajit Singh Panwar, with his mother and the lawyer, Govind Sharma, and others, was standing outside the hotel where the younger son of Nirmala Rana was also present and he complained that Ajit Singh Panwar was not permitting a meeting with his grand mother and that his mother (Nir mala Rana) was making an effort to talk to his grandmother (Padam Kumari Devi), but he was not being permitted to join the meet ing. When the Superintendent of Police en quired on who had stopped him from meet ing his grandmother, he pointed to Ajit Singh Panwar. The letter of the Superinten dent of Police also records that the Inspec tor, Kotwali, Sri B. S. Panwar, was also present at that place. The Superintendent of Police questioned the Inspector that the lat ter had indicated that Ajit Singh Panwar was out of town, but instead was available at the hotel. On this Smt. Jaswant Singh, that is, Ajit Singh Panwar's mother, took exception to the enquiries made by the Superinten dent of Police and instead questioned him why he. was interfering in personal matters. He told Smt. Jaswant Singh that he was making routine enquiries as there were complaints that Smt. Padam Kumari Devi was not being permitted to meet her daughter. When the Superintendent of Police asked Smt. Jaswant Singh why she is present at this place, at this Smt. Jaswant Singh retorted that she had brought Padam Kumari Devi as she is living with her and also threatened that if he (Superintendent of Police) pursues the matter she would report the matter to the Prime Minister's House. In these circumstances, the Superin tendent of Police was advising the District Magistrate that regard being had to the over all situation it would be advisable that the District Magistrate should arrange to record the statement of Padam Kumari Devi, but at that time it should be ensured that Smt. Jaswant Singh or Ajit Singh Pan-war, that is, the mother and the son, are not present and there is no undue influence so that whatever is stated is done with a free will and that enquiries about a will and a power of attorney can be answered freely and further she (Padam Kumari Devi) answers specifically whether Ajit Singh Pan-war had obtained a will and a power of attorney from her. The Superintendent of Police intimated the District Magistrate that he has information that Ajit Singh, on the pretext that he is taking Padam Kumari Devi to his residence for one day, has since that time detained her and has not per mitted Padam Kumari Devi to be free in her movements nor permitting her to reside at her residence. 35. What the Superintendent of Police was intimating and advising the District Magistrate were the apprehensions of Nir mala Rana, daughter of Padam Kumari Devi, and the information which he had received of a will and a power of attorney being obtained by Ajit Singh Panwar from Padam Kumari Devi, was not without basis. 36. Counsel for Nirmala Rana, and the sons of Wing Commander Narendra Pratap Singh, Mr. P. M. Gupta, drew the attention of the Court that the letter of the Superin tendent of Police to the District Magistrate is dated 4 July, 1987. The statement of Nir mala Rana that her mother was in bondage and had been illegally confined by Ajit Singh Panwar was a continuing situation, circumstances of which are borne from the record of even independent persons, like the Superintendent of Police and District Magistrate. Padam Kumari Devi herself places on record on the state of her memory and mental incapacity. The illegal confine ment of Padam Kumari has been noticed by the Superintendent of Police and the Dis trict Magistrate. Ajit Singh Panwar and his mother were claiming political clout to even threaten the Superintendent of Police, who has already placed on record that Ajit Singh 1992. The other counsel did not appear in this case. Counsel at the Allahabad High Court, Mr. Prabha Kant Mishra, had ac knowledged that he never saw the face of Padam Kumari Devi until she came to Al lahabad on 19 January, 1992. He filed what he got. So that mere filing of these docu ments, the caveat A-21 and the objections A-20, do not reflect anything on the state of the mind of Padam Kumari Devi, her mental stability or unstability or the capacity to have a free will. Some questions do arise. Why did Padam Kumari not date her signa tures? Why are the signatures on the caveat or the objections, each one of them, without a date? Had Padam Kumari signed on the day when she verified these documents? Is it possible that Padam Kumari may have signed on some other date prior to the verification? Is it possible that Padam Kumari may have signed on blank sheets undated? These answers will never come because Padam Kumari was a defendant in this Testamentary Case. She came to Al lahabad, She was prevented from giving her testimony. These are the questions which the Court would have put to her, provided she was in a mental state to answer, which the Court would have observed also. The Court was prevented from examining her, whether as plaintiff or defendant, by Ajit Singh Panwar. Padam Kumari is now dead. The Court will now draws its presumptions under the law. 39. Was Padam Kumari was in a posi tion to object, regard being had to her men tal incapacity, to Testamentary Case No. 13 of 1986 (Testamentary Suit No. 2 of 1988), filed by the Wing Commander Narendra Pratap Singh seeking letters of administra tion in the matter of the goods and estate of his elder brother (Mahendra Pratap Singh) on the basis of a will left by the latter? If the mental incapacity of Padam Kumari is being projected and reflected upon by two of her daughters and that this mental incapacity already existed early in 1985, any act sub sequent would be questionable. The two daughters were the best persons to reflect upon the state of the mind of Padam Kumari during her life-time. The daughters were never contradicted, as of date. Padam Kumari herself wrote to one of her daughters fully conscious of the fact that her memory was impaired and she did not remember events. This was the letter of 11 February 1985. That Padam Kumari was being held in bondage and was not free to take her decisions has been certified on record by senior officials of the state ad ministration, being the District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police, Deh-radun. This is the exchange of correspon dence between the Superintendent of Police and the District Magistrate. 40. With this background, the Court will now take up the pleadings, apart from those of Padam Kumari which have already been discussed, which pleadings have been signed by her power of attorney holder. During the life-time of Padam Kumari, two cases were pending at the High Court. These were matters relating to the goods and estate of her elder son Mahendra Pratap Singh. The only issue is whether Padam Kumari was a serious rival or a claimant and contender to the estate of her deceased son or put it in other words, did she really intend to oppose Wing Commander Narendra Pratap Singh, also her son, in seeking letters of administration to manage his, brother's estate? Further, did she have the will or an independent disposition to set up a chal lenge to Wing Commander Narendra Pratap Singh, her younger son in taking charge of the estate of the late Mahendra Pratap Singh; his elder brother, otherwise her elder son. Who was making the challenge on record? 41. Apart from the pleadings of Padam Kumari undated, verified at Dehradun, when counsel who represented her had not seen her nor settled the pleadings, there are other pleadings and documents which throw reflection on the health and mental state of Padam Kumari. 