The Chhattisgarh High Court reaffirms established Supreme Court and statutory requirements for proving execution and attestation of Wills, holding that mere registration and examination of purported attesting witnesses are not sufficient when suspicious circumstances exist and statutory mandates are unmet. This judgment upholds settled law, providing binding authority within the state and persuasive value nationwide for civil matters involving proof of Wills.
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 |
| Bench | Single Bench (SB) – Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal |
| Precedent Value | Binding within Chhattisgarh, persuasive elsewhere |
| Overrules / Affirms |
|
| Type of Law | Civil Law – Law of Succession, Evidence |
| Questions of Law | Whether the finding that the Will of 25.01.1993 was suspicious and conferred no title to the plaintiff is erroneous? |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The proof of a Will under Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act and Section 68 of the Evidence Act requires not only examination of attesting witnesses, but strict fulfillment of statutory conditions and the removal of any suspicious circumstances. Mere registration of the Will is not proof of genuine execution. If attesting witnesses performed their signatures without the animus attestandi, or if they signed before the testator, they cannot be treated as attesting witnesses. Where suspicious circumstances exist—such as deviation from usual signing practices, medical incapacity, or questionable exclusion of heirs—the propounder bears the onus to dispel such doubts with cogent and convincing evidence. In this case, the court found failure to meet these standards; hence the Will could not confer title. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
Plaintiff, daughter-in-law of the testator, claimed property under a registered Will allegedly executed by her father-in-law, which excluded his son (defendant). The defendant contested, asserting the testator was mentally unwell, the Will was suspicious, and the testator used to sign in Hindi—not English as on the Will. Both lower courts held the Will unproved and suspicious. The High Court, initially decreeing in favour of the plaintiff, was reversed and remanded by the Supreme Court. Upon rehearing, the High Court upheld the lower courts’ findings and dismissed the appeal. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Chhattisgarh |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts and the Supreme Court in interpreting requirements for proof and attestation of Wills |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reinforces that mere registration of a Will doesn’t prove its validity—strict compliance with Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act and Section 68 of the Evidence Act is mandatory.
- Clarifies that if witnesses sign before the testator or only for identification at registration, they are not attesting witnesses “animo attestandi”.
- The propounder must dispel all real and germane suspicious circumstances—such as signature deviations, alleged mental incapacity, or exclusion of natural heirs.
- Attesting witness testimony must establish both their own and the fellow witness’s attestation in presence of the testator; mere identification at registration is insufficient.
- Lawyers must ensure all statutory formalities are proved by quality evidence, not mere formalities or assumptions of regularity.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Statutory Provisions and Precedent: The court analysed Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act and Section 68 of the Evidence Act, guided by Supreme Court authorities (Meena Pradhan, Girja Datt Singh, M.L. Abdul Jabbar Sahib, Janki Narayan Bhoir).
- Role of Attesting Witnesses: The attesting witnesses must sign in the presence of the testator and with the intention to attest (animo attestandi). If a person only identifies for registration, that does not qualify.
- Findings on Evidence: Here, both PW-2 and PW-3 signed before the testator, and not in testator’s presence; neither could confirm the Will was read to the testator; and both suggested their signatures were as identifiers, not attesting witnesses.
- Suspicious Circumstances: The Will was signed in English against the testator’s usual Hindi signature, the scribe was not examined, no evidence showed the testator’s mental or physical capacity, and there was a lack of explanation for excluding a natural heir.
- Burden on Propounder: The plaintiff, as propounder, failed to dispel these suspicious aspects with cogent evidence.
- Conclusion: Reaffirms that the due proof of execution/attestation is a sine qua non for a Will to confer title, and any doubts must be resolved by the propounder. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellant/Plaintiff):
- Both attesting witnesses proved execution and attestation of the Will.
- No suspicious circumstances were proved; registered document attracts presumption of genuineness.
- Relied on Supreme Court precedents supporting the value of attested, registered Wills.
Respondent (Defendant and LRs):
- Plaintiff failed to dispel numerous suspicious circumstances found by both lower courts.
- Testator signed in English, not his customary Hindi; was mentally unwell at the time; Will was not read over.
- Will was executed fraudulently while testator was allegedly incapacitated.
- Relied on Supreme Court judgments laying strict standards for attestation and proof.
Factual Background
The plaintiff, Mukta Soni, claimed title and possession to property belonging to her father-in-law Mangal Prasad Soni, based on a registered Will dated 25.01.1993 that excluded his son (the defendant). Defendant contended the Will was forged, as the testator was mentally unwell, used to sign in Hindi, and never intended to exclude his own son. Both lower courts rejected the Will on grounds of suspicious execution and non-fulfilment of statutory conditions. The High Court initially decreed in favour of the plaintiff, but the Supreme Court remanded the case for fresh consideration. Upon rehearing, the High Court again dismissed the suit, upholding the lower courts’ reasoning.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 63(c), Indian Succession Act, 1925: Sets out requirements for execution and attestation of unprivileged Wills—signature by the testator, attested by two or more witnesses each signing in testator’s presence.
- Section 68, Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Requires at least one attesting witness to be called to prove execution.
- Registration of a Will does not dispense with the need to prove due execution and attestation as per statutory mandates.
- Emphasis on “animo attestandi”—intentional, conscious attestation by witnesses.
- Case law elaborates that identifier or scribe roles are not substitutes for attesting witnesses.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Judgment strictly follows and applies existing Supreme Court precedent on proof and attestation of Wills.