Existing Supreme Court and statutory requirements reaffirmed as binding precedent on will validity; High Court of Chhattisgarh’s judgment clarifies evidentiary burden under Section 63 of Succession Act and Section 68 Evidence Act
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | SA/1264/1999 of SMT.MUKTA SONI Vs GOKUL PRASAD |
| CNR | CGHC010012531999 |
| Date of Registration | 01-01-1999 |
| Decision Date | 10-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY K. AGRAWAL |
| Court | High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur |
| Bench | Single Bench: Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal |
| Precedent Value | Binding precedent within the jurisdiction of Chhattisgarh High Court; follows binding Supreme Court law |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms concurrent findings of trial and first appellate courts; follows and applies Supreme Court decisions |
| Type of Law | Succession Law (Validity of Wills); Civil Procedure |
| Questions of Law | Whether the finding that the will executed by Mangal Prasad Soni was a suspicious document and did not confer title to Mukta is erroneous? |
| Ratio Decidendi | The High Court held that the statutory requirements under Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 and Section 68 of the Evidence Act, 1872 are mandatory for a will’s validity. A will’s mere registration, or examination of witnesses, does not suffice unless there is cogent, convincing evidence of due execution and attestation by two witnesses “animo attestandi.” If attesting witnesses act only as identifiers (e.g. for registration), and do not witness signing or sign in testator’s presence with intent to attest, the requirements are not satisfied. Suspicious circumstances—including mental incapacity of the testator, failure to read over contents, and deviation from usual signature—must be dispelled by the propounder, which was not done in this case. The Court found that the plaintiff failed to discharge her evidentiary burden. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Detailed interpretation of statutory requirements under Section 63, Succession Act, and Section 68, Evidence Act. Applied Supreme Court standards that attesting witnesses must sign with intent to attest and must have witnessed or acknowledged the testator’s signature in their presence. Distinction between attestation and mere identification or scribing emphasized. Suspicious circumstances standard reaffirmed. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | Plaintiff was the daughter-in-law of the deceased (Mangal Prasad Soni), who allegedly executed a registered will in her favour, excluding his son. Plaintiff asserted title and sought possession. Defendant contended the will was fabricated: the testator was mentally unwell for years, did not sign in English, and the plaintiff and her husband procured the will under suspicious circumstances. Both courts below disbelieved the will and ruled for defendant. On remand from the Supreme Court, the High Court reaffirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff’s claim. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts within the jurisdiction of the Chhattisgarh High Court; applies as precedent in will validity cases. |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts; interpretative value for courts dealing with will execution/attestation disputes. |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that mere registration of a will does not dispense with strict proof of due execution and attestation as per statutory requirements.
- Clarifies that attesting witnesses must sign the will in the presence of and after witnessing the testator’s signature—simply signing as an identifier for registration is insufficient.
- Suspicious circumstances, such as the testator’s unusual signature, failure to read over contents, or mental incapacity, must be clearly dispelled by the propounder.
- The burden on the propounder is heavier when suspicious circumstances are apparent.
- When attesting witnesses’ evidence is inconsistent or does not show actual attestation, the will cannot be relied upon.
- Lawyers should advise clients on strict procedural compliance when drafting/executing wills and gather robust evidence to address possible challenges in court.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Court outlined the statutory requirements under Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act and Section 68 of the Evidence Act.
- Cited Supreme Court precedent (including Meena Pradhan, Girja Datt Singh, M.L. Abdul Jabbar Sahib, Janki Narayan Bhoir) to hold that attestation requires witnesses to act with the intention of attesting the testator’s execution, not merely as registrational identifiers.
- Examined evidence of PW-2 and PW-3: both witnesses admitted in cross-examination that the will was not read over to the testator, and that the testator signed after them or not in their presence.
- Noted that the will’s contents did not affirm attestation in the testator’s presence; signatures of witnesses were appended before testator.
- Found multiple suspicious circumstances: mental health doubts, deviation from signature practices, lack of evidence of testator’s knowledge/intent.
- Cited Gurdial Kaur decision for the proposition that will registration alone does not prove execution or attestation.
- Distinguished authorities cited by plaintiff’s counsel as factually inapposite.
- Upheld findings of fact by the trial and first appellate courts, finding them neither perverse nor contrary to record; concluded that the propounder failed to establish due execution and remove suspicion.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellant / Plaintiff):
- Both attesting witnesses (Suresh Chandra Shrivastava and Jayadaanam) have proved the execution and attestation of the will.
- No suspicious circumstances were pleaded or established by defendant.
- Registration of the will raises prima facie presumption in favour of genuineness.
- Relied on several Supreme Court decisions to argue in favour of validity.
Respondent (Defendant / LRs of Gokul Prasad):
- Plaintiff, as propounder, failed to dispel all suspicious circumstances highlighted by both lower courts.
- Testator was allegedly mentally unwell and did not sign in English; his usual practice was to sign in Hindi.
- Plaintiff and her husband took the testator on pretext of medical treatment and procured the will fraudulently.
- Both lower courts’ concurrent findings are factual and should not be disturbed.
- Relied on Supreme Court authorities on strict requirements for will proof and suspicious circumstance doctrine.
Factual Background
Mangal Prasad Soni purchased the disputed property in 1939 and had two sons, one being the husband of plaintiff Mukta Soni. Mukta Soni claimed title under a registered will allegedly executed by her father-in-law in her favour in 1993, excluding the other son, Gokul Prasad. Following Mangal Prasad Soni’s death in August 1993, the plaintiff sought mutation based on the will, which was objected to by Gokul Prasad. The municipal authority asked her to establish title in civil court. The defendant emphasized the alleged mental incapacity of the testator and suspicious execution circumstances. Both trial and first appellate courts ruled against the plaintiff. Following an earlier remand from the Supreme Court, the High Court reconsidered the matter and again dismissed the plaintiff’s suit.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925: Sets out mandatory requirements for execution and attestation of unprivileged wills. The High Court focused especially on clause (c), requiring attestation by two or more witnesses in testator’s presence.
- Section 68 of the Evidence Act, 1872: Requires at least one attesting witness to prove execution before a will can be accepted as evidence, with exceptions not applicable to wills.
- The Court, using Supreme Court authorities, interpreted these provisions strictly: attesting witnesses must sign “animo attestandi” and the procedural sequence must be established.
- Registration under the Registration Act does not reduce evidentiary standards for will execution under the Succession Act.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinions are mentioned in the judgment.
Procedural Innovations
No new procedural innovations, directions, or guidelines are recorded in the judgment.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The Court explicitly affirms existing statutory provisions and Supreme Court legal standards regarding proof of wills and suspicious circumstances.