Second Appeal is Not a Forum for Rehearing or Reassessment of Evidence: Andhra Pradesh High Court Dismisses Partition Suit Appeal Failure of Justice Must Be Proved, Not Assumed: Calcutta High Court Upholds Murder Conviction Despite Charge Framing Lapse Bail is the Rule, Refusal is an Exception – Right to Liberty Cannot Be Ignored: Delhi High Court Grants Bail to Ivory Coast National in NDPS Case Courts Must Adopt a Justice-Oriented Approach in Matrimonial Cases: Gauhati High Court Condones Delay in Family Court Appeal FIR Quashing | Breath Analyzer Test Alone Cannot Prove Alcohol Consumption: Patna High Court Quashes FIR Under Bihar Prohibition Law Unregistered Writing Cannot Confer Ownership: Punjab & Haryana High Court Dismisses Second Appeal in Partition Dispute Allegations of Stalking and Criminal Intimidation Must Be Tested at Trial: Gujarat High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Bombay High Court Quashes Criminal Case Against Nestlé Officials Over Maggi Noodles Controversy No Shortcuts in NDPS Investigations – J&K High Court Rebukes Casual Approach of Investigating Officers Sessions Court Cannot Order Re-Investigation: Allahabad High Court Quashes Direction Against Jaypee Hospital If Official Witnesses Are Reliable, Independent Corroboration Is Not a Must:  Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds NDPS Conviction No Service Tax Can Be Levied on Sale of Lottery Tickets: Supreme Court Rules That Lottery Distributors Are Not Agents Courts Cannot Be Silent Spectators When Justice Is Denied Due to Procedural Errors:  Punjab & Haryana High Court Upholds Recall of Bail Rejection Order Section 27 of the Evidence Act Requires Independent Corroboration—Mere Claims by Police Are Not Enough: Supreme Court on Flawed Investigation Confession to Police Is No Confession in Law: Supreme Court Acquits Man, Citing Inadmissibility of Statements Made in Custody Mere 'Last Seen Together' Is Not Enough for Conviction Unless It Forms a Complete Chain of Circumstantial Evidence: Supreme Court Sets Aside Life Sentence in 16-Year-Old Girl’s Murder Failure to Explain Wife’s Death Strengthens Guilt Under Section 106 of Evidence Act" – Supreme Court Restores Conviction in Murder Case Child Witness Testimony Cannot Be Discarded Solely on Grounds of Tutoring: Supreme Court Restores Conviction in Murder Case

Contradictory Witness Statements Lead to Failure in Proving Will Execution: Supreme Court

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


In a significant legal ruling, the Supreme Court of India has upheld a judgment that emphasizes the importance of adherence to legal requirements in proving the execution of a disputed will. The decision, rendered by a bench comprising Hon'ble Justices C.T. Ravikumar and Sanjay Kumar, underscores the crucial role of witness statements in establishing the validity of wills.

The case in question involved a disputed will purportedly executed by Leela Devi in favor of Dhani Ram. The trial court had initially disbelieved the will, but the appellate court had reversed the judgment in favor of Dhani Ram. However, the Himachal Pradesh High Court subsequently overturned the appellate court's decision, leading to a special leave appeal filed by Dhani Ram.

The critical issue in this case revolved around the execution of the will, and the court focused on the statements of the attesting witnesses. The witnesses provided contradictory accounts of the events surrounding the will, which raised doubts about its validity. Justice Sanjay Kumar, delivering the verdict, highlighted the significance of complying with legal requirements, stating, "Mere registration would not sanctify a document by attaching to it an irrebuttable presumption of genuineness." He further cited precedents that emphasized the need for careful scrutiny of registered wills.

The court found that neither of the attesting witnesses fulfilled the legal requirements mandated by Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act. While Lok Nath Attri claimed that Leela Devi signed the will in their presence, Chaman Lal vehemently denied this. Moreover, Lok Nath Attri did not state that he signed the will in the presence of Leela Devi, a crucial requirement for will execution.

In light of these contradictions and the failure to establish the execution of the will in accordance with legal requirements, the court upheld the decision of the Himachal Pradesh High Court. As a result, the appeal was dismissed, and Dhani Ram's claim based on the disputed will was rejected.

This judgment serves as a reminder of the meticulous scrutiny applied by the courts in cases involving wills and the critical role of attesting witnesses in proving their validity. It reinforces the principle that compliance with legal requirements is essential when establishing the execution of wills, preventing potential disputes and ensuring the rightful distribution of assets in accordance with the law.

Date of Decision: October 6, 2023

Dhani Ram (died) through LRs. & others  vs Shiv Singh 

[gview file="https://lawyerenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/06-Oct-2023_DHANI-RAM_Vs_SHIV_SINGH.pdf"]

Similar News