42. A pleading by a power of attorney hc'der acting on behalf of Padam Kuman, that la, as her agent, comes on record of Testamentary Case No. 13 of 1986 (Tes tamentary Suit No. 2 of 1988) as an affidavit of Ajit Singh, son of Jaswant Singh, resident of 14 New Road, Dehradun. This is A-33/3. It is in two parts. The first part is an applica tion, A-33/1a-33/2. This is signed by coun sel purporting to act on behalf of Padam Kuman committing to the Court that Padam Kumari, who was in Allahabad. Otherwise required to appear on 21 January 1992, will now appear before the Court on 23 January 1992, as she is in Allahabad, but is tired and has been advised bed rest. This application would have been enough if the prayer made in it was genuine and bonafide to the extent that there was a commitment that the defendant as a witness had given instructions to counsel to take another date by committing to the Court that she would appear instead of 21 January on 23 January, 1992. The second part of the pleading, A-33, is an affidavit. The affidavit is not of Padam Kumari, the person on whose behalf the application has been moved. The affidavit is of Ajit Singh Panwar. This is A-33/3 to A-33/10. After the affidavit is a certificate of a Doctor, in Allahabad, that Padam Kumari has been advised bed rest for two days. For the Court this only means that Padam Kumari was in Allahabad. The affidavit of Ajit Singh declares to the Court that he as "the deponent is the power of attorney (sic) Smt. Padam Kumari and as such he is well acquainted with the facts deposed to below. A photostat copy of general power of attor ney is Annexure No. 1. " He says that Smt. Padam Kumari was directed to appear in this Court at 11 a. m. on 21-1-1992", that "it is not possible for Smt. Padam Kumari to ap pear in the Court on 21-1-1992 for the fol lowing reason. . . . . . " she is about 87 years, she is feeling extremely weak on account of ex ertion of a long journey which she has un dertook in order to reach Allahabad in the afternoon on 19-1-1992 by travel from Deh-radun on account of this exertion and cold (sic) age she has been advised to take com plete bed rest. It is not possible for her to attend the Court. " 43. The affidavit mentions of Padam Kumari being medically examined by a local doctor and of a medical certificate advising bed rest. The affidavit in paragraph 6 says "that Padam Kumari Devi can however ap pear in this Court after two days. " Thus, the first time that the court was seeing a power of attorney, for whatever its worth, it is not the original. It is a photocopy. The so-called power of attorney is supposed to have been executed on 1 September, 1987. It is verified by a notary. It is not registered. It is signed by Padam Kumari in Hindi. The text of the power of attorney is in English. Did Padam Kumari understand English? Did Padam Kumari even understand Hindi fluently? Is it not a fact that Padam Kumari herself writ ing to her daughter, Manhar Kumari, in her letter dated 11 February, 1985 stated that she was losing her memory and did not remember things and was having difficulty in getting on in life. Her statement in her letter to her daughter in her own words was "ab TO SABSE BARI SAMASYA YAH HAI Kl HUMARI YADDAST BILKUL KUM HO GAI HAI". In her statement Nirmala Rana was specifically asked on what was the mental capacity of her mother in May, 1987 when she was making an attempt to have a union with her mother with the help of the Superintendent of Police, Dehradun, as Padam Kumari was being detained by Ajit Singh, Nirmala Rana says in her statement that 'unki YADDAST SHAKTI BAHUT HI KUM HO GAI THI UN-HONE MERE LARAKE KO BHINAHIN PAHACHANA BAAT KARNE PER ULTA PULTA JAWAB DETI THI. " In May 1987, a person who had personal knowledge on the state of the mental faculties of her mother, a person who had observed the mental capacity of the old lady, and was no other person that, her daughter, reveals her mother to have lost her mental faculties and was mentally incapacitated. 44. Sons and daughters are in the best position to give an account on the state of the health or the mental capacity of their parents. According to Nirmala Rana, Padam Kumari did not even have an inde pendent disposition nor a normal mind, but was impaired with a failing memory and a mind which spoke incoherently. Padam Kumari herself reflected on her mental in capacity to her other daughter, Manhar Kumari, letter dated 11 February, 1985, (Paper No. A-43/63 in Testamentary Suit No. 2 of 1988 ). This is the other daughter, Manhar Kunari, who has filed this letter with an affidavit. In the circumstances, two daughters speak on the mental incapacity of their mother, and the mother herself talks of an impaired memory; the period being February, 1985 to May 1987. Nirmala Rana was already complaining that Ajit Singh was about to obtain a will or a power of attorney. This is May, 1985. The apprehension or the suspicion of Nirmala Rana are borne out from the fact that the Superintendent of Police, Dehradun, placed on record in his letter (Paper No. A-20/95 in Testamentary Suit No. 2 of 1988) to the District Magistrate that the old lady, Padam Kumari, is being detained illegally by Ajit Singh and the family members have apprehensions of documents being obtained by, the aforesaid, Ajit Singh from the person detained, Padam Kumari. The documents apprehended, which could be obtained for signatures, may be a will, or a power of attorney or a tes tamentary disposition. 45. The power of attorney which Ajit Singh relies upon and for the first time place before the Court, and that also a copy as his authority to act en behalf of the person whom he represents, is dated 1 September, 1987. Was this the document which Nirmala Rana was apprehending could possibly be obtained from her mother when the latter had no mental capacity to give consent on it? Padam Kumari was already in a bad state of health having lost her independent dis position, memory and mental capacity, all three. The power of attorney on which Ajit Singh claims to act is not one which, under the circumstances, inspires confidence with the Court nor permits a relationship of a principal and agent. 46. Where is the occasion to rely on a power of attorney to explain that Padam Kumari cannot appear before the Court as a witness on a date fixed when Padam Kumari herself is available and has arrived in Al lahabad. Can the agent submit without per mitting the principal to do so? If a counsel had been engaged, a statement by him was enough to seek an adjournment. The com mitment which was made by the power of attorney holder on behalf of Padam Kumari that she is very tired and has been advised rest by a Doctor is on an affidavit by Ajit Singh acting on a power of attorney. Padam Kumari was available. She had signed on a Vakalatnama (B-14) in this very case filed in January, 1986 (Testamentary Suit No. 2 of 1988 ). She is supposed to have signed objec tions following the caveat on 15 October, 1987 (verified at Dehradun on 16 Septem ber, 1987 ). Why did she not sign the applica tion and affidavit A-3 seeking another date on an adjournment when she was present at Allahabad and the affidavit is sworn by a person who is supposed to hold her power of attorney? Was this a lapse? Or is it that she was in such a state that she, in fact, could not sign at all? This is best answered by the fact that this application for an adjournment to shift the date of appearance from 21 January, to 23 January, is accompanied by a Doctor's certificate (A-33/10 ). It is dated 21 January, 1992. On the left hand side of the Doctor's certificate is supposed to be a thumb impression of Padam Kumari Devi. The endorsement below, supposed to have been endorsed by the Doctor reads: "attested R. T. I, of Padam Kumari" Sd/ 21-1-1992 This sequence is very unprofessional. Doctor's normally do not carry ink pads to record attestation on the thumb-impressions of their patients. Why was the thumb-impression of Padam Kumari obtained? She could have signed. But, it appears that though Padam Kumari was right in the presence of a Doctor even the Doctor could not manage to obtain her signatures as at that time she was far too gone in her mental