Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Number | C.A. No.-014825-014826 – 2025 |
| Diary Number | 16986/2025 |
| Judge Name | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH |
| Bench | HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH; HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. VINOD CHANDRAN |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority on will-execution proof |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms existing precedents on Sections 63(c) Succession Act and 68 Evidence Act requirements |
| Type of Law | Succession law; evidence law; inherent jurisdiction |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi |
To prove a will under Section 63(c), at least one living attesting witness must affirm the testator’s signature and attestations by both witnesses. A deficiency in examination‐in‐chief may be cured by a clear admission in cross‐examination, including to leading questions. Leading questions in cross do not diminish probative value. Courts must apply the rule of prudence without demanding mathematical precision when events occurred decades earlier. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The testator executed a registered will in 1988 excluding one child. An injunction suit in 1990 produced a copy of the will but was uncontested. A 2011 partition suit led the trial and High Courts to disbelieve due to incomplete attestation proof and date inconsistency. DW-2 admitted in cross that both attesters signed. Supreme Court held statutory requirements satisfied and proved the will. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All courts in India (Supreme Court, High Courts, subordinate courts) |
| Distinguishes | Gopal Swaroop v. Krishna Murari Mangal (2010) |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Cross‐examination admissions, even to leading questions, can cure gaps in proving the second attesting witness under Section 63(c)/Section 68.
- Leading questions in cross‐examination do not reduce the probative value of evidence in will‐execution cases.
- Minor inconsistencies in date or visit recollection decades after execution are tolerable under the rule of prudence.
- At least one living attesting witness must be examined to confirm the testator’s signature and both attestations.
- A properly executed will excluding an heir will be upheld if formalities and testamentary capacity are established.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Statutory Formalities: The Succession Act (s. 63(c)) requires the will to be signed by the testator in presence of two attesting witnesses; the Evidence Act (s. 68) mandates examining available attesting witnesses to prove execution.
- Survey of Precedents: Reviewed Vishnu Ramkrishna, Janaki Narayan Bhoir, Rani Purnima Debi, Meena Pradhan, Mansinghrao Patil, Raj Kumari on due execution proof and judicial conscience.
- Judicial‐Conscience Test: Cited H. Venkatachala Iyengar on the solemnity of will proof, the rule of prudence, and allowance for minor doubts if removed by cogent evidence.
- Analysis of DW-2’s Evidence: Examination‐in‐chief established testator’s and DW-2’s signatures; cross‐examination elicited admission that both attesters signed.
- Admissibility of Leading Questions: Court held that responses to leading questions in cross constitute valid proof and fill statutory gaps.
- Date Discrepancy: Minor confusion over date and registry attendance tolerated given DW-2’s close association and long passage of time.
- Conclusion: Statutory requirements satisfied; trial and High Court judgments reversed; will is valid.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioners (Appellants / Defendants)
- DW-2’s testimony met Section 63(c)/68 requirements: testator’s signature and both attestations affirmed.
- Earlier will (1985) showed intention to exclude plaintiff; plaintiff had notice and is estopped.
- High Court misread out‐of‐context remarks; cross‐examination admission is conclusive.
- Minor date inconsistencies were inevitable after 24 years.
Respondent (Plaintiff / First Respondent)
- DW-2 failed to prove the other attester’s signature in examination‐in‐chief.
- Inconsistency: DW-2 said he visited house only once on the will date, yet registry was the next day.
- Earlier injunction suit did not resolve title or prove the will.
- Reliance on Meena Pradhan, Rani Purnima Debi, Janaki Narayan Bhoir to challenge proof.
Factual Background
One N.S. Sreedharan executed a registered will on 26 March 1988, distributing his estate among eight of his nine children and excluding the plaintiff. The plaintiff later filed a partition suit in 2011 after an uncontested 1990 injunction suit produced only a copy of the will. At trial, defendants called one attesting witness (DW-2) who spoke of his own attestation and, on cross, admitted that the other attesting witness also signed. Both the trial and High Courts disbelieved the will for lack of proof of the second attester and due to a registry‐date inconsistency. The Supreme Court held statutory formalities satisfied and proved the will.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 63(c), Indian Succession Act, 1925: A will must be signed by the testator in the presence of at least two attesting witnesses who subscribe in his presence.
- Section 68, Indian Evidence Act, 1872: When available, attesting witnesses must be called to prove the signature and execution of a will.
- Leading Questions: Permitted in cross‐examination; admissions have full probative value for filling gaps in proof.
- Rule of Prudence: Courts must exercise caution in will‐execution cases but need not demand mathematical accuracy for remote events.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Upholds established law on will‐execution proof.
- 🔄 Conflicting Decisions – Distinguishes Gopal Swaroop v. Krishna Murari Mangal (2010).