Principles To Prove Validity & Execution Of Will : Supreme Court Explains

Recently, a Division Bench of the Supreme Court, comprising Justices Abhay S. Oka and Sanjay Karol, laid down certain principles required for proving the validity and execution of the Will. In substance, these principles enunciated that apart from statutory compliance under Section 63 of the Succession Act, broadly, it has to be proved that (a) the testator signed the Will out of his own free Will, (b) at the time of execution, he had a sound state of mind, (c) he was aware of the nature and effect thereof and (d) the Will was not executed under any suspicious circumstances.

The Court relied upon several judgments, including H. Venkatachala Iyengar v. B.N. Thimmajamma, 1959 Supp (1) SCR 426 and Bhagwan Kaur v. Kartar Kaur, (1994) 5 SCC 135, for deducing the said principles.

A Will is required to fulfill all the formalities required under Section 63 of the Succession Act

Pertaining to the statutory compliance, the Court laid down following requirements:

1. The testator shall sign or affix his mark to the Will, or it shall be signed by some other person in his presence and by his direction, and the said signature or affixation shall show that it was intended to give effect to the writing as a Will;
2. It is mandatory to get it attested by two or more witnesses, though no particular form of attestation is necessary;
3. Each of the attesting witnesses must have seen the testator sign or affix his mark to the Will or has seen some other person sign the Will in the presence and by the direction of the testator, or has received from the testator a personal acknowledgment of such signatures;
4. Each of the attesting witnesses shall sign the Will in the presence of the testator, however, the presence of all witnesses at the same time is not required;

Remaining Principles In Depth

1. The Court has to consider two aspects: firstly, that the testator executes the Will, and secondly, that it was the last Will executed by him;
2. It is not required to be proved with mathematical accuracy, but the test of satisfaction of the prudent mind has to be applied;
3. For the purpose of proving the execution of the Will, at least one of the attesting witnesses, who is alive, subject to the process of Court, and capable of giving evidence, shall be examined;
4. The attesting witness should speak not only about the testator’s signatures but also that each of the witnesses had signed the will in the presence of the testator;
5. If one attesting witness can prove the execution of the Will, the examination of other attesting witnesses can be dispensed with;
6. Whenever there exists any suspicion as to the execution of the Will, it is the responsibility of the propounder to remove all legitimate suspicions before it can be accepted as the testator’s last Will. In such cases, the initial onus on the propounder becomes heavier;
7. The test of judicial conscience has been evolved for dealing with those cases where suspicious circumstances surround the execution of the Will. It requires considering factors such as awareness of the testator as to the content as well as the consequences, nature, and effect of the dispositions in the Will; sound, certain, and disposing of state of mind and memory of the testator at the time of execution; testator executed the Will while acting on his own free Will;
8. One who alleges fraud, fabrication, undue influence, et cetera has to prove the same. However, even in the absence of such allegations, if there are circumstances giving rise to doubt, then it becomes the duty of the propounder to dispel such suspicious circumstances by giving a cogent and convincing explanation;
9. Lastly, Suspicious circumstances must be ‘real, germane, and valid’ and not merely ‘the fantasy of the doubting mind. Whether a particular feature would qualify as ‘suspicious’ depends on each case’s facts and circumstances. Any circumstance raising suspicion legitimate in nature would qualify as a suspicious circumstance for example, a shaky signature, a feeble mind, an unfair and unjust disposition of property, the propounder himself taking a leading part in the making of the Will under which he receives a substantial benefit, etc.

Case Title: MEENA PRADHAN & ORS. V. KAMLA PRADHAN & ANR, CIVIL APPEAL NO.3351 OF 2014

Citation : 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 809; 2023INSC847

Click here to read the judgment