state to have any comprehension left to append a signa ture below a Doctor's certificate or, for that mat ter, affirm an affidavit to seek an adjournment. Fortunately, the Court sent a Commission to meet Padam Kumari. The Court has already referred to the impression of the Commission. The Commission reported (Paper No. A-34 in Testamentary Suit No. 2 of 1988) that she had no mind of her own and was acting on instincts. She was not able to write when given a pen to append her signatures. Thus, the series of events when Padam Kumari came to Allahabad to record her statement on the direction of the Court, but was whisked away leads to an irresistible presumption that she was alive but basically as a person who had lost her mind and somebody was fearful that should her state of health and mind be seen and observed by the Court, the consequence of a presumption which may be drawn may be dis astrous. The only person who was to loose out should the Court draws this presumption was Ajit Singh and no other. Finding that it will be difficult to explain the situation should Pacjam Kumari be produced in Court, Ajit Singh did the next best thing to keep her away so that she does not come face to face before the Court. He removed far from the purview of the Court, when he and counsel for the Padam Kumari, were all under the sub-poena of the Court that counsel, principal and agent had to appear. Jumping a sub- peona, in the circumstances in which it was done, is a crime. Padam Kumari did not live to see the day to return to Allahabad and depose before the Court. She died during the summer vacations of 1992. 47. The District Judge, Dehradun in his report A/57/6 (Testamentary Suit No. 2 of 1988) says : "this power of attorney is dated 1-9-1987 executed at Dehradun was attested by Hari Singh, Notary, Advocate. It was never registered in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Dehradun". The District Judge says Hari Singh has expired. Alongwith the report of the District Judge, Dehradun is a report of the Deputy Registrar (Registration), Dehradun. The report is dated 9 June, 1992. It is paper No. A/57/9 on the enquiry which the District Judge made. The Deputy Registrar (Registration), Dehradun intimated that upon verifying from his office and checking up the entire record from the year 1981 to 1991. No power of attorney has been prescribed nor registered, as may have been given by Smt. Padma Kumari Devi as 'mukhtarnama' for Ajit Singh Panwar. The only power of attorney (Mukhtarnama) which lies in his office is of the year 1990. This the power of attorney which has been executed by Raj Kumari Padma Kumari Devi d/o Sri Lt. Col. Kunwar Shamsher Bahadur Singh r/o 59, Rajpur Road, Deh radun in favour of Sri Kunwar Chandra Bahadur Singh s/o late Lt. Col. Kunwar Shamsher Bahadur Singh. A copy of this power of attorney at the office of the Deputy Registrar (Registration), Dehradun has been sent to the High Court by the District Judge, Dehradun, on which the Deputy Registrar (Registration) states that this power of attorney has been cancelled and taken off the records. This power of attor ney is paper No. A/57/10 (Testamentary Suit No. 2 of 1988 ). It is dated 20 April, 1990. It is supposed to be executed by Padma Kumari Devi. The date of execution is 20 April, 1990. It is in favour of Sri Kunwar Chandra Bahadur Singh s/o Lt. Col Kunwar Sham sher Bahadur Singh r/o Nehru Gram, Deh radun. This power of attorney was registered. It was a general power of attor ney which, in paragraph 1 mentions, that the general power of attorney will take posses sion and manage all properties and do all such acts, as may be necessary and ex pedient, for such management. In para graph 2 it gave a general delegation to ap pear and act in all courts. In paragraph 3 it gave a general delegation to file suits and defend cases. In paragraph 4 it delegated power to inspect records in any court or office. In paragraph 5 it gave the delegation to sign and verify pleadings and file them in court or office. In paragraph 6 it gave a delegation to appoint any advocate, pleader, Mukhtar and revenue agents and in paragraph 7 it gave a delegation to sell house, land and immovable properties of every kind, in whole or in part, and to sign, execute, register any deed necessary to ef fectuate such sale of her properties at Mussoorie, to receive earnest money and sale consideration and sign receipts for the same. The question which arises is that if there was a registered power of attorney, already executed, duly registered, at the of fice of the Deputy Registrar (Registration), Dehradun, had Padma Kumari Devi issued more than one power of attorney to more than one person. Between a registered power of attorney of 1 April, 1990 and those which are mere affirmation before the Notary Public, which one will hold? Which agent will actually, truly and bonafide act on behalf of Padma Kumari Devi. The mental incapacity of Padma Kumari Devi is now becoming an established fact and an aspect noticed (a) by Padma Kumari herself, (b) by her daughter Nirmala Rana ard (c) by the other daughter, Manhar Kumari. The men tal incapacity of Padma Kumari had already surfaced as an established fact, in fact, by Padma Kumari herself that she had lost her memory and this aspect was reiterated by her two daughters. It had happened before February, 1985, prior to the year 1987. With this state of mind, that Padma Kumari Devi was already being held in bondage or being detained illegally is a matter of concern be tween the District Magistrate and Superin tendent of Police, Dehradun. 48. In the matter of the goods and es tate of late Mahendra Pratap Singh the elder son of Padma Kumari Devi and brother of Wing Commander Narendra Pratap Singh, the High Court has the record of Testamentary Case No. 27 of 1987 later converted to Suit No. 10 of 1995. The peti tion seeking letters of administration, with a copy of will annexed, is supposed to have been filed by Padma Kumari Devi. The peti tion was verified on 16 September, 1987, at Dehradun. It was filed by a counsel one Prabhu Kant Misra on 21 December, 1987, three months after it was verified. The af fidavit verified at Dehradun on 16 Septem ber, 1987, does not contain the age of the deponent Padma Kumari Devi. There is a signature on each page but no date. At Dehradun the person verifying the affidavit is supposed to have been identified by Ajit Singh. On the internal page 3 of the petition, paper No. A/3, particularly, Paper No. A 3/7, whereas in the previous two pages the signatures though undated, are on the right hand side bottom, on this page they are on the left hand side bottom. There is a signa ture which mentions her name as Padma Kumari Devi. Next to it there is a half signa ture which contains the syllables Padma Kush". This reveals that the scribe first wrote the alphabet 'pa', then combined the al phabet containing the syllable 'dma', then the word 'ku'. Logically, the next alphabet should have been 'ma' so that the word 'maa' could be written but instead the word 'ra' has been written. The signature was left incomplete at that. The other signature on the same page reads 'padma Kra'. The cut ting has not been signed by Padma Kumari. Is it possible that the person who was writ ing this never knew what to write or was not in control of what was being written. Then, assuming that an error had been made in writing, if a signature was being cut, why was the initial not made by the person who wrote it? 49. The wills which have been ap pended, learned counsel who appeared for Wing Commander Narendra Pratap Singh, Mr P. M. Gupta, and now appears for his sister Smt. Nirmala Rana and his wife and children, took pains to show that the signa tures of Mahendra Pratap Singh are on the first page at the end of it. When signing of the word 'singh' it goes between the last line of words 'sampati' and 'ka. He said this could only show that the signature was so carefully written so as to go between these two words of the document or thedocument was typed so carefully so as to avoid the print on the signature. This is in reference to the will dated 7 August, 1985, a copy of which is at page A 3/9 -A 3/12 Testamentary Case No. 27 of 1987 (Testamentary Suit No. 10 of 1995 ). In reference to the codicil dated 27 November 1985, A- 3/13-A3/14 (Testamen tary Case No. 27 of 1987) (Testamentary Suit No. 10 of 1995) counsel draws the at tention of the Court that of the two pages of the document, the first page A 3/13 contains three signatures, one on the left hand side margin and two at the bottom. The two signatures at the bottom do not tally at all. While signing the word 'singh', the word 'gh' in the top signature are very different from the bottom signatures. Then, he desires the Court to notice that the document has been typed over the signatures, unless it could be said that the signature was signed between the document. He desires the Court to notice whether it was possible that there was a signature on a blank paper and the document was being written on it ? 