On January 3, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that the mere registration of a will does not render it valid unless it is proven in accordance with the requirements of Section 63 of the Indian Succession Act and Section 68 of the Evidence Act.

While Section 63 addresses the execution of unprivileged wills, Section 68 pertains to the proof of the execution of a document.

The Bench of Justices CT Ravikumar and Rajesh Bindal further emphasized that, under Section 68, the execution of a will must be proven by examining at least one attesting witness. The Court referred to the recent cases of Moturu Nalini Kanth v. Gainedi Kaliprasad and Derek A.C. Lobo v. Ulric M.A. Lobo in support of this position.

The case centered around the partition of property by Balasubramaniya Thanthiriyar (the testator), which was divided into four schedules. Three of these schedules were allotted to the testator's first wife and children. The central issue in dispute was the validity of the will. Both the Trial Court and the High Court had rejected the appellants' claim based on the will. As a result, the matter was brought before the Supreme Court.

At the very outset, the Court highlighted the contradictory versions of Thanthiriyar's health in the will.

“In one part of the Will it is stated, “with full conscious, with good memory and without instigation by anyone” and at the same time in another part it is stated, “I suffer from heart disease and got treatment from several doctors”. 

The Court also took note of the fact that defendant No.1 herself stated that the health of her husband was in bad condition and as there was a danger to his life, he executed the Will at Madurai and had no role in the preparation of the Will.

The Court further observed that the propounder (the person presenting the will for approval) must prove two essential aspects through satisfactory evidence. First, that the will was signed by the testator. Second, that the testator was of sound mind and fully understood the nature and implications of the will.

In light of this, the Court noted that appellant no. 1 had claimed she had no involvement in the execution of the will and that it was executed without any external influence. However, she failed to disclose that the two pages of stamp paper on which the will was typed were purchased in her name.

“Now, another circumstance which was taken into account by the Courts below is that nothing is on record to show that the testator had executed the Will after understanding its contents. Though DW2 (brother of first appellant) deposed that the notary public read over the Will and then Balasubramaniya signed it. The Courts below correctly took note of the fact revealed from the very Will that such noting that it was read over to the testator is absent there.,” the Court added.

Another flaw pointed out by the Court was that if the testator was indeed in good health, he could have dictated the will himself, instead of having it read over to him by a notary public. Additionally, the Court referenced the impugned judgment, noting that the will was executed in Madurai, which was far from the testator's residence. Furthermore, the attesting witnesses were unfamiliar to the testator.

“As noted earlier, the health of testator was in bad condition and if so, the case that the execution of the Will was at a far away place from Madurai is also a matter casting suspicion. Evidently, it was taking into consideration all the aforesaid and such other circumstances that the High Court arrived at the finding that the execution of the Will itself was not proved. The circumstances surrounding the Will were also concurrently held as suspicious.”

“In such circumstances, when the findings are concurrent how can the findings on the validity and genuineness of the Will in question by the Trial Court and the High Court be interfered with. There is no reason to hold that the appreciation and findings are absolutely perverse warranting appellate interference by this Court.,” the Court held before dismissing the appeal.

Case name: Leela & Ors. V. Muruganantham & Ors., Civil Appeal No. 7578 of 2023