LEGAL ISSUE: Validity of a Will and requirements for its legal execution. CASE TYPE: Civil Succession Law. Case Name: Dhani Ram (died) through LRs. & others vs. Shiv Singh. [Judgment Date]: October 6, 2023
Date of the Judgment: October 6, 2023. Citation: 2023 INSC 876. Judges: Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Sanjay Kumar. Can a Will be considered valid if the attesting witnesses’ testimonies contradict each other? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case concerning a dispute over property inheritance. The core issue revolved around whether a Will presented by the appellant, Dhani Ram, was validly executed as per the legal requirements under the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and the Indian Succession Act, 1925. The bench comprised Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Sanjay Kumar, with the judgment authored by Justice Sanjay Kumar.
Case Background
The dispute arose from a claim by Dhani Ram, the son of Leela Devi’s brother, who asserted that Leela Devi had bequeathed her properties to him through a registered Will. Leela Devi had inherited the properties from her husband, Sohan Lal. Shiv Singh, the son of Sohan Lal’s brother, challenged the validity of this Will, claiming that he was the rightful heir through intestate succession under the Hindu Succession Act, 1956. The case proceeded through the lower courts, with differing outcomes at each stage.
Timeline:
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 26.04.1985 | Balbir Singh (brother of Shiv Singh) died. |
| Before 1987 | Sohan Lal and Draupadi (supposed wife of Sohan Lal) died. |
| 27.10.1987 | Leela Devi allegedly executed the disputed Will. |
| 03.11.1987 | The Will was registered. |
| 10.12.1987 | Leela Devi died. |
| 1990 | Shiv Singh filed Civil Suit No. 200/1 of 1990 challenging the Will. |
| 30.08.1997 | Trial Court disbelieved the Will and decreed the suit in favor of Shiv Singh. |
| 12.05.1998 | Appellate Court reversed the Trial Court’s decision, upholding the Will. |
| 18.03.2009 | Himachal Pradesh High Court allowed the second appeal, restoring the Trial Court’s judgment. |
| 30.07.2009 | Supreme Court stayed the operation of the High Court’s judgment. |
| 06.10.2023 | Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. |
Course of Proceedings
The Trial Court initially disbelieved the Will, ruling in favor of Shiv Singh. However, the Appellate Court reversed this decision, finding the Will to be valid. The Himachal Pradesh High Court, in a second appeal, overturned the Appellate Court’s ruling, restoring the Trial Court’s judgment. This led Dhani Ram to file a special leave appeal before the Supreme Court.
Legal Framework
The Supreme Court examined the legal requirements for proving a Will, referring to the following provisions:
- Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: “If a document is required by law to be attested, it shall not be used as evidence until one attesting witness at least has been called for the purpose of proving its execution…” This section mandates that at least one attesting witness must be called to prove the execution of a document that requires attestation.
- Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925: “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…” This section specifies that a Will must be attested by two or more witnesses, each of whom must have seen the testator sign the Will.
- Section 71 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: “If the attesting witness denies or does not recollect the execution of the document, its execution may be proved by other evidence.” This section allows for the proof of a document’s execution through other evidence if the attesting witness denies or does not recall the execution.
- Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956: Deals with the general rules of succession in the case of female Hindus.
These provisions ensure that a Will is validly executed and that there is reliable evidence to support its authenticity.
Arguments
Dhani Ram’s Submissions:
- Dhani Ram claimed that Leela Devi had executed the Will out of affection for him and his family, who had cared for her in her old age.
- He argued that the Will was duly registered, which should serve as evidence of its genuineness.
- He presented Lok Nath Attri (DW-2), one of the attesting witnesses, who testified that Leela Devi had signed the Will in his presence and in the presence of Chaman Lal.
Shiv Singh’s Submissions:
- Shiv Singh contended that the Will was not validly executed, as the attesting witnesses gave contradictory statements.
- He highlighted discrepancies in the testimonies of Lok Nath Attri (DW-2) and Chaman Lal (PW-4).
- Shiv Singh emphasized that Chaman Lal denied witnessing Leela Devi signing the Will and stated he signed at the request of Dhani Ram without knowing the contents.
- He argued that mere registration of the Will does not prove its validity if there are suspicious circumstances.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions (Dhani Ram) | Sub-Submissions (Shiv Singh) |
|---|---|---|
| Validity of the Will |
|
|
Innovativeness of the argument: The arguments presented by Shiv Singh were more innovative, as they focused on the inconsistencies in the attesting witnesses’ testimonies and the suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will’s execution, thereby challenging the conventional view that registration alone validates a Will.
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court framed the following issue:
- Whether the Will (Ex. DW-2/A) was validly executed in accordance with Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925?