50. Mr. P. M. Gupta, counsel for Nir mala Rana and the widow and two sons of Wing Commander Narendra Pratap Singh points out to the Court that in paragraph 14 of this petition seeking letters of ad ministration, a statement is being made that "no application prior to this had been made to any other Court for probate or letters of administration on the will dated 7-8-1985 and the codicil dated 27- 11-1985, in effect, on the estate of Mahendra Pratap Singh. An application, A/6, was filed by Wing Com mander Narendra Pratap Singh. The ap plication is supported by the personal af fidavit of Wing Commander Narendra Pratap Singh. The application was made under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Proce dure. Wing Commander Narendra Pratap Singh makes a business like statement before the High Court. He states that the case filed by or arranged to be filed by Padma Kumari Devi seeking letters of ad ministration on the basis of the two wills on the estate of Mahendra Pratap Singh, is also shown to have filed a petition for a succes sion certificate under Section 372 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, before the Delhi High Court. This was rejected. There after, Padma Kumari Devi is supposed to have filed a suit/application No. 361 of 1986 before the Sub-Judge, Delhi. The case is pending and he as an opposite party and has already filed a reply, and a replication has also been arranged to be filed by Padma Kumari Devi. The next date fixed in this case for succession, was scheduled for 22 May, 1988. Thus, he had prayed that it would be in the interest of justice that as the two cases pending on the same issue, on substantially the same controversy, the proceedings before the High Court ought to remain stayed. The Delhi case had been filed ear lier. Mr. P. M. Gupta, counsel who repre sented Wing Commander Narendra Pratap Singh, and now represents his sister, wife and sons, desires the Court to notice the record to the extent that the averments which have been made in Testamentary Case No. 27 of 1987 (Testamentary Suit No. 10 of 1995) that no other case has been filed any where in the matter relating to the goods and estate of Mahendra Pratap Singh, on the face of it, was a false statement. He submits that regardless of issues on all the matters before the Court, record for record, whoever signed the pleadings of Case No. 27 of 1987, made a false statement before the High Court that no other case had been filed anywhere as at that very time a case was pending before the Delhi High Court and a case was pending before the Sub-Judge, Delhi. This petition arranged to be filed on behalf of Padma Kumari Devi, he says, should be thrown out on this ground alone. Further, he contends that it is quite possible that assuming Padma Kumari Devi may have signed the pleadings of Testamentary Case No. 27 of 1987, she did not know what she was affirming because by that time it was known that she had no memory and suffered from mental incapacity and she was in capacity with Ajit Singh. In any case, he submits all these cases died with Padma Kumari Devi, who died on 10 June 1992, unless a substitution valid under the law could continue the case. Testamentary Case No. 27 of 1987 (Testamentary Suit No. 10 of 1995) is sup posed to have been filed by Padma Kumari Devi seeking letters of administration on the goods and estate of her elder son Mahendra Pratap Singh. In effect, the petitioner was Padma Kumari Devi. In this Wing Commander Narendra Pratap Singh was objector. Both the objector, Wing Com mander Narendra Pratap Singh, and the petitioner, Padma Kumari Devi, his mother, died. Wing Commander Narendra Pratap Singh, objector in this case, died on 25 March 1992. Padma Kumari Devi, claimed to be the petitioner died on 10 June 1992. Ajit Singh Panwar, after the death of Wing Commander Narendra Pratap Singh, filed application (A-22) at the registry that upon the death of Wing Commander Narendra Pratap Singh his heirs be substituted. These were indicated as his wife Manjula Singh, andhis two sons, Lav Singh aad Abhimanyu Singh. On this the Joint Registrar on 20-5-1992 recorded "issue notice". The applica tion seeking substitution in original juris diction (Testamentary and Intestate juris diction) are to be receive orders direct from the Court and not from the Joint Registrar. 51. Subsequently, Ajit Singh Panwar after the death of Padma Kumari Devi on 10 June, 1992, filed another application, this one in Court. This application was A-22 (wrongly numbered) it was filed on 5 August 1992. In this application he submitted that as he was a legatee under a will of Padma Kumari Devi, therefore, he should be sub stituted as the petitioner. 52. It must be remembered that the application filed by Ajit Singh Panwar on 20 May, 1992 (A-20) to substitute the heirs of the objector and the subsequent application filed on 5 August 1992 (A-22 wrongly num bered) to get himself substituted in refer ence to the petitioner because he was a legatee springs from a misunderstanding about the Testamentary jurisdiction. In Testamentary jurisdiction there is no such thing as A B C v. X YZ. A petition seeking letters of administration or probate is filed by a person who could effectively and with con fidence lay a claim to administer the estate. The estate, in the present case (in which Ajit Singh Panwar was filing applications to seek substitution firstly in place of the objector, of his heirs and, secondly, in place of the petitioner, was having himself substituted) was in the matter of goods of Mahendra Pratap Singh. When Wing Commander Narendra Pratap Singh died it could at best be said that there may be no objector to oppose the petition. The petition, thus, lay as may have been filed by Padma Kumari Devi, as petitioner. When Padma Kumari Devi died on 10 June 1992, it was the end of the case. As long as the Padma Kumari Devi was alive and she was claiming to be as legatee under a will of her predeceased son, the Court sought the heirs and next of kin of Mahendra Pratap Singh to consider the ap propriate person who could be granted let ters of administration by hearing the objec tors. But, as Padma Kumari Devi claiming under a will of her late elder son Mahendra Pratap Singh herself having died, this case cannot be persued. Firstly by the order of 22 May, 1992 and regard being had to the over all circumstances noticed and assessed by the Court in this judgment, whether it was a power of attorney being utilised by Ajit Singh Panwar or claiming under a will, both were extracted from Padma Kumari Devi. Padma Kumari Devi was in no state to sig nify consent on either of the documents. Therefore, the circumstances do not reflect that the Court can with confidence permit Ajit Singh Panwar to be substituted as a legatee. The reason why the Court cannot impose trust on him to hold letters of ad ministration have been sufficiently recorded in the order dated 22 May, 1992 and in this judgment and order. Thus, this case (Testamentary Case No. 27 of 1987) shall perpetually remain off the record and be consigned as having abated. 