Supreme Court clarifies “Direction of Testator” in Will Attestation: Gopal Krishan vs. Daulat Ram (2025) INSC 18

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: January 2, 2025. Citation: 2025 INSC 18. Judges: C.T. Ravikumar J. and Sanjay Karol J. Can a Will be deemed invalid if an attesting witness does not explicitly state they signed upon the testator’s direction? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this crucial question in a property dispute case. The core issue revolved around the correct interpretation of Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, specifically the phrase “by the direction of the testator.” This judgment clarifies the requirements for valid will attestation. The bench consisted of Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Sanjay Karol, with the judgment authored by Justice Sanjay Karol.

Case Background

Sanjhi Ram owned a 1/4th share of land in Village Umarpura, Punjab. He had no children and lived with his nephew, Gopal Krishan. On November 7, 2005, Sanjhi Ram allegedly executed a Will, bequeathing his property to Gopal Krishan. Sanjhi Ram passed away the next day, November 8, 2005. Subsequently, Gopal Krishan transferred the property to his sons via a sale deed dated January 16, 2006. The property was further sold on February 3, 2006, to Madhu Sharma and Meena Kumari.

Respondents 1 to 7, claiming to be the rightful owners, filed a suit in 2006. They sought a declaration that they were the owners of Sanjhi Ram’s share. They also contended that the Will was forged and the subsequent property mutation was illegal. The appellants denied these claims in their written statement dated April 24, 2006.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Civil Court initially ruled against the validity of the Will. The court cited the testator’s illness and the circumstances surrounding the Will’s execution as suspicious. However, the Lower Appellate Court overturned this decision. It relied on judgments from the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and the Rajasthan High Court. The Lower Appellate Court held that the testator’s illness did not invalidate the Will, so long as his mental faculties were unaffected. It also stated that the spacing of lines on the Will was not a ground to suspect its genuineness.

The High Court, in second appeal, reversed the Lower Appellate Court’s decision. It noted that the attesting witness did not explicitly state that he signed the Will at the testator’s direction. The High Court relied on Janki Narayan Bhoir v. Narayan Mandeo Kadam (2003) 2 SCC 91 and Kanwaljit Kaur v. Joginder Singh Badwal (deceased through LRs). The High Court also cited Pankajakshi (Dead) through LRs v. Chandrika and Ors. (2016) 6 SCC 157. The High Court set aside the judgment of the Lower Appellate Court without framing substantial questions of law.

Legal Framework

The core of the dispute lies in Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. This section outlines the requirements for executing an unprivileged Will. Section 63(c) specifically deals with attestation by witnesses. It states:
“The Will shall be attested by two or more witnesses, each of whom has seen the testator sign or affix his mark to the Will, or has seen some other person sign the Will, in the presence and by the direction of the testator, or has received from the testator a personal acknowledgement of his signature or mark, or the signature of such other person; and each of the witnesses shall sign the Will in the presence of the testator…”

The section provides five distinct situations for valid attestation. The key here is the interpretation of “by the direction of the testator.” The court has to consider whether the witness must explicitly state that they signed upon the testator’s direction, or if it can be inferred from the circumstances.

Arguments

The High Court argued that the attesting witness, Janak Raj, did not explicitly state in his testimony that he affixed his thumb impression on the Will at the direction of the testator. Therefore, the requirements of Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, were not met. The High Court relied on Kanwaljit Kaur v. Joginder Singh Badwal, where the court held that the absence of “direction of the testator” in the deposition of the attesting witness was fatal to the case.

The appellants contended that the High Court erred in its interpretation of Section 63(c). They argued that the word “or” in the section is disjunctive. Therefore, it is sufficient if the witness has seen the testator sign or affix his mark. The requirement of “direction” only applies when the witness sees another person sign the Will on behalf of the testator. The appellants also argued that the ordinary grammatical meaning of the statute should be given effect unless it leads to ambiguity or absurdity.

The appellants further argued that the testimony of DW-1 clearly stated that he had seen the deceased affix his mark on the Will. This alone satisfies the requirements of Section 63(c). The appellants relied on the ordinary meaning of the word ‘or’ as disjunctive and not conjunctive.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following issue:

1. What do the words “by the direction of the testator” as they appear in Section 63 (c) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 mean? Is the term to be interpreted liberally or strictly? Consequently, was the High Court correct in holding, in agreement with the Civil Court, that the Will, subject matter of dispute, stood not proved?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court overturned the High Court’s decision. It held that the High Court had misinterpreted Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. The court emphasized that the word “or” in the section is disjunctive. This means that the requirement of “direction of the testator” only applies when a witness sees another person signing the Will on behalf of the testator. If the witness has seen the testator sign or affix their mark, that is sufficient.

The Court noted that the testimony of DW-1 clearly stated that he had seen the deceased affix his mark on the Will. This satisfied the requirements of Section 63(c). Therefore, the Will was valid. Consequently, the subsequent sale deeds executed by Gopal Krishan were also valid.

The court also analyzed the authorities that were cited:

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the plain language of Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. The Court emphasized the disjunctive nature of the word “or”. The Court also focused on the testimony of the witness, which confirmed that he had seen the testator affix his mark on the Will. The Court found that the High Court had incorrectly interpreted the law and the facts of the case.

The court’s reasoning can be summarized as follows:

The court considered the interpretation of the word “or” as disjunctive and not conjunctive. The court also placed significant weight on the testimony of the witness, which clearly stated that he had seen the deceased affix his mark on the Will. The court rejected the High Court’s interpretation of the law and its reliance on previous judgments.

The Supreme Court stated, “In the present case the testimony of DW -1 is clear that he had seen the deceased affix his mark on the Will. That alone would ensure compliance of Section 63(c).” The court further clarified, “The part of the Section that employs the term ‘direction’ would come into play only when the attestor to the Will would have to see some other person signing the Will. Such signing would explicitly have to be in the presence and upon the direction of the Testator.” The Court also noted, “After all, it is well settled that one should not read ‘and’ as ‘ or’ or vice -versa unless one is obliged to do so by discernible legislative intent.”

Key Takeaways

• The Supreme Court clarified that the phrase “by the direction of the testator” in Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, should be interpreted disjunctively.
• If an attesting witness has seen the testator sign or affix their mark on the Will, it is sufficient for valid attestation. The witness is not required to explicitly state that they signed upon the testator’s direction.
• The requirement of “direction” only applies when a witness sees another person signing the Will on behalf of the testator.
• This judgment provides clarity on the requirements for valid will attestation, reducing the chances of wills being invalidated on technical grounds.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the High Court and restored the judgment of the First Appellate Court. The Court held that the Will of Sanjhi Ram is valid and so are the subsequent Sale Deeds executed by Gopal Krishan.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that the word “or” in Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, is disjunctive. Therefore, the requirement of “direction of the testator” only applies when the witness sees another person sign the Will on behalf of the testator. This clarifies the previous position of law and provides a more liberal interpretation of the attestation requirements.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the Supreme Court’s judgment in Gopal Krishan vs. Daulat Ram clarifies the interpretation of Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. The Court held that the requirement of “direction of the testator” is not necessary when the witness has seen the testator sign or affix their mark on the Will. This judgment provides much-needed clarity and ensures that Wills are not invalidated on technicalities. The Supreme Court’s decision upholds the validity of the Will and the subsequent property transactions.