In a recent judgment, the Supreme Court emphasized the critical importance of strictly adhering to Section 69 of the Indian Evidence Act when establishing the authenticity of a will in situations where attesting witnesses are unavailable. 

The bench comprising Justice CT Ravikumar and Justice Sanjay Kumar,  underscored that simply having a random witness claim to have seen the attesting witness sign the will is insufficient for proving wills in accordance with Section 69 of the Act.

Nalini Kanth, the appellant, asserted his status as the adopted son of a woman, claiming his entitlement to inherit her property. Kanth contended that the adoption in question occurred during the 1980s when he was under a year old. Subsequently, the woman, who allegedly adopted him, passed away three months after the said adoption. Her will, drafted before her demise, designated Kanth as the exclusive inheritor of her estate.

The central dispute in the case stemmed from the opposition raised by Kaliprasad, the grandson of the deceased woman, challenging Nalini Kanth's claim to the property. The primary issues centered around the genuineness of the adoption and the legal validity of the will. Kanth asserted his right to a portion of the woman's estate based on the alleged adoption and the will. Conversely, Kaliprasad contested the legitimacy of the adoption document and raised doubts about the will's validity, asserting his own rightful inheritance of the property.

Initially, the trial court ruled in favor of Kanth. However, on appeal, the High Court reversed this decision, casting doubt on the legitimacy of the adoption document. The High Court's judgment overturned the trial court's initial ruling in Kanth's favor. Dissatisfied with this outcome, Kanth appealed to the Supreme Court, seeking a reversal of the High Court's decision.

Upon careful examination of the evidence presented, the Supreme Court identified several inconsistencies in both the purported adoption and the will. It was revealed that the contents of the will appeared to have been influenced by a party other than the person creating the will (the testator). Additionally, the individual who transcribed the will acknowledged not being present during the actual signing. Furthermore, the witnesses who were supposed to attest to the document were not observed signing it.

The Supreme Court further cast doubt on the adoption proceedings, pointing out the absence of crucial elements mandated by the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act, 1956. Specifically, the court highlighted the lack of evidence regarding the essential act of "giving and taking" the child in adoption—a mandatory requirement under the said law.

Expressing skepticism, the court questioned the credibility of the adoption itself, underscoring the insufficiency of evidence and raising concerns about the practicality of the situation. Particularly, the court found it implausible that Nalini Kanth, who was a toddler at the time of the testator's death, would have been capable of performing the funeral rites, adding to the overall skepticism surrounding the adoption claim.

In its final judgment, the Supreme Court rejected Kanth's claim and upheld the decision of the High Court. The court underscored the importance of adhering strictly to the provisions of the Act, emphasizing that the mere registration of a will does not automatically confer validity.

Case: Moturu Nalini Kanth vs. Gainedi Kaliprasad,

Civil Appeal No. 2435 of 2010.

Read/Download Order