53. In any case after Padma Kumari Devi died two cases were filed with claims or her estate. The first case was filed as Tes tamentary Case No. 6 of 1992 by Nirmala Rana, her daughter and Lav and Abhimanyu Singh her grandsons from her son Wing Commander Narendra Pratap Singh. Thereafter, Testamentary Case No. 5 of 1993 was filed by Ajit Singh Panwar to lay claim on the assets of Padma Kumari Devi. He, in effect, claimed that as Padma Kumari Devi inherited or was a legatee on the estate of her elder son Mahendra Pratap Singh, and whereas Padma Kumari Devi had left a will in his favour (Ajit Singh Panwar's favour), thus, by implication he is the beneficiary under the will of Padma Kumari Devi including the interest left to her on the estate of Mahendra Pratap Singh. In any case all the controversies can be considered in the other cases, i. e. , Testamentary Case No. 13 of 1986, (Testamentary Suit No. 2 of 1988), now persued by Smt. Manjula Singh, Lav Singh and Abhimanyu Singh. Tes tamentary Case No. 6 of 1992 (Testamentary Suit No. 11 of 1995) filed by Nirmala Rana, daughter of Padma Kumari Devi and her two grandsons, Lav Singh and Abhimanyu Singh, sons of Wing Commander Narendra Pratap Singh and the other case being Tes tamentary Case No. 5 of 1993 (Testamentary Suit No. 12 of 1995), filed by Ajit Singh Panwar on the assets and estate of Padma Kumari Devi. This Court is only considering who should in the Court's discretion ap propriately be granted letters of administra tion to administer the estate of two dead persons, the late Mahendra Pratap Singh, a son who predeceased his mother Padma Kumari Devi and the estate of Padma Kumari Devi, who died subsequently. 54. Ajit Singh is no blood relative but married into the family. Married to the grand daughter of Padma Kumari Devi; the grand-daughter Parinita, through her daughter Manhar Kumari. If Padma Kumari Devi's estate has been inherited by Ajit Singh Panwar and he claims that Padma Kumari inherited the estate of Mahendra Pratap Singh, who pre-deceased her, then, such a claim will be considered amongst all heirs on merits not on the claim of Ajit Singh alone. He cannot be substituted by any logic in the case filed by Padma Kumari Devi when she was seeking letters of ad ministration on the estate of Mahendra Pratap Singh on a claimed will. 55. Padma Kumari Devi, wife of Sri Heera Singh, a resident of Dehradun, died on 10 June 1992, at a Hospital in Dehradun. There is no died of evidence on record that in 1985 she was suffering from severe loss of memory, did not have the mental capacity to take independent decisions and was herself conscious of this fact. This disability of a lost memory was putting her in a difficult situation and it was making it equally dif ficult for her to get on in life. She herself wrote to her daughter that she was in ten sion because of her failing memory and her bondage. 56. It is now on record that she was they power of attorney from a principal who did not have the mental independence nor dis position to freely and voluntarily give con sent nor delegate authority to an agent. An agent acts on behalf of a principal in fiduciary capacity. This principle was abdi cated by the agent who received the power of attorney from a mentally incapacitated, memory impaired Padma Kumari Devi. The fiduciary relationship was abused with im punity abdicating all norms of morality and ethics, both. A relationship between an agent and a principal first rests on utmost good faith to act on behalf of a principal on ethics and morality; law comes afterwards. 57. The Court has discussed the record of the circumstances in which Padma Kumari Devi was made to part with a power of attorney, and this apprehension was noticed by one of her daughters. One of them, Mrs. Nirmala Rana, married to the Chief of the Army Staff in Nepal, specially came to India to complain to the law enfor cement agencies of the illegal detention of her mother held in bondage by Ajit Singh Panwar for the sole purpose of extracting, extorting and usurping her estate both moveable and immoveable. She also specified to the Superintendent of Police and the District Magistrate, both of Dehradun, that she apprehends that Ajit Singh Panwar, otherwise having strained relations with his wife, the granddaughter of Padma Kumari Devi, is in the process of obtaining power of attorneys from her mother and possibly a Testamentary disposition in the nature of a will. What she had indicated to the District Magistrate, Dehradun and the Superintendent of Police, Dehradun, is for tified on record by letters exchanged be tween these two officials. Thus, the ap prehension of a daughter that a mother may be in bondage and in illegal detention by the husband of a grand daughter and further apprehension of extracting testamentary dispositions and power of attorneys from a feeble, infirm, mentally incapacitated old woman, has moved from the realms of mystery to one of record. The allegations made by a daughter and the discussion be tween officials on the activities of Ajit Singh Panwar are apprehensions and allegations to investigate criminal designs, in con spiracy and with the aid of abettors. 58. After Padma Kumari Devi died, her daughter, Mrs. Nirmala Rana, alongwith sons of her brother Wing Commander, Narendra Pratap Singh, namely, Lav Singh and Abhimanyu Singh, applied to the High Court seeking letters of administration. They have stated in their petition that Padma Kumari Devi (mother to Nirmala Rana and grandmother to Lav Singh and Abhimanyu Singh) has left no will and that Padmakumari Devi died intestate. 59. Ajit Singh admits in one of his pleadings, A-15/25, in paragraph 45 of his objections filed in Testamentary Suit No. 11 of 1995 (Testamentary Case 6 of 1992) that Padma Kumari knew Nepali language and she ordinarily used to speak Nepali. Ajit Singh is referring to and attempting to fault the Commissioners' report. On this aspect whatever Padma Kumari spoke was trans lated from Nepali by Nirmala Rana (her daughter ). Ajit Singh Panwar says that Nir mala Rana is an interested party. The fact that Nirmala Rana may be an interested party because she is Padma Kumari Devi's daughter is one aspect of the matter, but Ajit Singh does not dispute that Padma Kumari knew Nepali language and ordinari ly spoke in Nepali. What Ajit Singh Panwar has overlooked is that the fact that Padma Kumari Devi spoke only Nepali is a state ment given by his wife Parinita to the Com mission. The Commission of the Court has recorded "we requested the lady to leave us alone with Shrimati Padma Kumari. The lady did not resist but informec} us that Smt. Padma Kumari knew only Nepali and we would not be able to talk to her. " Commissioner's Report A/34, dated 22-1-1992 in Testamentary Suit No. 2 of 1988. Padma Kumari has signed documents in the Devnagari script when the text of the docu ment is in English. Padma Kumari has signed documents in the Roman script when she ordinarily spoke in Nepali. Padam Kumari has also signed documents transcribed in the Devnagari script. Her sig natures in the Devanagri script does not have the flow and fluency. This could hap pen if she is either not conversant with the language or old age has made her handwrit ing shaky and slow. But her signatures in the Roman script are in absolute bold, steady, flowing and fluent handwriting as if the per son was familiar with the English language and the Roman script. This can be seen in a power of attorney (the only one registered) in favour of one Kunwar Chandra Bahadur Singh, A57/10-A 57/12, appended to the report of the District Judge, Dehradun (A57/3 ). How did Padma Kumari Devi sign in English when she only spoke and under stood Nepali. With what comprehension and understanding did Padma Kumari Devi sign pleadings made in English when her language was only Nepali? The question which arises is whether she could com prehend documents when she ordinarily wrote and spoke in Nepali. The second question which arises is on the all important reference to time and a particular period when between her daughter and the District officials, it was known that she had lost her mental equilibrium and was being detained illegally by the aforesaid Ajit Singh Panwar. Between the District Magistrate and the Superintendent of Police this was a matter of serious concern and discussion. There is not one document on which Ajit Singh Pan-war lays claim that Padma Kumari was in full control of her mental faculties and did riot suffer from any mental incapacity and was in perfect and normal health so as to com municate like any normal person would. 