In a significant judgment addressing ambiguities in the Indian Succession Act, 1925, the Supreme Court clarified that an attesting witness to a will is only required to see the testator sign or affix their mark to the will. This ruling, delivered in Gopal Krishan & Ors. v. Daulat Ram & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 13192 of 2024), reaffirms that Section 63(c) does not mandate additional conditions for attestation, resolving a contentious interpretation in probate disputes.
A Bench comprising Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Sanjay Karol overturned the Punjab and Haryana High Court’s decision, which had invalidated the will of the late Sanjhi Ram. The Court emphasized that the statutory requirement for attestation does not necessitate that witnesses explicitly state they signed the will “by the direction” of the testator unless the will was signed by someone else on the testator’s behalf.
Case Background
Sanjhi Ram, a resident of Gurdaspur, Punjab, owned 10 canals and 1 marla of land. On November 7, 2005, he purportedly executed a will transferring his property to his nephew, Gopal Krishan, and passed away the following day. Gopal Krishan subsequently sold the property to third parties.
The will’s validity was challenged by Daulat Ram and other relatives, who claimed it was forged and fabricated. They also argued that the property should devolve upon them as natural heirs. The trial court invalidated the will, raising suspicions about Sanjhi Ram’s physical and mental capacity and questioning irregularities in the will’s execution.
The appellate court reversed the decision, ruling that the will was genuine and adhered to the procedural requirements under the law. However, the High Court reinstated the trial court’s findings, holding that the attesting witnesses failed to comply with the requirement of attesting “by the direction” of the testator under Section 63(c). This prompted Gopal Krishan to appeal to the Supreme Court.
Key Legal Issues
The central issue before the Supreme Court was the interpretation of Section 63(c) of the Indian Succession Act, which governs the execution and attestation of wills. The provision sets out three alternative scenarios for a valid attestation:
1. A witness sees the testator sign or affix their mark to the will.
2. A witness observes another person signing the will on behalf of the testator in the testator’s presence and direction.
3. A witness receives a personal acknowledgment of the testator’s signature or mark.
The High Court had read these requirements conjunctively, implying that all conditions must be met for the attestation to be valid. It invalidated the will on the ground that the witnesses failed to testify that they signed the document “by the direction” of the testator. The Supreme Court had to determine whether this interpretation was legally sustainable.
Supreme Court’s Decision
Justice Sanjay Karol, delivering the judgment, clarified that the requirements under Section 63(c) are disjunctive, with the word “or” clearly indicating alternative conditions. The Court observed that witnesses only need to satisfy one of the enumerated scenarios for the attestation to be valid.
“The statutory language is clear and unambiguous. To impose an additional requirement that a witness must attest the will ‘by the direction of the testator’ when they have already seen the testator sign is legally unsound,” the Court held. It reiterated that reading the disjunctive “or” as conjunctive “and” would distort the legislative intent and the plain meaning of the statute.
The Court relied on established principles of will execution and attestation, as reiterated in Meena Pradhan v. Kamla Pradhan (2023) and Shivakumar v. Sharanabasappa (2021). These judgments emphasized that the propounder of a will must dispel any legitimate suspicions and ensure compliance with procedural requirements, but the evidentiary threshold is not overly rigid.
In this case, the Court noted that one attesting witness, Janak Raj, testified that he saw Sanjhi Ram affix his thumb impression on the will and that all witnesses signed in the testator’s presence. The Court held that this was sufficient to meet the requirements of Section 63(c). It added that the issue of signing “by the direction” of the testator only arises when the will is signed by a third party on behalf of the testator.
Observations
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s judgment and restored the appellate court’s ruling, validating the will and subsequent property transactions. It observed:
“Where the statutory language employs ‘or,’ courts must not artificially impose conjunctive conditions. The requirements for attestation under Section 63(c) are alternative, not cumulative.”
The Court also addressed concerns about the testator’s mental and physical state, holding that there was no evidence to suggest Sanjhi Ram lacked testamentary capacity.
The appellants, Gopal Krishan and others, were represented by Senior Advocate A.K. Sharma, while Senior Advocate S.P. Gupta appeared for the respondents, Daulat Ram and others.
