“Presumption as to documents thirty years old does not apply to wills,” : Supreme Court
Date: March 14, 2023
In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court of India has upheld the validity of a will despite the absence of attesting witnesses. The bench, comprising Justices S. Ravindra Bhat and Hima Kohli, stated that the presumption under Section 90 of the Evidence Act, which applies to documents thirty years old, does not extend to the proof of wills. The court emphasized that wills must be proved in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Succession Act, 1925, and Section 68 of the Evidence Act. Referring to a previous judgment, the court declared, “A presumption regarding documents 30 years old does not apply to a will.”
The case involved a dispute over the execution and validity of a will, wherein the appellant contested the grant of letters of administration based on suspicious circumstances and an alleged delay in seeking relief. The respondents, however, successfully proved the will’s authenticity by presenting the testimonies of witnesses who were present during its execution. Additionally, the court considered a registered partition deed that distributed shares as per the terms of the will and an acknowledgment of the will by the appellant’s predecessor.
By clarifying the applicability of Section 90 and emphasizing the importance of proper execution and attestation of wills, the Supreme Court has provided clarity on the legal requirements for proving wills. This judgment highlights the significance of alternative means, such as Sections 69 and 71 of the Evidence Act, when attesting witnesses are unavailable. The court’s decision ensures the protection of testators’ testamentary intentions even in the absence of traditional proof through attesting witnesses.
The judgment reaffirms the position that the validity of wills should be established based on the specific legal provisions governing wills rather than relying solely on the age of the document.
Date of Judgment: March 14, 2023
ASHUTOSH SAMANTA (D) BY LRS. & ORS. vs RANJAN BALA DASI & ORS.