60. Counsel for Ajit Singh Panwar, Mr. Dinesh Dwivedi, opposing the grant of let ters of administration to blood relatives and first degree heirs whether in the goods and estate of Mahendra Pratap Singh, who predeceased his mother or in the matter of the goods and estate of Padma Kumari Devi made the following submissions. 61. The first submission was that the Court is not supposed to hear the matter nor go into the merits of it as the Court is only supposed to identify the heirs and legal representatives of Smt. Padma Kumari Devi. The contention was that if the matters are decided, then, the other cases will be come infructuous and there will be no pur pose left in deciding the appeal before the Supreme Court. It was further submitted on behalf of Ajit Singh Panwar that he can only succeed if he can establish the will of Mahendra Pratap Singh in favour of Padma Kumari Devi and, secondly, the will of Padma Kumari Devi in his favour (Ajit Singh Panwar ). These matters he said will have to be decided on the basis of docu ments and depositions by witnesses as the affidavits filed and the record referred to cannot be taken as a proof. It was further submitted that Ajit Singh Panwar, as of date, lays claim to the estate of Smt. Padma Kumari Devi on the basis of what she in herited which include the goods and the estate of her son Mahendra Pratap Singh. The last submission was that the Court has to dispose of application A-45 filed in Tes tamentary Suit No. 11 of 1988, in effect, seeking recall of the order dated 21-4-1995. In so far as it disposes of application A-27, alongwith affidavit A-41. These are the only submissions made on behalf of the Ajit Singh Panwar. 62. The Court will consider the submis sions and take up the last submission first. 63. In Testamentary Suit No. 11 of 1995 (referred to by Ajit Singh Panwar as Tes tamentary Case No. 6 of 1993), application, A- 45, in effect, prays that the order dated 21-4-1995 be recalled in so far as it disposes of application A-27. Application A-27, the reference made by Ajit Singh Panwar to Case No. 6 is incorrect as it is Case No. 6 of 1992 and not of 1993. Application A-45 refers to an order dated 21-4-1995 and to application A-27. Application A-27 was rejected by the order dated 21-4-1995 (recorded in Testamentary Suit No. 2 of 1988 ). A- 27 is an application moved in Suit No. 11 of 1995 (corresponding to Testamen tary Case No. 6 of 1992 ). The Suit number is not mentioned in application A-27. By ap plication A-27 Ajit Singh Panwar desired the Court to also recall the order dated 1-12-1993. This is an order by which parties were supposed to appear so that the Court could proceed on a day to day basis. Except Mr. P. M. Gupta, who represents Smt. Nirmala Rana, Lav and Abhimanyu Singh, and their mother, Manjula Devi (the sister, children and widow of Wing Commander Narendra Pratap Singh), no one appeared on that day when the case was fixed. This was despite the fact that the case was supposed to go on before this Court on a day to day basis on a request by the Supreme Court and the par ties were at liberty to address the Court that the Court could proceed with the case. Ajit Singh Panwar chose to keep away from the proceedings of the Court. The Court has so recorded this in the order of 1-12-1993. By the order of 1-12-1993 for failure to appear and for failure to file an affidavit, the caveat of Smt. Manhar Kumari (A-ll) has been discharged. Smt. Manhar Kumari is Padma Kumari Devi's other daughter. She is also Ajit Singh Panwar's mother-in-law. By the order of 1-12-1993 an application A-25 filed on behalf of Smt. Nirmala Rana, daughter of Padma Kumari Devi alongwith Lav and Ab himanyu Singh (otherwise grandsons of Padma Kumari Devi) three prayers were made : (1) premises 14, New Road (215 Amrit Kaur Road), Dehradun be attached, (2) an injunction restrain Ajit Singh Panwar or his agents and attorneys not to sell premises 14, New Road, Dehradun, aforesaid, and (3) an injunction restrain one Sri Shyam Sunder Goyal from purchasing premises 14, New Road, either in his name or in the name of his family members, partners or agents. In the absence of any objections on record and failure of any one to appear to oppose the application, the prayers were granted. The property was at tached to the Court of District Judge, Deh radun. These orders cannot be recalled as it would amount to putting the proceedings of the hearing back because Ajit Singh Panwar would not appear before the Court despite the fact that these proceedings were not to be delayed, but proceed expeditisously on the observation of the Supreme Court on the Special Leave petition of Ajit Singh Panwar himself. Thus, the question of pass ing orders on application A-45 does not arise as the matter has to proceed and has. 64. The submission that these matters will need be disposed of by long standing trial by receiving depositions and evidence in detail to prove documents is otherwise an academic argument which seems very good in isolation, but will not hold for these cases, today. Parties between whom, Ajit Singh Panwar claimed there was a lis, between a mother and a son, both have died. On record, the situation is thus. Those who were to depose and could depose and direct ly reflect on issues by their testimonies or aid the court on assessing the correct cir cumstances have died. They were a son, a mother and another son, in that order. The main witness whether for the purpose of recording testimony or assisting the Court in reflecting on documents was Padma Kumari Devi. It is on record that Ajit Singh Panwar kept Padma Kumari Devi in illegal detention even five years before the Court recorded its order of 22 May, 1992 on which Ajit Singh Panwar has filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court. Preventing a plaintiff or a party from ap pearing before a court is an obstruction to public justice and is interference of the gros sest kind in proceedings of court. Ajit Singh Panwar kept away Padma Kumari Devi when she was a plaintiff. She was also an essential and prime witness. Further, Wing Commander Narendra Pratap Singh, predeceased his mother Padma Kumari Devi in the year 1992. Smt. Manhar Kumari, the other daughter of Padma Kumari Devi, otherwise, is also the mother-in-law of Ajit Singh Panwar. She was also under a sub-peona to appear before the Court. She came to Delhi to affirm an affidavit, but did not come to Allahabad. Thus, those persons who had familiarity with family matters or were conversant with issues, if there be any, as of date, have either died or would not appear or have been prevented from ap pearing to depose before the Court. The only person who answered to the notice of the Court (a letter of request was sent as this person was a foreign national) was Smt. Nirmala Rana. Padma Kumari Devi's other daughter. She made a deposition on oath before the Court. The balance which remains is that those on whose behalf Ajit Singh Panwar claimed to be handling cases were either prevented from appearing before the Court or chose not to appear. Thus, this case can only be decided on the basis of the record as it lies today, as no further evidence is forthcoming for reasons that this evidence consequent upon the death of witnesses concerned cannot be made available and in addition those who could testify either would not appear or were kept away from testifying. Thus, the case has proceeded for a decision on the record in the state in which it lies, today, and these cases must see finality. 