Registrar Has No Power To Cancel Registered Sale Deeds: Madras High Court Reaffirms Civil Court’s Exclusive Jurisdiction MP High Court Refuses to Quash FIR Against Principal of Sacred Heart Convent High School in Forced Conversion Case Employees Of Registered Societies Cannot Claim Article 311 Protection: Delhi High Court Clarifies Limits Of Constitutional Safeguards In Private Employment Maintenance Cannot Be Doubled Without Cogent Reasons, Wife's Education And Earning Capacity Relevant Factors: Gujarat High Court A Foreign Award Must First Be "Recognised" Before It Becomes A Decree: Bombay High Court A Registered Will Does Not Become Genuine Merely Because It Is Registered: Andhra Pradesh High Court Rejects Suspicious Testament Compensation Under Railways Act Requires Proof of Bona Fide Passenger – Mere GRP Entry and Medical Records Cannot Establish ‘Untoward Incident’: Delhi High Court Tenancy Rights Cannot Be Bequeathed By Will: Himachal Pradesh High Court Declares Mutation Based On Tenant’s Will Void Preventive Detention Cannot Be Based On Mere Apprehension of Bail: Delhi High Court Quashes PITNDPS Detention Order Probate Court Alone Has Exclusive Jurisdiction To Decide Validity Of Will – Probate Petition Cannot Be Rejected Merely Because A Civil Suit Is Pending: Allahabad High Court PwD Candidates Cannot Be Denied Appointment After Selection; Authorities Must Accommodate Them In Suitable Posts: Supreme Court Directs SSC And CAG To Appoint Candidates With Disabilities When Registered Partition Deed Exists, Plea Of Prior Oral Partition Cannot Override It:  Madras High Court Dismisses Second Appeal Municipal Bodies Cannot Demand Character Verification Of Residents: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Surveillance Condition In Building Sanction State Cannot Exploit Contractual Workers For Perennial Work: Punjab & Haryana High Court Grants Pay Parity To PUNBUS Drivers And Conductors Police Inputs Cannot Create New Building Laws: Calcutta High Court Strikes Down Security-Based Conditions Near Nabanna 'Raising A Child As Daughter Does Not Make Her An Adopted Child': Punjab & Haryana High Court Once Leave Under Section 80(2) CPC Is Granted, Prior Notice to Government Is Not Mandatory: Orissa High Court Restores Trial Court Decree State Cannot Use Article 226 To Evade Compliance With Court Orders: Gauhati High Court Dismisses Union’s Petition With Costs ED Officers Accused Of Assault By ₹23-Crore Scam Accused – FIR Survives But Probe Shifted To CBI: Jharkhand High Court High Courts Should Not Interfere In Academic Integrity Proceedings At Preliminary Stage: Kerala High Court Power Of Attorney Holder With Personal Knowledge Can Depose In Cheque Bounce Cases: Kerala High Court Sets Aside Acquittal Agreement Cannot Dissolve Hindu Marriage, But Can Prove Mutual Separation”: J&K & Ladakh High Court Denies Maintenance

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"]

Latest Legal News