Mere registration of a Will is not sufficient to prove its genuineness, the Supreme Court has said. While dismissing an appeal in the Dhani Ram (died) through LRs. & others versus Shiv Singh, Civil Appeal case, the apex court held that a Will Must fulfil conditions laid under Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925.
Section 63 of the Succession Act prescribes the mode and method of proving a Will. Section 68 of the Evidence Act says that a document, which is required to be attested under the provisions of the law, can’t be presented as evidence until at least one attesting witness has been called for proving its execution.
The apex court agreed with the view of the trial court and the order of the Himachal Pradesh High Court which held that the mere fact of registration may not by itself be enough to dispel all suspicion that may attach to the execution and attestation of a Will.
While citing the findings in the Janki Narayan Bhoir versus Narayan Namdeo Kadam case, the SC said that to prove that a Will has been executed, the requirements in clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Section 63 of the Succession Act have to be complied with.
“The most important point is that the Will has to be attested by two or more witnesses and each of these witnesses must have seen the testator sign or affix his mark to the Will… a person propounding a Will has got to prove that the Will was duly and validly executed and that cannot be done by simply proving that the signature on the Will was that of the testator as the propounder must also prove that the attestations were made properly as required by Section 63(c) of the Succession Act,” the top court held.
Dhani Ram through LRs. & others Versus Shiv Singh case
Leela Devi, wife of one Sohan Lal, died on December 10, 1987. Her husband had predeceased her. Upon her death, Dhani Ram, the son of Leela Devi’s brother, claimed that she executed a registered Will, bequeathing to him the properties left by her late husband.
Shiv Singh, the son of Sohan Lal’s brother, instituted a civil suit in Solan, Himachal Pradesh, challenging the Will executed by Leela Devi. In 1997, the trial court decreed the suit, disbelieving the Will put forth by Dhani Ram. In consequence, the mutation effected by the authorities on the strength of the said Will was also set aside. Shiv Singh was held entitled to a decree of possession as he was the rightful owner of the suit properties, and Dhani Ram was permanently injuncted from causing interference therewith.
Aggrieved by the decision, Dhani Ram and the other defendants filed a civil appeal the same year before the Solan district judge.
In 1998, the appellate court reversed the judgment and decree of the trial court. It held that the Will stood proved and that there were no suspicious circumstances surrounding it. The suit filed by Shiv Singh was accordingly dismissed with costs.
Following this, Shiv Singh filed a regular second appeal in 1998 before the Himachal Pradesh High Court. The second appeal was allowed by the high court in 2009, restoring the judgment and decree of the trial court. Aggrieved by this turn of events, Dhani Ram filed this appeal by a special leave. By an order dated July 30, 2009, this court stayed the operation and implementation of the judgment under appeal.
The Supreme Court in its order dated October 6, 2023, dismissed the appeal by Dhani Ram.
| Got any questions or point of view on our article? We would love to hear from you. Write to our Editor-in-Chief Jhumur Ghosh at jhumur.ghosh1@housing.com |