65. That Ajit Singh took more interest than was necessary in the estate of Padma Kumari Devi is further fortified by the fact that Ajit Singh himself makes a statement on oath that he has an interest in the property of Padma Kumari. He made this statement attributed in reference to time when Padma Kumari Devi was alive. Any person who holds the confidentiality of a testamentary disposition is supposed to keep and abide his silence until the time the benefaction by a testamentary disposition can appropriately be considered. The ap propriate time is after the death of a tes tator. Ajit Singh Panwar mentions in his objections, A-15/24, in paragraph 43 that it was brought to the notice of the Court, reflecting on the Commission which was appointed to examine Padma Kumari Devi at a Hotel that "the deponent who happens to be the holder of power of attorney of the petitioner is not merely her attorney, but she had already executed a will of her property in favour of the deponent and he has, thus, been interested in the litigation as well as in the property of the petitioner. " 66. In the goods and the estate of Mahendra Pratap Singh there was a succes sion case which had been filed by Padma Kumari Devi and/or Ajit Singh Panwar. In that case there is no reference to any will. Before the High Court in the matter of the estate of Mahendra Pratap Singh, Ajit Singh talks about a will. The contradiction is too glaring. The overall circumstances only leads the Court to draw an irresistible presumption that cases were arranged to be filed on behalf of or for a mindless memory damaged old woman by Ajit Singh Panwar, who had had this lady in bondage and illegal detention. The succession cases at Delhi had been filed as a strategy to delay these cases at the Allahabad High Court, to remain adjourned. The properties in issue and the residence of persons who died was at Dehradun in Uttar Pradesh. The cases at Delhi were withdrawn. In the succession cases at Delhi there was no reference to a will. Ajit Singh talks of withdrawal of probate proceedings before the Sub Judge, Delhi, since testamentary cases had been filed in High Court at Allahabad. This is stated in A-15/19 in paragraph 35, Tes tamentary Case No. 6 of 1992 (Testamentary Suit No. 11 of 1995 ). But, the will is claimed to be in existence in the cases filed at the Allahabad High Court. If the will was there why was it evaded by reference before the Delhi Courts? Why were these cases withdrawn? Was it to utilise a will, as claimed, which may have surfaced in be tween? If a succession case is pending it should have been slated that no other case was filed. But, this statement was not made by Ajit Singh in the testamentary case while claiming the estate and the goods of Mahendra Pratap Singh. On the other hand no self-respecting beneficiary ever discloses to the world that he is a beneficiary with an interest under a will when the benefactor is still alive From Ajit Singh's own statement, he declared while Padma Kumari was alive that he not only holds her power of attorney, but Padam Kumari had executed a will of her property in his favour and, thus, he is interested in the litigation while Padam Kumari was alive. A testamentary disposi tion, if known to a beneficiary, is to be kept in the strictest confidence. The will of 13 November 1986 by which Ajit Singh Panwar claims to be a legatee of Padma Kumari Devi cannot be relied upon on reasons and circumstances already noticed and recorded by the Court. 67. Looking back on the entire record of the four cases and the pleadings as have been arranged to be presented by Ajit Singh Panwar, they cannot be relied upon wilh confidence. The Court is not inclined to grant him letters of administration, other wise, a stranger in the family. The Court is also satisfied that it would be better that the estate is managed by those who would nor mally, by law, succeed to the estates. Whether of Mahendra Pratap Singh or of Padma Kumari Devi. The whole context was engineered by Ajit Singh Panwar by setting up a feeble memory desipated and mentally disoriented Padma Kumari Devi to make a contest with her surviving son when, ap parently, there was not any. There is enough material on record that Padma Kumari Devi was not of sound mind and with an impaired memory and infeeble state of health and yet in these circumstances was held in bondage by Ajit Singh Panwar. She was not in a state of mind or health which would permit her to make a will or a valid will, as she did not know what she was doing. She had indicated this to her daughters. The apprehension of one daughter, Nirmala Rana, was taken note of by the Superintendent of police and the District Magistrate and they were con cerned about the apprehension of this daughter that documents or testamentary dispositions may have been obtained from Padma Kumari Devi by Ajit Singh Panwar. In the state of health in which Padma Kumari Devi was, by law, she was not a person who can make a will, and reference in this regard may be had to Section 59, particularly, Explanation 4 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. Ajit Singh Panwar knew at every given time that he was exer cising pressure, and coercion, leaving Padma Kumari Devi in such a state so as not to have a free agency. He was also aware that Padma Kumari Devi with a severely depleted memory was being made to sign documents in a language with which she was not fluent. Any will or codicil obtained from her in these circumstances was caused by fraud and coercion and was the result of an importunity as this took away the free will of the testatrix, if she was one. The facts and circumstances have already been discussed, the details of which need not be repeated that such a will by virtue of Section 61 of the Act, aforesaid, is void. 68. Further, the law also enjoins a duty upon the Court that before rendering grants in the nature of letters of administration the Courts must not overlook the circumstan ces that such grants normally be made to any person who, under the law, for the distribution of the estate would normally be entitled to the whole or any part of it. The Court is guided on this by Section 218 of the Act, aforesaid. Ajit Singh Panwar is not in the normal line of succession. His track record of the manner in which he has conducted himself as an agent when the principal was in no position to confer delegation nor write a testamentary declaration, only reveals that he has tried to grab the estate of those to whom he is related not by blood, but by marriage. He is not a person who in the discretion of the Court should be trusted with a grant of letters of administration. 69. Regard being had to overall cir cumstances the Court is of the opinion that the conduct of Ajit Singh Panwar is such that he has played with the process of the Court and he made Padma Kumari Devi litigate with a son on the estate of a predeceased son when there was no issue. 70. While considering grants in the matter of letters of administration, the Court does not decide title. Nor is the Court going into the aspect whether a will has or has not been executed. It may be have been. Ajit Singh Panwar may claim that there is a will and a codicil (one dated 7-8-1985 and the other dated 27-11-1985) in favour of Padma Kumari Devi. He may claim that there is a will dated 13-11-1986 of Padma Kumari Devi in his favour. Ajit Singh Pan-war may claim that he was the authorised agent of Padma Kumari Devi and acted for her with a power of attorney executed in his favour. The question before the Court is in what manner it should exercise its discre tion in making the grant and whose favour. 