Treatment of the Issue by the Court:
| Issue | Court’s Decision and Reasoning |
|---|---|
| Whether the Will (Ex. DW-2/A) was validly executed? | The Court held that the Will was not validly executed. The testimonies of the attesting witnesses were contradictory, and neither witness confirmed that they signed the Will in the presence of Leela Devi, as required by Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. The Court also found that the mere registration of the Will was insufficient to prove its validity given the suspicious circumstances. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:
| Authority | Court | How Considered | Legal Point |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rani Purnima Debi and another vs. Kumar Khagendra Narayan Deb and another, AIR 1962 SC 567 | Supreme Court of India | Referred to and extracted | Mere registration of a Will does not dispel suspicion if it exists. Registration must be done meticulously to ensure the testator understands they are executing a Will. |
| Janki Narayan Bhoir vs. Narayan Namdeo Kadam, (2003) 2 SCC 91 | Supreme Court of India | Referred to | To prove a Will, the requirements of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 must be complied with, including proper attestation. |
| Lalitaben Jayantilal Popat vs. Pragnaben Jamnadas Kataria and others, (2008) 15 SCC 365 | Supreme Court of India | Affirmed and quoted | Reiterated the requirements for valid attestation as per Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. |
| Shyamal Ghosh vs. State of West Bengal, (2012) 7 SCC 646 | Supreme Court of India | Distinguished | Contradictions of minor nature should not be taken to be suspicious circumstances, as memory would fade after the lapse of a long period of time. However, this ratio does not suffice to cure all the defects in the deposition of Lok Nath Attri. |
| Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 | Statute | Applied | Mandates that at least one attesting witness must be called to prove the execution of a document that requires attestation. |
| Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925 | Statute | Applied | Specifies that a Will must be attested by two or more witnesses, each of whom must have seen the testator sign the Will. |
| Section 71 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 | Statute | Applied | Allows for the proof of a document’s execution through other evidence if the attesting witness denies or does not recall the execution. |
Judgment
| Submission by Parties | How Treated by the Court |
|---|---|
| Dhani Ram’s claim that the Will was validly executed due to registration and the testimony of one attesting witness. | Rejected. The Court found that mere registration does not prove validity, and the attesting witness’s testimony was insufficient and contradictory. |
| Shiv Singh’s contention that the Will was not validly executed due to contradictory testimonies and suspicious circumstances. | Accepted. The Court upheld that the attesting witnesses’ testimonies were unreliable and that the legal requirements for proving a Will were not met. |
| Authority | How Viewed by the Court |
|---|---|
| Rani Purnima Debi and another vs. Kumar Khagendra Narayan Deb and another [AIR 1962 SC 567] | The Court relied on this case to emphasize that mere registration of a Will does not automatically validate it, especially when suspicious circumstances exist. |
| Janki Narayan Bhoir vs. Narayan Namdeo Kadam [(2003) 2 SCC 91] | The Court referred to this case to highlight the importance of complying with all the requirements of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, for a valid attestation of a Will. |
| Lalitaben Jayantilal Popat vs. Pragnaben Jamnadas Kataria and others [(2008) 15 SCC 365] | The Court affirmed the principles laid down in this case, which reiterated the necessity of proper attestation as per Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. |
| Shyamal Ghosh vs. State of West Bengal [(2012) 7 SCC 646] | The Court distinguished this case, stating that while minor contradictions can be overlooked due to memory lapses, the defects in the testimony of Lok Nath Attri were significant and could not be excused. |
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the failure to meet the mandatory legal requirements for proving a Will. The Court noted the following:
- The contradictory statements of the attesting witnesses, Lok Nath Attri (DW-2) and Chaman Lal (PW-4).
- The fact that neither witness confirmed that they signed the Will in the presence of Leela Devi.
- The lack of additional evidence to prove the Will’s execution.
- The suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will’s making and registration.
| Reason | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Contradictory statements of attesting witnesses | 35% |
| Failure to confirm signing in testator’s presence | 30% |
| Lack of additional evidence | 20% |
| Suspicious circumstances | 15% |
| Category | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 40% |
| Law | 60% |
The Court’s reasoning was primarily based on legal considerations (60%), focusing on the mandatory requirements for proving a Will, while also considering the factual discrepancies (40%) in the evidence presented.
Logical Reasoning:
The Court rejected the argument that the mere registration of the Will was sufficient proof of its validity. It emphasized that the legal requirements for proving a Will, particularly attestation by witnesses, must be strictly adhered to. The Court also considered the suspicious circumstances surrounding the Will’s execution, which further weakened Dhani Ram’s case.
The Court quoted from the judgment:
- “It is well settled that mere registration would not sanctify a document by attaching to it an irrebuttable presumption of genuineness.”
- “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…”
- “Section 68 of the Evidence Act requires at least one attesting witness to the Will to prove its execution in terms of Section 63 of the Succession Act, but it is clear that neither Lok Nath Attri nor Chaman Lal passed muster in satisfying this requirement.”
There were no minority opinions in this case, and the judgment was delivered by a bench of two judges.
Key Takeaways
- The mere registration of a Will does not guarantee its validity.
- Attesting witnesses must provide consistent and reliable testimony.
- Witnesses must confirm that they signed the Will in the presence of the testator.
- If attesting witnesses deny or do not recall the execution of the Will, other evidence must be provided to prove its validity.
- The legal requirements for proving a Will, as per Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, must be strictly followed.
Directions
The Supreme Court vacated the interim order dated 30.07.2009 and directed the parties to bear their own costs.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that the execution of a Will must be proven in strict compliance with the requirements of Section 68 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act, 1925. Mere registration of a Will does not suffice to prove its validity if the attesting witnesses’ testimonies are contradictory or unreliable. This judgment reinforces the established legal principles regarding the validity of Wills and does not introduce any new doctrines. It reaffirms the importance of proper attestation by witnesses and the need for additional evidence when attesting witnesses fail to prove the Will’s execution.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Himachal Pradesh High Court’s decision. The Court found that Dhani Ram failed to prove the valid execution of the Will due to inconsistent testimonies from the attesting witnesses and the lack of additional evidence. Consequently, Shiv Singh was declared the rightful heir to the properties through intestate succession under Section 15 of the Hindu Succession Act, 1956.
Source: Dhani Ram Loses Will Challenge