71. Ajit Singh Panwar obstructed the proceedings of the Court. He illegally con firmed Padma Kumari Devi and denied ac cess to a son, a daughter and grand-children in meeting her. He was not her guardian. He obstructed witnesses from appearing before the Court so that witnesses who had first hand knowledge about the affairs in the matter of the estate of a deceased son or brother (Mahendra Pratap Singh) or of a deceased mother (Padma Kumari Devi) were prevented from testifying before the Court. The documents which Ajit Singh Panwar relies upon are such which do not inspire confidence. The court has discussed the circumstances in detail, already. 72. The Court thus has to be careful in exercising its discretion. Should a party ar range the preparation of documents under which he takes benefit and if such docu ments are utilised to interfere with an at tempt to usurp and succeed to the assets of persons violating the normal and natural line of succession, the Court is obliged to be alert. These are circumstances which ought generally to excite the suspicion of the Court, and calls upon it to be vigilant and jealous in examining the evidence in sup port of documents in favour of which the Court ought not to pronounce unless the suspicion is removed and it is judicially satisfied that the paper does express the true will of the deceased ILR (51) Bom 258. Rangavva v. Sheshappa AIR 1959 SC 443; H. Venkatachala lyengar v. B. N. Thimmajamma, AIR 1962 SC 567; Rani Pumima Devi v. Kumar Khagendra Narayan Deb, AIR 1964 SC 529; Shashi Kumar Banerjee v. Subodh Kumar Banerjee. Then, where a beneficiary, a stranger married into a family, attempts to deny blood ties and eliminate those in direct line of succession, then the court's responsibility of performing its duties carefully and painstakingly multi plies. Prudence requires reason for denying benefit to those who are entitled to the assets of a testator in the normal line of succession, JT1990 (1) SC 420-Ram Piari v. Bhagwant and others. It is also open to the ornrt to look into surrounding circumstan ces as well as inherent improbabilities of the case of reach a proper conclusion on the totality of aspects. AIR 1990 SC 396- Kafyan Singh v. Smt. Chhoti. If direct descen dants and progenies are treated in a niggard ly manner in a testamentary disposition set up by a stranger, then, such a document has been treated as inofficious AIR 1937 PC 101-Aft. Birov Alma Ram c 73. The documents presented by Ajit Singh Panwar are questionable whether they be the power of attorney which he has utilised to act as Padma Kumari Devi's agent when he was fully aware of the fact that she was not even capable of knowing what she was signing, thinking rationally, discerning independently and had a mind so feeble that she could not even recall events as she had, but only a semblance of a memory. The will dated 13 November, 1986 was also obtained in such circumstances. All acts done by him in the conduct of these cases and proceedings are vitiated by having abused the sanctity of a fiduciary capacity by claiming to be an agent of a principal who herself was not in a capacity to act. The Court cannot exercise its discretion to make a grant in the nature of letters of administration in his favour. The Court is of the opinion that it must exercise its discretion, with the back ground of these cases, to make a grant on letters of administration, in favour of those who would otherwise be entitled, by succes sion, to whatever be their interest, to inherit the estates. This includes the will of Mahendra Pratap Singh, dated 25 Novem ber, 1985, appended to the petition of Tes tamentary Case No. 13 of 1986, converted into Testamentary Suit No. 2 of 1988, filed by Wing Commander Narendra Pratap Singh, brother of the deceased. He was sub stituted as petitioner by Manjula Singh his wife and his two sons Luv Singh and Ab-himanyu Singh. As the will set up by Ajit Singh Panwar of Padma Kumari Devi (dated 13 November 1986) cannot be relied upon, she died intestate, letters of administration have been sought by Smt. Nirmala Rana (daughter) and Luv Singh and Abhimanyu Singh (grand sons) and the grant is being made, as prayed, accordingly to Luv Singh. The Court expects that these persons would discharge their onerous duties on the grants being rendered to them to take charge of the two estates, render the inventory and ac counts to the Court and apportion the es tates in the rightful shares. They will first taking into account the will of the late Mahendra Pratap Singh dated 25 Novem ber, 1985, in Suit No. 2 of 1988, originally filed by Wing Commander Narendra Pratap Singh. Thereafter, the estate of the late Padma Kumari Devi shall be treated as if she died intestate. 74. Thus, the Court, having assessed the record of all the cases before it, hereby holds to declare: (a) In the matter relating to the goods and estate of Mahendra Pratap Singh, (son of Hira Singh and Padma Kumari Devi), otherwise brother to Wing Commander Narendra Pratap Singh (deceased), let the letters of administration as a grant run and be made in Testamentary Suit No. 2 of 1988 (Originally Testamentary Case No. 13 of 1986), jointly, to Luv Singh and Abhimanyu Singh, petitioners No. 2 and 3 (substituted vide Court's order dated 18 June 1992), sons of the original petitioner, Wing Commander Narendra Pratap Singh (decease ). (b) In the matter relating to the goods and estate of Padma Kumari Devi, widow of Heera Singh let the letters of administration as a grant run and be made in Testamentary Suit No. 11 of 1995 (Originally Testamentary Case No. 6 of 1992), to Luv Singh, petitioner No.-2, sons of the late Wing Commander Narendra Pratap Singh, otherwise grand sons of the, aforesaid deceased, Padma Kumari Devi. (c) Testamentary Suit No. 2 of 1988 (Tes tamentary Case No. 13 of 1986) and Testamen tary Suit No. 11 of 1995 (Testamentary Case No. 6 of 1992) are allowed with costs. (d) Testamentary Suit No. 10 of 1995 (Tes tamentary Case No. 27 of 1987) in the matter relating to the goods and estate of Mahendra Pratap Singh, for reasons given in this judgment, stands abated. (e) Testamentary Suit No. 12 of 1995 (Tes tamentary Case No. 5 of 1993) in the matter relating to the goods and estate of Padma Kumari Devi filed by Ajit Singh Panwar, for reasons given in this judgment, is dismissed with costs. (f) The Superintendent of Police, Dehradun (who refers to allegations against Ajit Singh Pan-war and others, and of the offences alleged against them, abettors not excluded, and has placed these matters on record for the District Magistrate, Dehradun, as are contained in Letter No. AST/48/dm/1987, dated 4 July 1987 (Paper No. A/20/95-98 in Testamentary Suit No. 11 of 1995) shall register, if not already registered a case, against Ajit Singh Panwar and others and inves tigate, the result of which shall be filed before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dehradun. The latter will proceed in accordance with law. (g) Record of Civil Suit No. 112 of 1989- Padma Kumari Devi v. Narendra Pratap Singh, will be sent back to the District Judge Dehradun. (h) A certified copy of this judgment shall be sent by the Registrar, High Court, to the Registrar General, Supreme Court of India, to be placed on the record of the Special Leave Petition No. Nil of 1992 from the judgment and order dated 22-5-1992 in Testamentary Case No. 27 of 1987 of the High Court of Allahabad and Reference CC 17221 for being placed on record of the proceed ings. 75. Let a copy of this judgment be placed on the record of each of the three remaining cases. Order accordingly. .;